SimonetTett2013 - Week1 Book3
SimonetTett2013 - Week1 Book3
net/publication/258152791
CITATIONS READS
42 9,327
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Robert P. Tett on 01 April 2016.
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
What is This?
Abstract
How management and leadership are best conceptualized with respect to each other has been a frequent topic of debate.
Five distinct perspectives are identified in the literature, including bipolar, unidimensional, bidimensional, hierarchical—
management within leadership, and hierarchical—leadership within management. We assessed the viability of these
perspectives by having Academy of Management and Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology experts (N = 43) map
a comprehensive set of 63 managerial and leadership competencies, as a “common language,” onto defined and undefined
management and leadership dimensions. Results reveal interpretable patterns of uniqueness and overlap, suggesting a hybrid
co-dimensional/bidimensional configuration. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in light of the precedence
of “what” over “how” in developing leadership and management theory.
Keywords
management, leadership, differences, competencies, debate, integration, leadership versus management
A prominent and recurring question in the study of organi- management theory. First, we discuss why advances in
zational behavior is how leadership and management are understanding leadership and management processes criti-
best conceptualized with respect to one another (Alvesson cally depend on clarity in content.
& Sveningsson, 2003; Bass, 1985; Bedeian & Hunt, 2006;
Dement, 1996; Kotter, 1990, 1995; Mintzberg, 1973, 1971;
Yukl, 2002; Yukl & Lepsinger, 2005; Zaleznik, 1977). “What” Before “How”
Many writers have emphasized the uniqueness of leaders, It is a matter of logic that, before one can talk about how
imbuing them with extraordinary characteristics; managers, something works, one must first identify the moving parts.1
by comparison, are typically viewed in mundane and ste- Whetten (1989) presents a series of questions relevant to
reotypically negative terms (Alvesson & Sveningsson, judging theoretical merit. The first question is “what” and
2003; Yukl, 2002). Beyond such generalities, there is little the second is “how.” This logic of inquiry is reflected in
consensus on the nature of the comparison, and this lack of Yukl and Lepsinger’s (2005) criticism of leadership and
consensus is of fundamental theoretical and practical management theory:
importance (e.g., Bedeian & Hunt, 2006; Yukl, 2002; Yukl
& Lepsinger, 2005). The managing versus leading controversy has contin-
The current study sought to clarify how leadership and ued so long because the roles are defined in a narrow
management are conceptualized in terms of a common lan- way that makes it difficult to understand how they
guage of distinct competencies distilled from more than jointly affect organizational performance and how
50 years of leadership and management research (Tett, they can be integrated. It is time to find a better way to
Guterman, Bleier & Murphy, 2000). Our specific aims were conceptualize the roles. If co-equal roles for leading
to (a) assess the viability of five identifiable perspectives on
1
the leadership–management relationship using a content The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA
validation strategy involving expert judgments, (b) clarify
Corresponding Author:
the distinction and overlap between leadership and manage- Daniel V. Simonet, Department of Psychology, The University of Tulsa, 800
ment using a common language of relevant competen- South Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA
cies, and (c) consider implications for leadership and Email: [email protected]
and managing are desired, then each role should be Bipolarity. More than 30 years ago, Zaleznik (1977)
defined more broadly to be consistent with its respec- asked, “Are managers and leaders different?” He proposed
tive literature. (p. 372) the business world had institutionalized bureaucratic con-
trol in the form of the problem-solving manager, who is
In questioning the theoretical soundness of current lead- opposite a leader in several ways. Whereas managerial
ership research, Bedeian laments, goals arise from reactions to the past, a leader’s goals are
future driven. Managerial work is a practical, enabling pro-
I find it discouraging, despite the enormous attention cess requiring continuous coordination; leaders generate
given to leadership . . . that the lack of an adequate excitement at work by heightening expectations through
answer to the question ‘Who is a leader?’ continues images and meaning. Managers relate to people in func-
to be a barrier to studying leadership. It seems to me tional terms, whereas leaders are more sensitive and
it is high time for scholars to cast aside years of faux empathic. Finally, managers strive to maintain order,
leadership studies and, perforce, distill what is truly whereas leaders struggle to attain personal mastery by
known about leaders and leadership. I can see no achieving social change. At the argument’s core, order and
alternative if our understanding of either is to advance. stability established by the rational manager are antithetical
(Bedeian & Hunt, 2006, p. 200) to the disorder and change entailed by a leader’s vision.
We label this perspective as bipolar because leadership
Along related lines, in discussing assumptions regarding and management are depicted as essentially two endpoints
the study of leadership, Hunter, Bedell-Avers, and Mumford on a single continuum. Although somewhat extreme
(2007) state that (Bedeian & Hunt, 2006), this viewpoint has frequently
served as an impetus to the leader–manager debate resulting
researchers must first be more explicit in their opera- in multiple popularized lists reinforcing binary distinctions
tionalizations and justification for what a leader is (e.g., Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1990). The accuracy
and why, precisely, a given sample represents “lead- of this position would entail hiring and training opposite
ers” . . . Without addressing the operationalization sorts of people to serve as managers versus leaders and limit
issue directly, we may be drawing false conclusions expectations of promoting from one role to the other.
about leadership and leadership behaviors. (p. 438) Unidimensionality (leader = manager). Mintzberg’s (1973)
examination of managerial work suggested that the manag-
The source of such calls for definitional clarity is a broad er’s daily routine does not conform to the prototypical
diversity of opinion regarding how management and leader- image of the rational planner. Instead, the manager’s role is
ship are best conceptualized. characterized by reactivity, overload, brevity, variety, and
discontinuity. Most planning is informal and intuitive, deci-
sion processes are political, and oral interactions are brief.
