leadership model analysis draft

Leadership Model Analysis

Can an Old Dog Learn New Tricks?From Ineffective Leadership to Effective Leadership.

Angela M. TindallAssignment: u10a1

SHB-8101

December 10, 2013

1


Dr. Karen Heller Capella University

Table of Contents

I. Table of Contents

II. Abstract

III. Annotated Outline and Bibliography

IV. Introduction

A. Definitions of Leadership

V. Trait Theory Model

A. Development of Model

B. Ineffectiveness of the Trait Model in Leadership

C. The Narcissistic Leader

VI. Pseudo-transformational Model


B. Characteristics of the Pseudo-transformational Leader

C. Organization Problem

VII. Servant Leadership Model


B. Effectiveness of the Servant Leadership Model

2


C. Model’s Impact on an Organization

VIII. Methodological Approaches

A. Trait Theory Model

B. Servant Leadership Model

IX. Recommendations for Further Research

X. References

Abstract

Leadership in the world comes in many different forms. The United States of America is known as the land of the free and the home of the brave. Leadership for America is done bycitizens casting their vote for the proper candidate who shows knowledge about what is needed in American society. Research has evaluated the aspect of leadership with many different models. The measurements of traits, skills, and behaviors have been viewed as human essentials in leaders that could determine whether an individual is equipped to oversee a group of individuals and be an effective leader with positive outcomes in both organizational and employee production.

3


Introduction

Leadership is a synonym of the word leader. Maslow developed

the model of human hierarchy of needs, in hope of understanding

what motivates people and why rewards and unconscious desires

were unrelated to each other (McLeod, 2007). Maslow’s model

originally consisted of five motivational needs that included

basic needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-

4


actualization. In the basic or physiological aspect, Maslow

stated that every human must have air, food, the ability to drink

fluids, secure shelter, warmth, and sleep in order to function on

a daily basis.

The safety aspect postulated that human must have protection

from various outside elements, to ability to feel secure, have

order in their lives, laws that protect them, limitations in

force, and stability (McLeod, 2007). In the social needs phase,

humans desire to belong in a family or other social content. They

also must have the ability to love and receive love whether it is

within a family, work group, or other relationship setting

(McLeod, 2007). Humans in the fourth stage desire to have a

health self-esteem which enables them to become independent.

Independence affords an individual achievement status and

prestige (McLeod, 2007).

In the final stage of Maslow’s original model, self-

actualizations consists of the human realizing their personal

potential, the personal gesture of self-fulfillment and personal

growth (McLeod, 2007). Maslow went on to expand the model by

adding aesthetic needs which allows for appreciation and the

5


search for balance and form. While the aesthetic needs allows for

appreciation and the search for beauty, balance and form. The

cognitive needs incorporated the human aspect of helping other to

achieve self-actualization (McLeod, 2007).

Leadership should involve the leader challenging his/her

followers to become the best that they can. The term leadership

has with stood many different definitions. Maxwell (2013) defined

leadership as a process of social influence which maximizes the

efforts of others, toward the achievement of a goal. While Bennis

(2007) provided yet another vivid definition of leadership, which

states that leaders must have attention through vision,

communication, trust through positioning and deployment of self

through positive self-regard in order to motivate others to

achieve set goals.

Trait Theory

Development of Model

The trait theory was developed by Gordon Allport due to his

curiosity of the human personality. Allport & Allport (1921)

described the term trait as a generalized and focalized

neuropsychic system attached to an individual that has the

6


capacity to render many stimuli functionally equal to initiate

and guide consistent equivalent forms of adaptive and expressive

behaviors. Allport believed that traits are real and exist within

every human individually and often times inherited. With the

above stated, traits explain human behavior that are consistent

with good and bad behaviors whether seen or not seen (Allport &

Allport, 1921).

