In this research by Wu. Tsui and Kinicki ( 2010 ) sought to turn out that when leaders display different grades of attending and support to persons ( within a group ) . group public presentation is diminished ; whereas similar shows focused on the group as a whole enhances group public presentation.
Wu et al take to utilize “differentiated leading due to the inclination for leaders to expose changing grades of individual-focused behavior to group members. ” ( p. 90 ) . This is grounded in Leader Member Exchange Theory ( LMX ) as acknowledged in the survey. which exerts some influence on the survey. Previous surveies on LMX have mostly shown that about all leaders differentiate in behavior towards subsidiaries ( Daniesh & A ; Liden. 1986 ) .
Methodology and Assumptions
The survey drew on informations collected via web based studies conducted over two months from a sample of 70 work groups. Seven hypotheses ( as shown in Table 1 ) were drawn up and tested utilizing a group-level theoretical account. Wu et al applied the effects of “individual focussed leadership” to group degree utilizing this theoretical account. This was appropriate to utilize as they sought to analyze the effects on one variable ( groups ) . In contrast. Wang and Howell ( 2010 ) used a ‘dual-level scale’ to prove the double dimensions of their survey. They did describe though that “important elements of transformational leading are ignored by utilizing a individual “group-level theoretical account. ”
Wu et al tested their hypotheses for correlativity utilizing cogency testing and consequences showed ‘reasonable fit’ . The hypotheses were tested utilizing Structural equation modeling ( SEM ) and other statistical analyses.
Table 1. Wu. Tsui and Kinicki: Tested Hypothesis.
1. When groups are motivated as a group. they have a shared sense of intent and vision ( group designation ) . Idealised influence. inspirational motive utilizing MLQ ( with revised diction ) . 2. Corporate vision enhances group’s belief in its abilities to performFour indexs ( aggregated to group degree ) 3. Group’s belief in its abilities enhances group effectivity. Items from two graduated tables used in old research. 4. Attending to persons in a group causes persons to associate to leaders otherwise. Differentiated individualized consideration and differentiated rational stimulation utilizing MLQ5 5. Have different positions in leader designation causes persons to hold different degrees of self-belief. Six points aggregated to group degree. 6. Group members do non believe in the ability to execute because persons have changing grades of self-belief. Generalized self-efficacy step ( fit better than undertaking specific measures. ) 7. Lack of group’s belief in abilities consequences in decreased group effectivity. Group public presentation and group variableness utilizing old research theories.
Beginning: Wu. Tsui and Kinicki ( 2010 )
Findingss and Analysis
Wu et Al found that members identified with the group. and accordingly asserted corporate abilities which resulted in positive group public presentation. This was expected. On the other manus. ‘individual-focused leadership’ resulted in changing grades of leader designation and self-belief. This had an inauspicious consequence on group public presentation ( p. 101 ) .
Previous surveies on transformational leading have highlighted its capacity to “raise followings to higher degrees of motive and morality [ followings aspire to execute better thereby exhibiting its transforming effects. ] ( Burns. 978: 20 ) [ cited by ] Fairholm ( 2001 ) . For illustration in a survey in 40 six Korean companies. employees displayed increased degrees of creativeness as a consequence. in portion. of increased motive due to transformational leading effects. ( Shin & A ; Zhou. 2003 ) .
The findings [ of lessened group public presentation ] appear to belie the cogency of LMX theory which. in this survey builds on from transformational leading. The suggestion here is that for optimum group public presentation. leaders should non utilize differentiated leading towards persons within the group. Rather. leaders should expose similar behavior forms to all group members.
Persons are non homogenous and hence will of course execute at different degrees be they in a group or non. One would therefore anticipate that differentiated leading be an appropriate leading manner. Indeed. situational leading theory encourages leading manner to be driven by the ‘climate’ . ( Blanchard. Zigarmi and Zigarmi. 2001 )
The writers claim a part to research by “modelling both group-focused and individual-focused leading at the group level” . ( p. 91 ) The construct of “individual-focused leading at the group level” seems to turn to two separate constructs which the writers attempted to. but failed to incorporate. Equally shortly as persons are singled out and influenced by ‘differentiated’ leading. persons cease to fall under the ‘group category’ . To ‘elevate’ the resulting effects to group degree is at best. misdirecting. Put merely. the effects of individual-focused leading should be judged on its ‘target’ audience: the person. Similarly group-focused leading should be examined at group degree. Wang and Howell. appear to hold simplified this current research in their survey on the “dual effects of transformational leadership” .
A figure of restrictions have been identified in the survey. First. although web studies have been shown to make a wider audience and pull more consequences. Bryman and Bell ( 2007: 211 ) argue that there is a hazard of exposure to mistakes. This is peculiarly important in this survey where the diction in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ( MLQ ) was revised ( p. 95 ) . The extent to which inquiries were misconstrued [ thereby annuling the replies ] impacts upon the dependability of the findings. Besides. the writers concede that the “values of informations collection for the group designation and corporate efficaciousness variables were unsatisfactory. ” The steps used in the related hypotheses were superficial and therefore renders the findings undependable.
Bryman and Bell ( 2003: 203 ) besides encourage the usage of larger sample sizes because of the likeliness of variableness in a heterogenous sample. The writers used a sample drawn from eight organisations. and granted that it allowed for easiness of information assemblage and collating. it can be argued that it was non ample plenty to justify a generalisation of the research findings. Using a coefficient of fluctuation in a [ comparatively little ] sample. which Wu et Al. used. greatly increases the likeliness of the mean values being distorted. Interestingly. the writers did admit that the consequences of the survey “might non generalize to other work groups” ( p. 102 ) . The sample in the survey by Shin & A ; Zhou ( 2003 ) for illustration. was selected from 40 six Korean companies. a much bigger sample. which facilitates generalisation.
What the survey has managed to carry through as the writers assert. is to supply a platform for surveies on the “mechanisms” that lead to decrease group effectivity as a consequence of differentiated leading. This averment is validated by turn outing that the “hypotheses waies were statistically significant” ( p. 99 ) . Arguably. there already exist legion theories on leading with small or no integrating. ( Derue. Nahrgang. Wellmann and Humphrey. 2011 ) . Wu et Al. ’s survey in its entireness does little to incorporate other bing theories but nowadayss yet another ‘theory’ .
1. Blanchard. K. . Zigarmi. P. and Zigarmi. D. ( 2001 ) Situational Leadership II. Calcium: The Ken Blanchard Companies. 2. Bryman. A. and Bell. E. ( 2003 ) Business Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press plc. 3. Derue. D. S. . Nahrgang. J. D. . Wellmann. N. . Humphrey. S. E. ( 2011 ) Trait and Behavioral Theories of Leadership: An Integration and Meta-analytic trial of their comparative Validity. Personnel Psychology 64: 7-52 4. Dienesch R. M. . Liden R. C. ( 1986 ) Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development. Academy of Management Review 11 ( 3 ) : 618-634. 5. Fairholm M. R. . ( 2001 ) The Themes and Theory of Leadership: James
MacGregor Burns and the Philosophy of Leadership. Working paper CR0-01 George Washington University. [ on-line ] ( cited on 16/4/2011 ) Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. strategies-formanagingchange. com/supportfiles/burnstransformationalleadership. pdf 6. Shin. S. ; Zhou. J. ( 2003 ) Transformational leading. preservation. and creativeness: Evidence from Korea ; Academy of Management Journal. 46: 703-714. 7. Wang. X. F. and Howell. J. M. ( 2010 ) Researching the Dual-Level Effectss of Transformational Leadership on Follower. Journal of Applied Psychology 95 ( 6 ) : 1134-1144.