Perspectives on the Leadership– In parallel, recent research on leadership calls for closer
Management Relationship attention to the complexities of leadership in the modern
Five major perspectives have emerged over the past 40 world (Avolio, 2007; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey,
years from prominent sources dealing with the leadership– 2007). Both research streams suggest that managers and
management comparison. First, leaders and managers have leaders are embedded in organizational systems character-
been described as essentially polar opposites in terms of ized by numerous, diverse demands. Thus, in the context of
key values, temperament, and developmental processes dynamic organizational systems, it is difficult to disentan-
(Zaleznik, 1977), managers embodying order, stability, and gle managers’ and leaders’ demands and actions.
efficiency and leaders marked by flexibility, innovation, We label this position as unidimensional because leader-
and adaptation. Second, leadership and management have ship and management are portrayed as essentially inter-
been portrayed as two distinct, often complementary, pro- changeable. While not explicitly stating the two domains
cesses jointly influencing organizational strategy (Bennis & are equivalent, many seminal works in the history of man-
Nanus, 1985; Gardner, 1986, 1993; Kotter, 1990, 1995; agement and leadership have treated them as an integrated
Yukl & Lepsinger, 2005). Third, leadership has been whole (Barnard, 1938; Drucker, 1954; Follett, 1933).
described as essentially equivalent to management in form, This may not preclude the dynamic notion of leadership/
process, and function (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003; management emergence, but it does suggest a degree of
Barnard, 1938; Drucker, 1954).Two further hierarchical homogeneity with respect to what leaders and manager do.
perspectives can be identified, in which management is That is, whether labeled a manager or a leader, each has the
either subsumed within the broader leadership mantle goal of creating a successful business (Nienaber, 2010) and
(e.g., transactional leadership; Bass, 1985) or the other is accountable for motivating individuals and establishing
way around (Bedeian & Hunt, 2006). Each perspective direction. Whether faced with a highly turbulent or rela-
bears fleshing out, as follows. tively unchanging environment, the effective leader/
term, e.g., “leaderment”). Bidimensionality implies oper- order of the judged relevance of specific competencies.
ation of distinct processes, with special consideration of Differences in mean levels and/or relative standing would
uniquenesses and possible intersections. If leadership is underscore the importance of the definitions, calling for
understood to contain management, then one’s manage- more nuanced interpretations.2
rial process model must be designed to operate within a
larger leadership model. The reverse hierarchical arrange-
ment (i.e., leadership is part of management) would, of Method
course, entail a corresponding reversal in process Participants
nesting.
In sum, questions of “what” naturally precede questions Data were gathered in two waves. The initial sample,
of “how” and, if progress is to be made in understanding the recruited using 10 Academy of Management list serves
“how” of leadership and management, we need to be clear devoted to leadership, management, and organizational
about the “what.” Should behaviors and proclivities tradi- behavior (e.g., LDRNET-L, CMDNET-L, ENTREP-L),
tionally tied to management be included within a given included a total of 152 subject matter experts (SMEs) for a
leadership theory or do they rightfully belong outside the broader study.3 For the current study, 19 completed ratings
theory? Can one be an effective leader without also being an for leadership and management. In the second wave, 356
effective manager or does being effective in one role under- self-described experts in leadership and/or management
mine one’s effectiveness in the other? Does hiring and train- were identified from the Society for Industrial and
ing managers entail assessment of the same underlying Organizational Psychology membership directory. Names
competencies as those underlying leadership? Answers to were arranged alphabetically and a randomly selected half
such questions lie at heart of what it means to lead and to (n = 149) were e-mailed a request to participate in exchange
manage and lack of clarity in definitional content impedes for a $20 Amazon.com gift certificate. Thirty-four com-
advances in understanding corresponding processes. pleted the mapping task, yielding a total of 53. Males made
up 55% of the sample; 91% were Caucasian, 6% Asian/
Pacific Islander, and others made up less than 3%; and 72%
Current Study reported having a doctoral degree. Judges per condition
Accumulated discourse over the past 30 years suggests at numbered as follows: leadership defined (n = 12), manage-
least a few key differences between leadership and manage- ment defined (n = 10), leadership undefined (n = 10), and
ment functions. The extent and nature of the differences, management undefined (n = 11). Reliability analysis (see
however, are far from clear. The primary aim of the current below) led to removal of 10 judges, leaving 43 on whose
study was to help bridge this critical and long-standing gap ratings our main findings are based.
in our understanding of leadership and management as a
foundation for advancing relevant theory.
Overview. We asked experts in management and leader- Materials
ship to map labels and definitions of the two domains The leadership and management definitions, provided in
(Northouse, 2003) onto a “common language” of 63 well- Table 1, were derived from Northouse’s (2003) popular
articulated competencies (Tett et al., 2000). Mean represen- leadership text, offering broad coverage of prominent lead-
tativeness ratings identified specific areas of overlap and ership theories and cogent discussion of the management–
distinction, thereby clarifying the meaning of management leadership interface.
and leadership as understood by those professing relevant We asked judges to give feedback on the scope and rel-
expertise. Of particular interest is the degree to which the evance of the definitions and no feedback suggested impor-
ratings support a bipolar, unidimensional, bidimensional, or tant gaps in coverage. Definitional representativeness was
hierarchical perspective. further assessed by comparing results for defined versus
In addition, to assess whether our findings might be undefined labels, representativeness supported to the degree
biased by our choice of definitions, we included a label- results in the two conditions are similar.
only condition per domain. Consistency in the ratings from Tett et al.’s (2000) competency model, serving as the
the defined and undefined conditions would support gener- common language for comparing leadership and man-
alizability in the conceptualization of leadership and man- agement, is offered in Table 2. This model was selected
agement. Two specific concerns involving consistency are over other available taxonomies (e.g., Borman & Brush,
mean shifts and relative standing. The former addresses the 1993) for three reasons. First, it was developed as an
degree to which judges rate the competencies as a set higher amalgam of 12 published models representing more than
or lower on relevance (per leadership and management) as 50 years of research on managerial and leadership behav-
a function of whether or not a definition is provided. The ior, lending some assurance of comprehensiveness.
latter deals with consistency across the two definition con- Second, the model’s relatively large number of compe-
ditions (per leadership and management) in the rank tencies afforded high-resolution comparisons between
1. Management defined: Providing order and consistency and helping organizations run smoothly; planning and budgeting, organizing
and staffing, controlling and problem solving; having a reactive attitude toward problems and goals
2. Management undefined: [An explicit definition is not provided in this version of the task. Please consider how well each competency
represents “management” based on your own understanding of this term.]