Allport & Allport (1921) categorized traits in three levels

that allowed them to understand behaviors from various actions

and aspects. The first was cardinal traits, which are dominate

within an individual’s whole life span, and can be attached to a

person naturally. Central traits are general characteristics that

form the base foundation of the human personality. They are not

dominating, but are major characteristics that one may use to

describe an individual. Finally secondary traits are highly

related to an individual’s attitudes or preferences, and can

appear in certain situations or during certain circumstances

(Allport & Allport, 1921).

Eysenck (1992) developed a model of personality that

elaborated on three universal traits that would explain a

7


leader’s bad behavior toward their followers. Introversion

entails one directing their attention on inner experiences. Here,

Eysenck (1992) believed that when a person reflects back on inner

experiences, they are more apt to direct hidden hostility on

innocent victims. Extraversion is the focusing attention outward

on other people and the environment. Neuroticism as described by

Eysenck involves an individual’s tendency to become upset or very

emotional and not evaluating the correct cause of certain

scenarios. With neuroticism, emotional stability is at stake, due

to the individual’s lack of control (Eysenck, 1992). Psychoticism

is an individual’s difficulty dealing with reality. A person, who

is psychotic, can be hostile, antisocial, non-empathetic and very

manipulative.

Ineffectiveness of the Trait Model in Leadership

Leader traits should never be considered in isolation, but

should be integrated constellations of attributes that propel

leaders to influence their follower’s performance (Baumeister,

Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, Vohns, 2001). In the article entitled

bad is stronger than good, the authors expound about how the

power of bad events on the job can affect an individual’s

8


emotions and their feedback mechanisms in a negative way

(Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, Vohns, 2001). The article

evaluated how events such as losing money, being abandoned by

friends, and receiving negative criticism will definitely have a

greater impact on an individual than positively salience events

of the same type.

The concept of learning something bad from a negative leader

carries a lot of weight than learning something good about that

same individual. Consequently, the human mind equates a bad

experience with a person every time they come into contact with

them (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, Vohns, 2001). In life,

the human individual life may contain both good and bad events.

When bad events happen, they are usually stronger and persistent

than good ones, and will have longer lasting and more intense

consequences that any good event (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,

Finkenauer, Vohns, 2001). Taylor (1991) stated that when a person

reacts to negative events, many will strive to minimize those bad

events and distance themselves from them altogether.

Within the adaptation level theory, Helson (1964) stated

that people react more too negative changes in life than

9


positively to stable conditions. Negative changes produce strong

reactions, but the circumstances that result from the change

gradually ceases to elicit a reaction and will eventually become

taken for granted. Therefore, one could safely state that

negative leadership can cause it followers to take on behaviors

that are detrimental to their career, family, and other

relationships. Undesirable personality traits exhibited by a

leader can affect his/her follower’s mood and behavior on the job

(Helson, 1964).

Many scholars and scientists have tried feverously to

understand how human traits affect personalities. Judge, Simon,

Hurst, & Kelley (2013) conducted a study to examine internal

events, performance episodes, and interpersonal experiences at

work to predict deviations from central tendencies in trait

relevant behavior, affect, and cognition. This study found that

leader negative behaviors are more predictive of leader

effectiveness that their traits. The main criticism in this study

regarding trait leadership is its influence on the situational

context surrounding leaders. This is probably why Murphy (1941)

10


stated that leadership does not reside in the individual, but it

usually requires an individual to examine the whole situation.

The Narcissistic Leader

The narcissistic individual is usually looked upon as being

a sociopath by people who know them. History has shown us a few

leaders who were deemed to be narcissistic in the way they lead.

Individuals such as Napoleon Bonaparte who ruled Germany with an

iron fist, and caused many Jewish people to be put to death and

Franklin D. Roosevelt who thought he could determine the American

people’s social agenda by his control (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland,

2008). After researching the above leaders, both acted as support

for others and thought they were the greatest of all time. Both

thought they were a fresh stimulus to cultural development which

stood to damage greatly the established state of affairs in both

Germany and the United States (Maccoby, 2000).