3. Leadership defined: Producing change and movement by influencing others to attain goals; establishing direction, and aligning,
motivating, and inspiring people; taking an active and visionary stance toward problems and goals; seeking risk and showing empathy
toward others
4. Leadership undefined: [An explicit definition is not provided in this version of the task. Please consider how well each competency
represents “leadership” based on your own understanding of this term.]
Table 2. Taxonomy of 63 Leadership and Management the two targeted domains. For example, short-term plan-
Competencies, from Tett et al. (2000) ning and strategic planning, often combined under the
Traditional functions Open mindedness general dimension of Planning and Organizing, are sepa-
1. Problem awareness 35. Tolerance of ideas rated in Tett et al.’s model, permitting (but not dictating)
2. Decision making 36. Tolerance of ambiguitya meaningful separation of leadership and management.
3. Directing 37. Adaptability Third, evidence is offered in support of each compe-
4. Decision delegation 38. Creative thinking tency’s conceptual integrity as a distinct construct.
5. Short-term planning 39. Cultural appreciation Specifically, a series of three sorting tasks engaged by
6. Strategic planning 40. Technological orientationa
7. Coordinating
Academy of Management members led to three behav-
8. Goal setting Emotional Control ioral elements being reliably categorized into only the
9. Monitoring 41. Composurea targeted competency with an overall hit rate of 88.5%, in
10. Motivating extrinsically 42. Resilience support of content validity.4
11. Motivating intrinsically 43. Stress management It might be noted that Tett et al.’s (2000) taxonomy tar-
12. Team building gets “managerial competence,” raising the question of
13. Productivity Communication how well leadership is represented in the competency set.
44. Listening skills
Task orientation
Several points bear consideration in this regard. First, one
45. Oral communication
14. Initiative 46. Public presentation of the 12 source taxonomies was explicitly offered by
15. Task focus 47. Written communication the original authors as a leadership model (Luthans &
16. Urgency Lockwood, 1984). Second, several source models, despite
17. Decisiveness Developing self and others being labeled in managerial terms (e.g., “executive roles”),
18. Multitaskinga 48. Developmental goal setting include dimensions often identified with leadership (e.g.,
49. Performance assessment Morse & Wagner, 1978, providing for growth and devel-
Person orientation 50. Developmental feedback
19. Compassion
opment, motivating and conflict handling, strategic
51. Job enrichment
20. Cooperation 52. Self-development problem solving; Borman & Brush, 1993, selling and
21. Sociability influencing). Third, Tett et al. offer a detailed alignment
22. Politeness Information management between their derived competencies and a variety of extant
23. Political astuteness 53. Information seekinga leadership constructs (e.g., initiating structure, consider-
24. Assertiveness 54. Information integrationa ation; transactional, transformational, autocratic, and par-
25. Seeking input 55. Information sharinga ticipative leadership; see their table 6). Thus, despite
26. Customer focus
27. People readinga
labeling their competencies as “managerial,” Tett et al.
Job knowledge
56. Position knowledge clearly suggest their applicability to leadership. The criti-
Dependability 57. Organization knowledge cal point is that Tett et al.’s model offers a well-articulated
28. Orderliness 58. Industry knowledgea set of dimensions offering a common language with which
29. Rule orientation to identify and compare leadership and management as
30. Personal responsibility Occupational concerns construct domains.
31. Trustworthiness 59. Quantity concern
32. Timeliness 60. Quality concern
33. Professionalism 61. Financial concern Procedure
34. Loyalty 62. Safety concern To limit fatigue and same-source bias, each SME was ran-
63. Company concerna domly assigned to one of the four conditions. The dimen-
a. New competency added since Tett et al. (2000). sion label and definition, if provided, were placed at the top
Analyses
Interrater reliability was assessed using alpha, each rater
serving as an “item” and each competency, as a “subject”
(i.e., with N = 63 per condition)5. Initial alphas for the
four management and leadership conditions ranged from
.54 to .79, with a mean of .70. Data from SMEs with
weak or negative corrected item-total correlations, indi-
cating low consistency with the average of the remaining
judges, were dropped, thereby increasing alpha.
Undefined management, perhaps not surprisingly, Figure 2. Leadership (L) and management (M) descriptor
yielded the weakest alpha after dropping the least reli- types
able SMEs (maximum α = .66 for 11 SMEs). Final
alphas for the three remaining conditions ranged from
.78 to .81, with a mean for all four of .76. Ratings for allowed assessment of all five targeted perspectives, as
surviving SMEs were averaged to yield a single column follows.
of 63 competency representativeness values for each of
the four conditions.
To assess possible mean shifts in ratings due to defini- Interpretive Guidelines
tional conditions (i.e., defined vs. undefined), we ran a Figure 2 shows the two-dimensional (i.e., leadership by
2 × 2 repeated measures (leadership–management by management) space within which SMEs’ mean representa-
defined–undefined as within-groups factors) analysis of tiveness ratings for the 63 competencies can fall (per defi-
variance (ANOVA) on the mean competency ratings nitional condition). Four main types of competency
averaged across judges (i.e., N = 63). Significant main descriptors can be identified within that space. First, dif-
and/or interaction effects would support mean shifts, ferentiators are competencies describing the extreme end of
suggesting lack of similarity in judgments across condi- one dimension and falling at the opposite extreme end of
tions, especially important in the defined–undefined the other (>2 and <-2). Second, unique descriptors are
comparison. Consistency in relative standing was competencies describing the extreme end of one dimension
assessed by correlating mean relevance ratings (i.e., (>2 or <−2) and falling at round 0 (within ±1) on the other.
averaging across judges) of the 63 competencies from Third, co-descriptors are competencies describing the same
the two definitional conditions (i.e., N = 63) per manage- extreme end of both dimensions, either high–high (>2) or
ment and leadership. low–low (<−2). Finally, a neutral descriptor is a compe-
Closer to the heart of our main research questions, we tency falling near 0 (i.e., within ±1) on both dimensions.7
conducted a separate 2 × 2 ANOVA (leadership vs. manage- Bipolarity would be supported to the degree the compe-
ment by defined vs. undefined, as between-groups factors) tencies are differentiators. Unidimensionality would be sup-
per competency (N range = 10-12 judges) to detect which, ported to the degree the competencies are co-descriptors.
if any, competencies significantly differed in judged rele- Bidimensionality would be supported to the degree the com-
vance to leadership versus management.6 Significant inter- petencies are unique descriptors, splitting evenly between
action effects would suggest that the leadership–management the two dimensions. Management-within-leadership would
difference depends on whether the constructs are defined ver- be supported to the degree the competencies are unique
sus undefined. Significant main effects for the leadership– descriptors only for leadership, with the possibility of addi-
management comparison would offer support for bipolarity tional co-descriptors. Finally, leadership-within-management
(e.g., high leadership, low management) and/or bidimen- would be supported to the degree the competencies are
sionality (e.g., high leadership and neutral management), unique descriptors only for management, again, with the
collapsing across definitional conditions. Bivariate plots of possibility of additional co-descriptors. These ideal com-
the competencies’ leadership and management mean ratings petency configurations are presented in Figure 3.
Leadership/management condition MD MU LD LU
Management defined .78 .81 −.49 −.47
Management undefined .84 .66 −.35 −.41
Leadership defined −.45 −.32 .80 .81
Leadership undefined −.44 −.38 .85 .81
not the main terms were defined. To clarify the effects of more purely indicative of management, and those at the bot-
definitional condition (in light of the noted mean shifts tom, of leadership. Although not meeting the strict condi-
and less-than-ideal correlational consistencies), we ran a tions for unique descriptors (>2 on one dimension and
t test per competency comparing leadership and manage- within ±1 on the other), the top and bottom competencies in
ment within each of the defined and undefined conditions. this sublist are consistent with a bidimensional perspective.
Table 4 presents mean representativeness ratings for all Competencies toward the middle of the sublist, on the other
competencies separately for leadership and management in hand, do not exactly fit codescriptor specifications (>2
both defined and undefined conditions. Also shown are cor- on both dimensions), but they conform to the unidimen-
responding standardized mean differences (Cohen’s ds) sional perspective nonetheless. Such findings suggest the
between leadership and management per condition, and sig- leadership–management relationship—like many involving
nificant effects. The competencies are organized according psychological constructs—is a matter of degree rather than
to our interpretive guidelines identifying distinct descriptor type.
classes. Ordering for co-descriptive and nondesignated Sixth, the pattern of ratings permits a nuanced interpre-
competencies is based on average Cohen’s ds across unde- tation of the −.45 and −.38 correlations noted earlier
fined and defined condition, beginning with the largest between leadership and management within the defined
negative effects (trending toward management) and pro- and undefined conditions, respectively. In particular, the
ceeding to the largest positive effects (trending toward lead- negative correlations do not support a bipolar perspective
ership). Several points bear consideration. (no competencies are consistent with this view). Rather,
First, few competencies have negative mean ratings on they capture the bidimensional rendering of competencies
either leadership or management and those that are negative with 0, 2 or 2, 0 mean ratings. That is, the low end of the
are close to 0. This reflects the fact that leadership and man- effective range of ratings is not −2, required to support a
agement competencies are invariably worded in positive bipolar perspective, but rather around 0, in support of
terms. Importantly for current aims, lack of negative independent domains. This is most evident in Figures 4
descriptors does not preclude evaluation of the five per- and 5, plotting all 63 competencies in the two-dimensional
spectives with respect to configurations portrayed in space, based on the defined and undefined conditions,
Figures 2 and 3. respectively.
Second, no competencies are classifiable as differentia- Finally, overall lack of significant interaction effects
tors (e.g., high on leadership and low on management) or from the single-competency ANOVAs (2 of 63 have p <
neutral descriptors (within ±1 on both leadership and man- .05) suggests that the leadership–management comparisons
agement). The absence of differentiators offers no support are fairly robust to whether or not definitions were provided
for a bipolar perspective and the absence of neutral descrip- for the two key domains. The similarity is clearly evident in
tors suggests that all competencies are relevant in consider- comparing Figures 4 and 5. Thus, despite significant mean
ing either or both leadership and management (i.e., there are shifts and less-than-ideal correlational consistency, current
no superfluous competencies). Third, several unique results suggest overall stability in main findings across defi-
descriptors emerged for both leadership and management. nitional conditions. Such similarity supports our definitions
For leadership, Motivating Intrinsically, Creative Thinking, of leadership and management as representative of SMEs’
Strategic Planning, Tolerance of Ambiguity, and People intuitive understanding of those domains.