Narcissistic leadership incorporates three types of

personalities as recognized by Sigmund Freud (American

Psychiatric Association, 2000). The erotic personality is

manifested by a person seeking love and that love is the most

important thing in their life, they will normally make their

11


followers dependent on them due to being outer directed

individuals (APA, 2000). The obsessive personality is self-

reliant; conscientious; are ruled by a strict conscience;

continuous improvement; and they lack the vision, daring, and

charisma it would take to turn a good idea into a dynamic one

(APA, 2000).

The weaknesses of the narcissistic leader include

sensitivity to criticism largely because they keep away from

emotions that would make them feel helpless (Maccoby, 2000).

Bottom line, they are not comfortable with their own emotions;

they don’t learn easily from others, nor do they like to teach

but often prefer to indoctrinate others with their agenda. This

type of leader normally exhibits poor listening skills especially

if they feel threatened or attacked. Empathy is basically non-

existent largely because of their interpersonal style that

conflicts with others surrounding them. Many narcissistic

individuals will not mentor others due to extreme independence

(Maccoby, 2000).

A leader who is narcissistic normally exhibits ruthlessness.

They will not operate within their conscience realm (Riggio,

12


2011). Organizations that have leaders of this nature are

noticeable by intense internal competition that the employees

exhibit due to their leaders influence (Riggio, 2011). Riggio

(2011) provided the following characteristics of a narcissistic

leader that would be noticeable in any organization.

The narcissists may develop a close relationship with one

person in an organization, which serves to keep them

grounded (Riggio, 2011).

The narcissist is more interested in controlling others than

in knowing and disciplining themselves (Riggio, 2011).

The narcissist leader thrives best in chaotic times (Riggio,

2011).

The narcissist leader will gravitate toward risks and ignore

the cost to themselves and others (Riggio, 2011).

Pseudo-transformational Model


The development of the pseudo-transformation leadership

model is derived out of the unethical facets of transformational

leadership. It is recognized by low idealized influence and high

inspirational motivation (Barling, Christie, & Turner, 2008).

13


Characteristics of the Pseudo-transformational leader

The pseudo-transformational leader is an individual who is

self-consumed, power-oriented, and displays an unreal moral value

stance (Barling, Christie, & Turner, 2008). When the above are

exhibited, the leaders ultimate goal is to pursue their own

interests and not the organizations or company’s they are

attached to. Camps, Decoster, & Stouten (2012) article my share

is fair, so I don’t care, addressed how self-serving leaders

place their own well-being and interests above their follower’s

needs and the goals of their organizations. The article further

explains how a leader’s self-serving behavior is closely related

to the bias suppression rule. This rule stipulates an aspect of

procedural justice that is essential in judging whether a

leader’s decision making process can and should be trusted by

others.

Procedural justice is beneficial for all in the work place,

due to its nature to influence positive employee cooperation when

the leader is of a trust worthy nature (DeCremer & Tyler, 2007).

Previous literature and research has found that the pseudo-

transformational leader does not utilize fairness when in

14


positions. Van Knippenberg, DeCremer, & Van Knippenberg (2007)

highly suggested that perceptions of fairness might be especially

important if other aspects are less able to support a leader’s

trustworthiness.

The article methodology found that a leader’s self-serving

actions will leave employees with additional uncertainty, rather

than provide them with specific information about the

consequences of the leader’s course of actions. Consequently,

self-serving leadership action’s have the potential to be harmful

for employee outcome. Van Knippenberg, DeCremer, & Van

Knippenberg (2007) argued that distributive fairness is greatly

relevant for the benefit of an employee’s psychological health,

due to the social exchange process. If there is an imbalance in

the exchange, employees will begin to feel that they have been

harmed (Stouten, De Cremer, & Van Dijk, 2006).