Reading are unique descriptors in one or both of the defini-
tional conditions. Unique descriptors for management
include Rule Orientation, Short-term Planning, Motivating Discussion
Extrinsically, Orderliness, Safety Concern, and Timeliness. We used a mapping task to clarify the decades-old com-
Notably, the means are significantly different in 8 out of 11 parison between management and leadership in terms of a
cases (72%). That both leadership and management are “common language” of 63 specific competencies. Our
strongly identified by competencies showing neutral repre- results show a mixture of conceptual overlap and unique-
sentativeness on the other domain supports a bidimensional nesses in support of a hybrid understanding combining the
perspective. Fourth, a relatively large number of competen- unidimensional and bidimensional perspectives. More spe-
cies (22) emerged as co-descriptors, falling above 2 on both cifically, in both the defined and undefined conditions, a
leadership and management (in either or both definitional large number of competencies were judged representative
conditions). The prevalence of this category favors a unidi- of both leadership and management, consistent with unidi-
mensional perspective. mensionality, and a smaller number of competencies were
Fifth, note that the remaining, nondesignated competen- judged uniquely representative of each domain, consistent
cies listed at the bottom of Table 4 are ordered by the with bidimensionality. To reconcile the apparent contradic-
leadership–management difference in competency rep- tion between “uni-” and “bi-” dimensionality, we suggest
resentativeness. Competencies at the top of this sublist are replacing “unidimensionality” with “co-dimensionality.”All
told, this hybrid perspective seems best portrayed as Leaders manage and managers lead, but there is con-
overlapping leadership and management circles, populated siderable correlation in what both do. Much depends
by competencies uniquely or jointly descriptive of the two on the level and function of the manager . . . There is
domains. Our findings have key implications for both the- much more to management than planning, directing,
ory and practices involving leadership and management. controlling, and supervising subordinates. However,
These implications are discussed next, followed by some the manager’s effectiveness depends, to a consider-
limitations and our conclusions. able degree, on getting work done through others and
networks of others. (p. 681)
Theoretical Implications Consistent with Bass and Bass’s (2008) observation, we
Several years ago, Bass and Bass (2008) noted, contend that productive discussions on management and
Table 4. Summary of Leadership and Management Competency Mean Ratings and Effect Sizes for Defined and Undefined
Conditions, Organized by Descriptor Type
L Unique Descriptors
Motivating Intrinsically 2.83 (0.39) 1.00 (1.63) 2.50 (1.08) 1.00 (1.48) 1.55** 1.20*
Creative Thinking 2.58 (0.79) 0.60 (2.01) 2.90 (0.32) 0.82 (1.99) 1.31* 1.57**
Strategic Planning 2.75 (0.45) 0.90 (1.97) 3.00 (0.00) 1.18 (1.89) 1.30* 1.47**
Tolerance of Ambiguity 2.33 (0.65) 1.00 (1.94) 2.20 (1.03) 1.27 (1.68) .92* .70
People Reading 1.92 (1.08) 0.50 (1.43) 2.50 (0.71) 0.90 (1.60) 1.14* 1.37*
M unique descriptors
Rule Orientation 0.08 (1.44) 2.40 (0.70) 0.40 (1.17) 2.00 (0.89) –2.14** –1.55**
Short–Term Planning 0.58 (1.16) 2.30 (1.06) 0.60 (1.65) 2.55 (0.93) –1.59* –1.45**
Motivating Extrinsically 0.58 (1.98) 2.30 (0.82) 0.80 (0.79) 1.82 (1.60) –1.19* –.85
Orderliness –0.08 (1.16) 2.22 (0.97) 0.50 (1.18) 1.82 (1.33) –2.22** –1.08*
Safety Concern 0.50 (1.38) 2.80 (0.42) 1.10 (1.60) 2.36 (0.92) –2.37** –.96*
Timeliness 0.50 (1.73) 2.50 (0.71) 1.56 (1.24) 2.36 (0.92) –1.58* –.74
L & M codescriptors
Productivity 1.17 (1.75) 2.90 (0.32) 2.20 (0.92) 2.27 (0.90) –1.45** –.08
Customer Focus 1.42 (1.08) 2.00 (1.05) 2.20 (1.32) 2.45 (0.93) –.56 –.22
Professionalism 1.25 (1.48) 2.20 (0.92) 2.30 (1.25) 2.27 (1.10) –.80 .03
Goal Setting 2.08 (1.38) 2.40 (0.84) 2.10 (1.60) 2.45 (0.93) –.29 –.27
Information Sharing 2.33 (0.78) 2.57 (0.72) 2.20 (1.23) 2.45 (1.04) –.33 –.22
Urgency 1.75 (1.42) 2.40 (1.26) 2.20 (1.03) 2.18 (1.25) –.50 .02
Financial Concern 1.83 (1.11) 2.10 (1.45) 2.10 (1.29) 2.00 (1.61) –.21 .07
Decision Making 2.33 (0.98) 2.40 (0.84) 2.70 (0.67) 2.55 (0.93) –.08 .19
Decisiveness 2.25 (0.75) 2.20 (0.79) 2.60 (0.52) 2.36 (1.03) .07 .31
Organization Knowledge 2.17 (1.03) 2.20 (0.92) 2.50 (1.08) 1.91 (1.58) –.03 .46
Trustworthiness 2.17 (1.64) 2.10 (1.10) 2.60 (0.97) 2.00 (1.10) .05 .60
Composure 1.92 (1.00) 2.20 (0.92) 2.80 (0.42) 2.00 (1.10) –.30 1.03*
Initiative 2.58 (0.67) 2.10 (1.10) 2.50 (1.58) 2.09 (1.04) .53 .31
Personal Responsibility 2.25 (1.14) 2.50 (0.71) 2.90 (0.32) 2.09 (1.04) –.27 1.12*
Loyalty 2.00 (0.95) 1.80 (0.92) 2.60 (0.70) 2.00 (1.00) .22 .72
Written Communication 2.08 (0.79) 2.10 (0.88) 2.70 (0.67) 1.64 (1.36) –.02 1.04*
Information Integration 2.50 (0.67) 2.20 (0.79) 2.80 (0.42) 2.27 (0.90) .42 .80
Listening Skills 2.17 (1.19) 2.00 (1.41) 2.80 (0.42) 1.91 (0.94) .13 1.29*
Problem Awareness 2.25 (0.97) 2.10 (0.88) 2.90 (0.32) 1.73 (1.27) .17 1.35*
Oral Communication 2.42 (0.67) 2.20 (1.32) 2.80 (0.42) 1.64 (1.21) .21 1.37**
Cooperation 2.50 (0.52) 2.00 (0.94) 2.70 (0.48) 1.64 (1.29) .67 1.16*
Seeking Input 2.50 (0.67) 1.30 (1.25) 2.80 (0.42) 2.10 (0.32) 1.21* 1.90**
(Continued)
Table 4. (Continued)
Non–designated competencies
Directing 1.17 (1.75) 2.90 (0.32) 1.70 (0.95) 2.55 (0.69) –1.45** –1.03*
Monitoring 1.64 (1.21) 2.70 (0.67) 1.20 (1.55) 2.73 (0.47) –1.13* –1.32**
Coordinating 1.58 (1.24) 2.40 (0.97) 1.11 (1.20) 2.64 (0.92) –.76 –1.45**