Organizational Problem

Organizational problems have the propensity to alienate

employees from their leadership. Issues that are not addressed by

leadership in an organization can fester and eventually cause

damage within the organization to the point that the organization

15


cannot recover. The case in question involves an African American

female, who attended and worked in a church setting. The woman

taught adult Sunday school, with an attendance of about eighty

faithful members’s attending every Sunday. Problems in the

organization were noticed after her appointment over adult Sunday

school. During her tenure, she stated that she was constantly

told to push monetary issues of the church and how members should

be constantly paying their tithe. The tithe is a monetary portion

of one’s earned pay taken out at ten percent and given to their

church or wherever they see fit to progress the building of God’s

kingdom.

The building can include purchasing pamphlets to hand out to

individuals who do not attend church; to provide meals for the

homeless population in the community; to provide shelter for a

member or non-member; to provide food for members who may have

fallen on hard times; to feed the homeless; to pay a members

utility bills, or even help with car repairs so a person can get

to or obtain employment. The church leader was a Pastor who told

everyone he meet that his title was Bishop, and that the title

16


meant that he was mandated to oversee the community in a God

fearing matter.

During the church’s annual budget meeting, it was explained

that money was somehow missing or unaccounted for. Donations from

other organizations were supposedly not received and community

help was unavailable. Therefore, there would be no building of

the new church or assistance for member’s or the community, and

employees would not be getting their pay checks until he could

figure out what transpired. When member’s who were in attendance

of this meeting began to question the leader about how this

happened, he became so enraged, that he cancelled the remainder

of the meeting.

Member’s and employees continue to put the pressure on the

leader by constantly asking questions about the money.

Ultimately, member’s noticed that purchases were being made on

cars, clothing, trips, and plastic surgeries. Membership tanked

and employees left the church with astronomical amounts of anger

and hostility. Many vowed to never attend another church, or be

employed in that capacity again. Self-serving leadership and

abusive supervision are somewhat related as stated by Tepper

17


(2007). Tepper (2007) provided a list that explains abusive

supervision in leadership. First and foremost, abusive

supervision is directed downward to the leader’s followers.

Secondly, this type of supervision excludes other other forms of

hostility and self-serving leadership can use behaviors that may

not be necessarily viewed as hostile. This is usually done when

the leader secures resources of the company for their own well-

being. Finally, the self-serving leader mainly are on the lookout

for themselves and do not consider the consequences for others,

causing employees to experience increased uncertainty about

possible consequences.

To combat the above, Dirks & Ferrin (2002) work regarding

trust in leadership expounds on the social relationships among

leaders and their follower’s. The authors state that trust is a

belief or perception held by the follower and is measured

accordingly. It is not a property of the relationship or the

leader per se. The article went on to further evaluate the two

components of trust within leadership that included behavioral

and performance outcomes and attitudes and intentions.

18


Behavioral/performance outcomes describe two different mechanisms

by which trust might affect behavior and performance.

The character based perspective mainly focuses on the

perceptions of a leader’s character affect and a follower’s

vulnerability in the hierarchical relationship. This is due to

authority in the leader to make decisions that have a significant

impact on the follower’s promotions, pay, work assignments and

possible layoffs (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). The author’s addressed

that when a leader cannot be trusted, employees will believe that

their leader does not have an ounce of integrity. They will then

divert their energy toward covering their backs, which causes low

work production. In social exchange, employees who feel that

their leader has or will demonstrate care and consideration for

them, the employees will in return provide the same for their

leader (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

In attitudes and intentions trust is highly linked to

attitudinal outcomes in organizational commitment and job

satisfaction (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Leaders or managers are

responsible for duties that have a major effect on their

employee’s job satisfaction. These include performance

19


evaluations, guidance and assistance with job responsibilities

and training. When a leader’s character is intact, his/her

employees are more likely to feel safer and more positive about

their manger/leader making decisions regarding their employment.

This can greatly influence job satisfaction organizational

commitment and lower intention of quitting.