Quantity Concern 1.17 (1.70) 2.70 (0.48) 1.80 (1.14) 2.55 (0.93) –1.29* –.73
Technological Orientation 1.25 (1.22) 2.30 (0.82) 1.30 (1.06) 2.00 (1.26) –1.05* –.62
Multitasking 1.25 (1.29) 2.10 (0.99) 1.30 (1.16) 2.09 (1.22) –.76 –.68
Quality Concern 1.67 (1.44) 2.67 (0.71) 1.80 (1.03) 2.27 (0.90) –.92 –.49
Task Focus 1.50 (1.62) 2.70 (0.48) 1.80 (1.14) 2.18 (1.08) –1.05* –.35
Performance Assessment 1.33 (1.83) 2.40 (1.07) 1.40 (1.17) 2.18 (1.66) –.74 –.57
Industry Knowledge 1.58 (1.93) 2.70 (0.48) 1.70 (1.25) 2.00 (1.10) –.84 –.26
Position Knowledge 1.42 (1.00) 2.30 (1.25) 1.80 (1.48) 2.09 (1.14) –.79 –.22
Information Seeking 1.92 (1.08) 2.30 (1.06) 1.80 (1.14) 2.09 (0.94) –.36 –.28
Assertiveness 1.42 (1.16) 1.90 (0.99) 2.00 (1.25) 1.91 (1.14) –.46 .08
Stress Management 1.58 (1.24) 1.60 (1.07) 1.70 (1.06) 1.55 (1.21) –.02 .14
Developmental Goal Setting 1.75 (1.29) 1.70 (1.25) 2.10 (1.45) 1.09 (1.81) .04 .64
Company Concern 1.81 (1.60) 1.95 (1.12) 2.90 (0.32) 1.82 (1.89) –.10 .86
Sociability 1.42 (1.16) 1.40 (1.17) 1.80 (0.92) 1.18 (0.75) .02 .75
Decision Delegation 2.25 (1.06) 1.60 (1.43) 2.40 (0.97) 1.73 (1.27) .53 .62
Developmental Feedback 2.08 (0.90) 1.80 (1.14) 2.70 (0.48) 1.45 (1.97) .28 .94
Job Enrichment 1.83 (1.11) 1.50 (1.27) 2.50 (0.53) 1.18 (1.78) .28 1.08**
Adaptability 2.58 (0.67) 1.90 (1.45) 2.60 (0.97) 1.55 (1.13) .61 1.03*
Self Development 2.08 (1.08) 1.60 (1.58) 2.50 (0.71) 1.27 (1.19) .36 1.32**
Public Presentation 2.26 (0.75) 1.40 (0.84) 2.40 (0.84) 1.73 (1.35) 1.10* .63*
Cultural Appreciation 2.42 (1.00) 1.60 (1.65) 2.60 (0.52) 1.64 (1.03) .61 1.25*
Compassion 2.00 (0.95) 1.40 (1.17) 2.50 (0.71) 1.27 (1.19) .57 1.32*
Political Astuteness 1.33 (1.56) 1.40 (1.35) 2.80 (0.42) 1.27 (1.01) –.05 2.10**
Resilience 2.50 (0.80) 1.60 (1.26) 2.80 (0.42) 1.45 (1.21) .87 1.59**
Tolerance of Ideas 2.58 (0.90) 1.30 (1.57) 2.70 (0.48) 1.73 (0.79) 1.01* 1.56**
Team Building 2.75 (0.45) 1.60 (1.26) 2.90 (0.32) 1.64 (1.21) 1.22* 1.53**
Note. Competencies in bold are identified as either a unique descriptor or a codescriptor; underlined effect sizes are significantly different from one
another. L–M Def = Defined Leadership vs. Defined Management conditions; L–M Undef = Undefined Leadership vs. Undefined Management conditions.
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Figure 4. Raw scores for 63 competencies on defined Figure 5. Raw scores for 63 competencies on undefined
management and defined leadership management and undefined leadership
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TULSA on September 10, 2013
Simonet and Tett 209
leadership will recognize both functions as complex, multi- identified in earlier literature. Innovation and inspiration
faceted, somewhat independent but largely intersecting pro- are common themes in arguments setting leadership apart
cesses. With respect to the intersection, the list of from management, and this distinction is supported by the
co-descriptors in the middle of Table 4 includes a number of current study. Leaders tend to “think outside the box,” look
competencies arguably critical for organizational success. at old issues in new ways, and pave the way for the future.
Regardless of whether one is considered to be a leader or a Leaders are not bound by current strategies; they create
manager, others depend on that individual to demonstrate images of better possibilities and help orient followers to
initiative, set goals and timelines, and timelines, be trust- adjust to such alternatives. If leadership is distinguished
worthy and responsible, integrate and share information, from management primarily by its reliance on creative
and be willing and able to make good decisions. Such over- thinking, as current results suggest, researchers seeking to
lap is rarely considered in discussions of leadership and understand leadership are urged to key on creativity as
management, and yet it is critical because it brings the two essential subject matter. While theoretical linkage between
functions essentially into the same room and offers targets leadership and creativity has been suggested (e.g., Mumford
for judging whom among a set of managers might also & Connelly, 1991), a majority of studies focus on leaders as
make an effective leader (and vice versa). enablers, rather than as originators, of the creative process
Our results suggest that one cannot speak about leader- (e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2003). Moreover, if expanded to con-
ship without at least implicitly speaking about management, sider significantly different nondesignated competencies
and vice versa. Theories that claim to be “leadership” theo- (bottom of Table 4), we may further identify leaders as
ries, but that include dominant dimensions identifiable as uniquely flexible, open minded, team- and growth-oriented,
management, are not simply “leadership” theories; they are and socially astute. Such findings resonate with models by
leadership/management theories. In fact, to the degree task Zaccaro and colleagues regarding the unique importance of
orientation and person orientation (as general referents to social capacities to leadership functioning (Zaccaro,
initiating structure and consideration and related “leader- 2002, 2007; Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford, 1991).
ship” entities) are understandable as components of man- Correspondingly, those seeking to understand management
agement (note the relatively high ratings of Compassion, as distinct from leadership should key on organizing com-
Cooperation, Sociability, Seeking Input, and similarly petencies typified by short-term planning, orderliness, rule
person-oriented competencies on the management dimen- orientation, and similar constructs.