Servant Leadership Model

Servant leadership has become an emerging perspective in

extending the theory of organizational citizen behavior research

(Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). It is defined as an

understanding and practice of leadership that placed the good of

those led over the self-interest of the leader. It greatly

emphasizes leader behaviors that focus on follower development,

and deemphasizes glorification of the leader. This leadership

model puts great emphasis on leader’s moral behavior that

protects the follower from self-interest leaders pursuing their

own selfish gains (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008).


Servant leadership was first brought to the fore front by

Robert K. Greenleaf in an essay entitled The Servant as Leader in

20


1970. Greenleaf worked in the field of management research

development, and education at one of the biggest American

organization known as AT& T for forth years (Spears, 2004).

During Greenleaf tenure at AT & T, his concern was with issues in

leadership that affected employees negatively (Spears, 2004). His

ultimate concept was that the effective leader should first be a

servant to others, and true leadership begins from those whose

primarily motivations are a deep pulling effect to help other

(Spears, 2004).

Spears (2004) provided ten key characteristics that are

profound in the development of the servant leader.

Listening should be valued for their communication

skills. This skill should be reinforced by practice

(Spears, 2004).

Empathy requires that the leader understand and

empathize with others. Employees need to be accepted

and recognized for their special and unique spirits

(Spears, 2004).

Healing is one of the greatest strengths of the servant

leader. They have the potential to provide healing for

21


self and others through coming into contact with

individuals who have broken spirits and emotional

problems.

Awareness in the area of self-awareness strengthens the

servant leader and aids in their understanding of

issues involving ethics and values. This is achieved by

the leader being able to view most situations form a

integrated holistic position (Spears, 2004).

Persuasion is used instead of positional authority in

making decisions within an organization; they convince

others rather than coerce those (Spears, 2004).

Conceptualization is the leader using their nurturing

abilities to look at a problem from a conceptualizing

perspective and find the appropriate solution (Spears,

2004).

Foresight is another characteristic that enables the

servant leader to understand the lesion form the past

and put perspectives of the future in the present sense

(Spears, 2004).

22


Stewardship for the servant leader involves him/her to

hold things in trust for others for the greater good of

society (Spears, 2004).

Commitment to the growth of people involves the servant

leader to believe that a person has an intrinsic value

beyond their tangible contributions as an employee.

They should do everything in their power to nurture the

growth of their employees (Spears, 2004).

Building community requires the servant leader to shift

from the local community to large institutions for the

up building of the local community and their efforts

(Spears, 2004).

Effectiveness of the Servant Leadership Model

Servant leadership is a model that is both inspirational and

incorporates moral safe guards (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko,

2004). It draws on the social learning theory that Bandura (1977)

so importantly expounded on. It relates to employee attitudes and

organizational citizenship behaviors. According to the social

learning theory, it stated that individuals learn by paying great

attention to and emulating the attitudes, values and behaviors of

23


attractive and credible role models (Brown & Trevino, 2006). Hale

& Fields (2007) study found that followers of a servant

leadership perceive their leaders as attractive because the

leaders emphasize the development of others and place the good of

those that they led over their own interests.

This form of leadership creates a pervasive social context

that provides positively affects employee’s attitudes and

behaviors. It also provides situational cues in which follower’s

can interpret and understand, and incorporated into their

environment (Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009). When positive

situational cues are understood, they can influence follower’s

desire to respond to their leader’s positive behavior without

second guessing themselves (Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009).

Model’s Impact on an Organization

The use of servant leadership in an organization develops

its follower’s self-efficacy through enhancing their follower’s

technical competence. The follower’s demonstrate and disseminate

the knowledge required to find successful solutions to solve

problems within the work place. This is largely due to the

leader’s stance on being more attentive to their follower’s

24


personal development through their understanding of his/her

follower’s skills, knowledge, needs, goals, and current abilities

(Takeuchi, Chen, & Lepak, 2009). Servant leader’s put a lot of

commitment in enabling their followers to be successful by

developing and improving their repertoire of skills, knowledge,

and abilities (Hale & Fields, 2007).