sion in Table 4), so-called “leadership theories” up to at The noted differences between leadership and manage-
least path-goal theory might just as well be considered man- ment may seem old news to many readers. Less obvious,
agement theories. The large degree of overlap between the perhaps, is that the competencies defining these two broad
two domains evident in the current study calls for integra- domains are not opposite ends of a single continuum. Also
tion of content, process, and perhaps more fully, between evident is that neither the leadership-in-management nor
disciplines, in understanding how management and leader- management-in-leadership hierarchical perspective is sup-
ship contribute to organizational effectiveness. ported. The two domains are more like equal partners, or
We believe the popularity of cleaving leadership from teammates, sharing much in common, but each offering
management may reflect a human tendency to dichotomize attributes the other lacks. That managers and leaders are dis-
reality (Berlin, 1990). Whether conceptualizing nature ver- tinct in terms of rule orientation and timeliness versus strate-
sus nurture, men versus women, or black versus white, gic planning and tolerance of ambiguity supports Locke
reducing complex phenomena into binary alternatives sim- et al.’s (1991) contention that management’s duty is to
plifies information and permits quick decisions, thoughts, implement the overarching vision of the leader: Leaders for-
and actions (Wood & Petriglieri, 2005). Relative to com- mulate the ideas while managers carry them to fruition.
monality, the idea that leaders and managers are distinct is Similarly, Yukl and Lepsinger (2005) argue that manage-
cognitively more compelling. While such dichotomization ment and leadership work together in creating efficiency,
may help distill what we truly know, the quest for absolute change, and people development. Our findings are consistent
certainties can become a problem of omission (Berlin, with this complementarity perspective, but suggest in addi-
1990). Leadership experts or management educators focus- tion the two functions share considerable competencies in
ing on the unique elements of one position may do so at the common; it is not just the complementarity of the unique-
expense of losing sight of the fuller spectrum of intermedi- nesses that make leadership and management-effective part-
ate competencies, nuanced organizational realities, or inter- ners, it is also the fundamental similarities in their makeup
personal gradations defining the overlap between the two that creates a shared foundation for performance.
domains. By acknowledging the overlap, we are better pre- Our findings suggest that whether leadership and man-
pared to discover the fuller complexities of directing people agement are judged to be distinct (i.e., bidimensional) or
and organizations. overlapping (i.e., co-dimensional) will depend on which
Turning to the unique descriptors, it is interesting to note competencies are chosen for investigation. This has impor-
the parallel between current findings and distinctions tant implications for studies of managerial and leadership
institutional progress. Second, implicit in evolving defini- transformational leadership theory). The current study targets
tions is the stereotype that management is somehow bad only the more fundamental question of the nature of leader-
and leadership is good; this simplistic perspective ignores ship and management.
the potentially helpful and harmful sides of both managerial 4. Tett et al.’s (2000) original taxonomy contains 53 competen-
and leadership values. Third, the polarization of leadership cies. Ten have been added since then in light of ongoing
and management may lead to needless duplication in con- practitioner research revealing content deficiencies. Notably,
cepts and measures. Purportedly new theories or measures all the new competencies met the same standards for inclu-
developed under the rubric of one ideology may in fact sion as those in the original model (e.g., identification using
represent old wine in new bottles. three more specific elements reliably classified into only the
Our findings reflect an integrative effort to present targeted competency). The new competencies are indicated
empirical data on contemporary experts’ perspectives of in Table 2.
leadership and management. We overcome the “lack of a 5. Modern perspectives on internal consistency reliability rec-
common language” that has plagued this debate (Kent, ognize that measurement facets are not restricted to items
2005, p. 1011) by providing researchers a useful vocabulary (Putka & Sackett, 2010). Reliability here is the ratio of true
for developing or refining leadership and management the- competency variance (in representativeness) to total vari-
ory. The vocabulary comes in three sets. First, we encour- ance, which includes both true and rater-specific variance.
age discussion of leadership and management using the High alpha, accordingly, indicates low-rater specificity in
“common language” of competencies, whether from Tett relative judgments of representativeness.
et al. (2000) or some other taxonomy. Second, we identify 6. To be clear, the first ANOVA assesses mean shifts in compe-
five perspectives on the leadership–management relation- tency relevance primarily targeting the defined versus unde-
ship. Discussion may be facilitated by reference to this set of fined conditions, using 63 rows and 4 columns of means
perspectives, perhaps by promoting identification of vari- derived by averaging across judges. This same data array is
ants or, as was observed in the current study, hybrids. Third, used for assessing differences in relative standing by correlat-
joining the first two sets of terms, we offer a lexicon of ing columns. The second set of ANOVAs, in contrast, assesses
descriptor types, including unique descriptors, co-descriptors, differences between management and leadership (and second-
and so forth, within a corresponding configural framework arily between the two definitional conditions) on each compe-
(Figure 2). How such terms are best operationalized is a mat- tency, using a total of 43 rows for the four groups of judges
ter for research, but we expect theory may be advanced by (N = 10-12 per group) and a single column per competency.
reference to them as they seem to capture useful units of the 7. Where we draw the lines on our −3 to +3 scale to differenti-
leadership–management comparison. Integration of leader- ate among descriptor types is somewhat arbitrary. We sug-
ship and management in light of both their considerable gest, however, that 2 represents a conceptually meaningful
overlap and distinctive uniquenesses offers a promising con- threshold, marking the range of moderately to highly repre-
ceptual foundation for theoretic advance. sentative. Likewise, 1 marks the upper boundary spanning
the interval of neutral (0) to slightly representative.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Competencies falling in the remaining spaces would be
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect judged as less clearly indicative of the ideal types.
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. 8. When all judges are included in the analyses regardless of
reliability, correlations drop to −.30 (p < .01) and −.12 (p >
Funding .05), respectively. The number of significantly different com-
The authors received no financial support for the research, author- petencies for ANOVA main effects also reduces from 35 to
ship, and/or publication of this article. 29 (see below). Overall, inclusion of nonreliable judges does
not drastically alter configurations of findings but, rather,
Notes reduces differentiation between leadership and management
1. Try explaining how an engine works without referring to its in terms of particular competencies. The reductions are
components. attributable to increased measurement error in the ratings and
2. Differences between management and leadership are support the removal of data from unreliable judges.
addressed in light of our main research questions targeting
degree of overlap versus uniqueness in competency cover- References
age. The main target of the consistency assessments is the Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for
distinction between defined and undefined conditions. leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62, 25-33.
3. The broader study seeks to map the competencies onto each doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25
of 23 dimensions identified in the leadership literature (e.g., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F.,
task orientation, person orientation, the eight dimensions in & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the
process by which authentic leaders impact follower atti- House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness.
tudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801-823. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003 House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). The great disappearing J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge
act: difficulties in doing “leadership.” Leadership Quarterly, (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
14, 359-381. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00031-6 Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta- Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007).
tions. New York, NY: Free Press. The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications,
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: and potential remedies. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435-446.
Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.07.001
York, NY: Free Press. Kent, T. W. (2005). Leading and managing: It takes two to
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, tango. Management Decision, 43, 1010-1017. doi:10.1108/
MA: Harvard University Press. 00251740510610008
Bedeian, A. G., & Hunt, J. G. (2006). Academic amnesia and ves- Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs
tigial assumptions of our forefathers. The Leadership Quar- from management. New York, NY: Free Press.
terly, 17, 190-205. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.006 Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.
charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The
Berlin, S. B. (1990). Dichotomous and complex thinking. Social problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organiza-
Service Review, 64, 46-59. tional research: An empirical investigation. Organizational
Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 1123-1125.
Moving on. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515-549. doi:10.1016/ doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003
S1048-9843(00)00057-6 Locke, E. A., Kirkpatrick, S., Wheeler, J. K., Schneider, J., Niles, K.,
Borman, W. C., & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a Goldstein, H., . . .Chan, D. O. (1991). The essence of leader-
taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human ship. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Performance, 6, 1-21. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0601_1 Luthans, F., & Lockwood, D. L. (1984). Toward an observation
Dement, J. (1996). Managers, leaders, and teams in a team-based system for measuring leader behavior in natural settings.
environment. Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 18, In J. G. Hunt, D. Hosking, C. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart
1-9. (Eds.), Leaders and managers: International perspectives
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York, on managerial behavior and leadership (pp. 117-141). New
NY: Harper. York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Fayol, H. (1916). Administration industrielleetgénérale [Indus- Mintzberg, H. (1971). Managerial work: Analysis from observa-
trial and general administration]. Paris, France: Dunod. tion. Management Science, 18, 97-110.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York,
Top executives and their effects on organizations. St. Paul, NY: Harper & Row.
MN: West. Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D., & Karam, E. P. (2009). Leadership
Follett, M. P. (1933). The essentials of leadership. In P. Graham in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership
(Ed.), Mary Parker prophet of management: A celebration of structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5-39.
writings from the 1920s (pp. 163-176).Washington, DC: Beard doi:10.1177/0149206309347376
Books. Morse, J. J., & Wagner, F. R. (1978). Measuring the process of
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behav- managerial effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal,
ior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 1-6. doi:10.1037/ 21, 23-35.
h0056314 Mumford, M. D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A
Gardner, J. W. (1986). The tasks of leadership (Leadership Paper, comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and prag-
No. 2). Washington, DC: Independent Sector. matic leaders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gardner, J. W. (1993). On leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leader
Gardner, W. L., III, & Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr. (1992). Strategic performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leader-
leadership and the management of supportive work environ- ship Quarterly, 2, 298-315. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(91)90017-V
ments. In R. L. Phillips & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Strategic lead- Nienaber, H. (2010). Conceptualisation of management and lead-
ership: A multiorganizational-level perspective (pp. 99-118). ership. Management Decision, 48, 661-675. doi:10.1108/
Westport, CT: Quorum. 00251741011043867
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leader- Northouse, P. G. (2003). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd
ship. Training and Development Journal, 23(5), 26-34. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Putka, D. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2010). Reliability and validity. In Wood, J. D., & Petriglieri, G. (2005).Transcending polarization:
J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selec- Beyond binary thinking. Transactional Analysis Journal, 35,
tion (pp. 9-49). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. 31-39.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the Wortman, M. S. (1982). Strategic management and changing
paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San leader–follower roles. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 18, 371-383. doi:10.1177/002188638201800310
Rousseau, D. (2007). A sticky, leveraging, and scalable strategy Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). Organizational leadership and social
for high-quality connections between organizational practice intelligence. In R. Riggio (Ed.), Multiple intelligences
and science. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1037- and leadership (pp. 29-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
1042. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.27155539 baum.
Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, con- Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. Amer-
servation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of ican Psychologist, 62, 6-16. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6
Management Journal, 46, 703-714.doi:10.2307/30040662 Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D.
Stewart, R. (1982). Choices for the manager: A guide to understand- (1991). Leadership and social intelligence: Linking social
ing managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effec-
Tett, R. P., Guterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J. (2000). tiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 317-331. doi:10.1016/
Development and content validation of a hyperdimensional 1048-9843(91)90018-W
taxonomy of managerial competence. Human Performance, Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different?
13, 205-251. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_1 Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-78.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity
leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age Bios
to the knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298-318. Daniel V. Simonet is a doctoral student in the Industrial/
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002 Organizational Psychology program at the University of Tulsa.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision- He teaches courses in theories of personality and introduction to
making. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press. I/O psychology. His primary research interests include dysfunc-
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, tional leadership, the social basis of psychological empower-
NJ: Prentice Hall. ment, and the role of personalty and emotional intelligence in
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy team composition and performance.
of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior
research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, Robert P. Tett, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Psychology at
15-32. doi:10.1177/107179190200900102 the University of Tulsa where he teaches courses in leadership,
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2005). Why integrating the leading personnel selection, statistics, psychometrics, and evolutionary
and managing roles is essential for organizational effective- psychology, and where he serves as the I-O Psychology Graduate
ness. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 361-375. doi:10.1016/j. Program Director. His primary research interests concern how
orgdyn.2005.08.004 personality and situations interact in relations with job perfor-
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? mance and other valued organizational criteria.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495. doi:10.5465/
AMR.1989.4308371