Current research has shown that this form of leadership

provides a positive outcome in employee commitment to their

leader/manager in the area of affective commitment. Affective

commitment was defined by Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson (2008)

as an emotional attachment to identification with and involvement

in the organization. Leaders using this model affect follower’s

affective commitment by investing without any hidden agendas;

developing their follower’s; and considering their employees

input before making very import decisions in the organization.

So, one could safely state that this model compels followers to

reciprocate affective commitment as a means to in engage in

positive citizenship behavior due to trust exhibited by the

leader (Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010).

Methodological Approaches

25


Trait Theory Model

In reviewing the leader trait paradigm, Derue, Nahrgang,

Wellman, & Humphrey (2011) elaborated first that leader behaviors

are more forthcoming to the act of leadership, and consequently

stating that traits are less predictive of leadership

effectiveness. Secondly, traits reflect behavioral tendencies in

people, and their manifestation of certain traits into behaviors

can be affected by the situation. According to Bandura (1977)

regarding the trait activation theory traits manifest into an

expected set of behaviors when any negative situation makes the

need for a certain trait behavior.

The bottom line is when a situation does not require a

particular trait, the trait does not manifest and its impact will

become marginalized. Leader traits will not always manifest in

ways that impact leadership effectiveness, because leader

behavior will be more powerful and persuasive than leader traits

in being an effective leader (Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, Humphrey,

2011). Leaders traits within the leader trait paradigm was highly

criticized by Morgeson & Ilies (2007) because it fails to uncover

a particular trait or group of traits that are consistently

26


associated with leadership beginnings to help differentiate a

leader for a follower.

Leadership is based on a small set of personality traits and

willfully neglects the more malleable traits that include social

skills and problem solving skills. The model also fails to

consistently consider the integration of multiple traits when

studying the effects of traits on leader effectiveness (Zaccaro,

2007).

Servant Leadership Model

Servant leadership is an holistic approach to work which

aims to promote a sense of community, avenues for sharing of

power in the decision making process (Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke,

2010). The methodology behind this theory is that servant leaders

mold their group’s service climate by instilling service values

in their group that includes personal integrity, trust building

relationships, and helping others grow and succeed. The leader

who operates out of the servant mode accentuates aspects of their

organization’s existing policies, practices, and procedures that

aids in reinforcing the leader’s belief system (Walumbwa,

Hartnell, & Oke, 2010).

27


The servant model promotes a procedural justice climate

in the work environment. In a procedural justice climate the

correct way of doing things and the value of good behaviors in a

work group produces high ethical standards (Walumbwa et al.,

2010). Therefore, a high procedural justice climate cultivates a

positive affective environment by fostering respectful

relationships and increasing employee’s perceptions that

organizational citizenship behavior will be positively received

and reciprocated by others (Walumbwa et al., 2010).

Recommendations for Further Research

In many work environments in the United States and abroad,

the trait theory has been put into practice when choosing an

individual to be a leader. In some instances, the chosen

individual was highly liked by their peers without any regard to

the specific behaviors that are embedded in the person. Ethical

standards were not utilized in many instances, because the

choices were what the people wanted. The trait model and its

explanation can be utilized in identifying leader quality in

individuals who require a false sense of comfort for themselves,

stakeholders, and employees of organizations.

28


This theory postulates that human born qualities make a good

leader, but contrary to this notion. Human talents need

encouragement and development by a mentor. (Eysenck, 1992).

Humans do not arrive on earth with self-confidence, honesty, or

integrity, or the motivation to lead. These are developed over

time. Traits are a very poor evaluator of someone’s behavior

because behavior is subject to changes over time. Behavior can be

hidden or masked for the individual’s sole purpose to obtain

their hearts desires (Eysenck, 1992). Instead of relying on

leader traits as a mechanism of choosing who to put into a leader

position, executive coaching would be a beneficial spectrum of

choice.

Executive coaching is used to focus on personal behavior

changes while enhancing leadership effectiveness and providing

stronger relationships in both personal development and

work/family integration (Wasylyshyn, 2003b). Executive coaching

is an interpersonal approach which focuses on safe, secure

communication in which difficult, complicated problems are

hatched over and crucial conversations occur (Wasylyshyn, 2003b).

Gregory (2008) defined executive coaching as a helping

29


relationship formed between a client who has managerial authority

and responsibility in an organization and a consultant who uses a

wide variety of behavioral techniques and methods to help the

client achieve a mutually identified set of goals to improve his

or her professional performance and personal satisfaction and,

consequently, to improve the effectiveness of the client’s

organization within a formally defined coaching agreement.

A person, who has utilized pseudo-transformational

leadership and experienced failure due to their self-serving

behaviors, can be retrained with executive coaching.

The majority of weaknesses in leadership effectiveness are

the result of required skills that have never been learned. The

tools and procedures are designed for purposes of applied

behavioral change (Perkins, 2009). Executive/leader coaching has

been defined as the process of equipping executives/leaders with

the tools, knowledge, and opportunities they need to develop

themselves and become more effective (Perkins, 2009). The

coaching process is tailored to the individual and is conducted

on a one-on-one basis over a period of time. The process utilizes

the following five stages listed below.

30


1. Catalyst for coaching: Involves the events that have

occurred that signals the need for coaching; the

client’s decision to use coaching intervention; coach

is selected based on a good match (Perkins, 2009).

2. Establishing the Relationship: Requires that the

clients introduce relevant issues to the coach; coach

provides initial feedback; client anticipation and

reaction to feedback; and both must focus on building a

relationship as client and coach (Perkins, 2009).

3. Data gathering: Requires that the coach reviews and

interprets existing data; gather additional data; and

then the coach provides feedback based on assessments;

the nature of the client/coach relationship is

solidified (Perkins, 2009).

4. Utilizing feedback: Requires that the client/coach use

feedback to set goals and identify areas for behavior

change; the coach/client both refer to feedback as

benchmarks; ongoing feedback is based on the client’s

progress (Perkins, 2009).

31


5. Outcomes: Observable changes in behavior and

performance are noticeable; coach and client evaluate

interventions as effective; organization satisfied with

results; continued support is provided by the coach for

six months (Perkins, 2009).

References

Allport, G., W., & Allport, F., H. (1921). Personality traits:

Their classification and

Measurement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 16,

1-40.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Narcissistic

personality disorder. Diagnostic and

Statistical manual of Mental Disorder (4th ed.). Text

Revision DSM-IV-TR.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

32


Barling, J., Christie, A., Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-

transformational Leadership: Towards the

Development and Test of a Model. Journal of Business Ethics,

Volume 81, Issue 4, pp.

851-861.

Doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9552-8

Baumeister, R., F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., Vohns, K.,

D. (2001). Bad is stronger than

Good. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 5(4), pp. 323-370.

DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of Leadership in the Modern

World: Introduction to the

Special Issue. American Psychologist, 62(1): 2-5: discussion

47-7.

Blair, C., A., Hoffman, B., J., & Helland, K., R.

(2008).Narcissism in organizations. A

Multisource appraisal reflects different perspectives. Human

Performance, 21, pp. 254-

276.

DOI: 10.1080/0895280802137705

33


Brown, M., E., & Trevino, L., K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A

review and future directions.

Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595-616.

Camps, J., Decoster, S., Stouten, J. (2012). “My share is fair,

So I don’t care: The moderating

Role of distributive justice in the perception of leader’s

self-serving behavior. Journal

Of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 11(1), pp. 49-59.

DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000058

De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T., R. (2007). The effects of trust in

authority and procedural fairness

On cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 639-649.

Derue, S., D., Nahrgang, D., J., Wellman, N., Humphrey, E., S.

(2011). Trait and Behavioral

Theories of Leadership. An integration and Meta-Analytic

Test of their Relative

Validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, pp. 7-52.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x

34


Dirks, K., T., Ferrin, D., L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-

analytic findings and implications

For research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 87(4), pp. 611-62.

Eysenck, H., J. (1991). Four ways Five Factors are not basic.

Personality and Individual

Difference, Vol. 13(6), pp. 653-665.

Gregory, J., B. (2008). Development of a model of the feedback

process within executive

Coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and

Research, Vol. 60(1), Special

Issue: More about Executive Coaching: Practice and

Research, pp. 42-56.

DOI: 10.1037/1065-9293.60.1.42

Hale, J., R., & Fields, D., L. (2007). Exploring servant

leadership across cultures: A study of

Followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3, 397-417.

Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-Level Theory. New York: Harper

Row.

35


Judge, T., A., Simon, L., S., Hurst, C., Kelley, K. (2013). What

I Experienced yesterday Is Who I

Am Today: Relationship of work Motivations and Behaviors to

within-Individual

Variation in the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal

of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 8(2), pp. 141-150.

DOI: 10.1037/a0034485

Liden, R., C., Wayne, S., J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008).

Servant leadership:

Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level

assessment. Leadership

Quarterly, 19, 161-177.

Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible pros,

the inevitable Cons. The

Harvard Business Review.

Maxwell, J. (2013). How to Influence people: Make A Difference

in Your World. Thomas

Nelson.

ISBN: 1400204747

36


McLeod, S. (2007). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply

Psychology. Retrieved from:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

Morgeson, F., P., & Ilies, R. (2007). Correlations between

leadership traits and leadership

Styles. Unpublished raw data. Michigan State University,

East Lansing, MI.

Murphy, A. J. (1941). A study of the leadership process. AmericanSociological Review, 6,

674-687.

Perkins, R., D. (2009). How executive coaching can change leader

behavior and improve

Meeting effectiveness: An Exploratory Study. Consulting

Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, Vol. 61(4), pp. 298-318.

DOI: 10.1037/a0017842

Riggio, E., R. (2011). Narcissism and Leadership: Are all

narcissistic leaders evil? Cutting-

Edge Leadership, pp. 1-8.

37

http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html


Rozin, P., & Royzman, E., B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320

Smith, B., N., Montagno, R., V., Kuzmenko, T., N. (2004).

Transformational and servant

Leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. The Journal

of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 10, No. 40.

Spears, L., C. (2004). The understanding and practice of Servant

Leadership. In L. C. Spears

& M. Lawrence (Eds.), practicing servant-leadership:

Succeeding through trust,

bravery, and forgiveness, (pp. 9-24). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). All is well

that ends well, at least for

Proselfs: Emotional reactions to equality violation as a

function of social value

Orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 767-

783.

38


Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D., P. (2009). Through the

looking glass of a social system

Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems on

employees’ attitudes.

Personnel Psychology, 62, 1-29.

Taylor, S., E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and

negative events: The mobilization-

minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.

Tepper, B., J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations:

Review, synthesis, and

Research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.

Zaccaro, S., J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership.

American Psychologist, Vol. 62(1),

Special Issue: Leadership, pp. 6-16.

DOI: 10.1037/0003-066x.62.1.6

Van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, B. (2007).

Leadership and fairness:

Taking stock and looking ahead. European Journal of Work and

Organizational

39


Psychology, 16, 113-140.

Walumbwa, F., O., Hartnell, C., A., Oke, A. (2010). Servant

leadership: procedural justice

Climate, service climate, employee attitudes and

organizational citizenship behavior:

A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 95(3), pp. 517-529.

DOI: 10.1037/a0018867

Wasylyshyn, K., M. (2003b). Executive coaching: An outcome

study. Consulting Psychology

Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 94-106.

40


41

leadership model analysis draft

Documents