Leadership Comparison Matrix

Comparison Matrix Paper-Leadership Ethics
Grand Canyon University
Ethical Dilemmas and Stewardship
LDR 800

Introduction This assignment looked comparatively at three empirical articles that addressed leadership practices relating to ethical use of authority, persuasion, power or motivation. Article one was titled “Achieving High Organizational Performance through Servant Leadership” by Melchar, D. and Bosco, M. (2010). The second article, titled “When Power Makes Others Speechless: The Negative Impact of Leader Power on Team Performance”, was authored by Tost, L., Gino, F. and Larrick, R. (2013). Finally, the third article was titled “The Relationship Between Ethical Leadership and Core Job Characteristics” by Piccolo,
R., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D., and Folger, R. (2010). The purpose of each of the three studies was similar in that they were concerned with ethical leadership directly related to use of power, motivation and ultimately on followers’ work performance. Melchar, D. and Bosco, M. (2010) proposed that intentional modeling of servant leadership by high-level managers works to develop a high organizational culture that attracts and cultivates other servant leaders’. Tost, L. et al. (2013) examined the impact of the subjective experience of power on leadership dynamics and team performance as well as whether or not the psychological effect of power demonstrated by formal leaders negatively affects team performance. Piccolo, R. et al. (2010) focused on the relationships between ethical leadership, job autonomy, task significance, and overall follower performance. Comparatively, each article spoke to the importance of leaders’ having good communication skills, high ethical and moral values, and sound decision-making abilities.

Research Questions The research posed within all three articles was similar in that they were concerned with ethical leadership directly connected to use of power, motivation, and behavior and ultimately on followers’ work performance. Melchar and Bosco (2010) present two major research questions related to behaviors of servant leaders and whether their followers’ in turn exhibit servant leadership characteristics. Similarly, research questions posed by Tost et al. (2013) in article two propose that (1) power will increase formal leaders’ tendencies to dominate social interactions; (2) effect of individual power on leader-talking, communication and total team performance will emerge once the leader takes on formal leadership role; and (3) powerful formal leaders will result in higher levels of leader talking but lower levels of team open communication and team performance. Piccolo et al. (2010) focused on the potential impact of ethical leadership as connected with (a) job autonomy and (b) task significance. Measurement of the focal employee was collected from the viewpoint of the co-worker. All three empirical journal articles posed relevant questioning on leaders’ use and abuse of power as well as the proper modeling of ethical behaviors within leadership roles.
Sample Populations Melchar, D. and Bosco, M. (2010) sample population were 59 respondents (53 male; M age = 38.2) from three car dealerships. The average number of years worked at each dealership was 5.8 years. Tost, et al (2013) research study consisted of three separate studies. The sample population for each was as follows: Study one consisted of 106 undergraduate MBA students from a southeastern United States University. Study two consisted of 144 individuals (68 male; Mage = 22.24) from a northeastern United States location. Study three consisted of 152 individuals (68 males; mean age 21.84) from northeastern United States location. Piccolo, R. et al. (2010) sample population was 174 junior- and senior-level undergraduate students and 107 Masters of Business Administration students (152 male, 129 female; M age = 26; 595 full-time) from a southeastern United States University. Participants in both Melcher et al., (2010) and Piccolo, et al. (2010) were asked to identify co-worker focal respondents in addition to completing survey questionnaires while respondents in Tost, et al. (2013) was randomly assigned to teams of three or more. Results Melchar and Bosco (2010), findings were consistent with the two hypothesis proposed at the start of the study. The mean for all factors was above 2.5, with a range of 2.8-3.4, utilizing the Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) survey instrument, thus indicating that all participants in the study possessed above-average characteristics of servant leadership. Further, mid-level managers exhibited similar characteristics of their followers that are consistent with high-level servant leaders within the organization. Therefore, hypothesis 1 and 2 were fully supported.
Piccolo, et al. (2010) study measured ethical leadership characteristics using both a structural and measurement model. The measurement model identified 6 elements (i.e. autonomy, task performance, effort, OCB, task significance, and ethical leadership) while the structural model utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) in order to identify and propose relationships amongst the factors listed within the measurement model. As predicted in hypothesis 1, 3, 4 and 5 were supported as results indicated that there was a positive relationship between ethical leadership (a) task significance, (b) autonomy, (c) task performance and (d) effort. Consequently, hypothesis 2 demonstrated a positive relationship between (a) autonomy and effort and (b) task significance and effort. However, the path coefficient (b = -.06) among effort and autonomy was not considerable, thus only partially supporting hypothesis 3. Piccolo, et al.
(2010) results of the three studies were fully in support of the initial arguments. Specifically. Study 1 clearly demonstrated support in that a formal leader’s experience of power leads to increased leader talking, reducing his or her openness, and thereby diminishing team performance. Study 2 and 3 both replicated the findings of study 1, further supporting the notion that formal leaders’ experience of power produced greater team verbal collaboration from leaders, less team open communication, and decreased overall team performance. Comparatively, results of all three studies were structured slightly different. Melchar and Bocso (2010) and Piccolo, et al. (2010) recorded results of all presented hypotheses’ in one common results section. Alternatively, Tost, et al. (2013) recorded its research findings at the conclusion of each its three sub-studies. However, with the exception of one, there was strong evidence in all three articles to support the studies original hypotheses.
Limitations and
Conclusion
Melchar and Bosco (2010) results concluded that a servant leader model offers a positive alternative to other leadership theories in that it helps to develop behaviors that are valuable in providing a supportive construct for improving human development within an organization. Further, this research suggests that the servant leader model encourages followers to rise to high-levels of performance. One major limitation of this study was that the sample population targeted was limited to one industry. As a result, the sample population results may not necessarily be generalizable to other organizations. Tost, et al.
(2013) research findings have shown strong theoretical and practical implications as to the impact formal leaders can have on overall team performance. The intent of this research was to examine as well as measure the impact of the subjective experience of power on leadership dynamics as well as on general team performance. Both were accomplished and final conclusions were that all hypotheses were proven true. While there were many positive contributions that stemmed from these studies, several limitations need to be acknowledged. One limitation was that conducting the study in control settings such as a laboratory or classroom potentially limited external validity. A second limitation was that conversations that took place amongst teams were not recorded, thus relying on self-reporting as opposed to observational
data. At the onset, Piccolo, et al. (2010) set out to examine the relationships between ethical leadership, task significance, effort, job autonomy, and job performance. As predicted, findings accurately concluded that leaders who demonstrated sound ethical commitments also demonstrated positive ethical behavior, thus having a high impact on elements such as task significance and independence, thereby having an effect employees’ job performance. Furthermore, these elements will indeed have a positive impact on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and task behavior. However, a number of limitations need to be considered. For instance, common source bias was a concern. Primary respondents had the choice to select specific co-workers to rank them, thus allowing for selection based on favorable relationships. More research is needed to better understand ethical leadership as it relates to power and motivation. Topics for future study related to these three articles could be linkage of ethical leadership to servant leadership, examination of specific job behaviors such as personality, attitude, or trust; or further examination of servant leadership traits such as valuing others ethical or moral conduct.

References

Barbuto, J., and Wheeler, D. (2006). Scale development and Construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Organization Management, 31 (3): 300-326.
Melchar, D., and Bosco, M. (2010). Achieving High Organization Performance through Servant Leadership. Journal Of Business Inquiry: Research, Education & Application, 9(1), 74-88.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. d., and Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 31(2/3), 259-278.
Tost, L., Gino, F., and Larrick R. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative i impact of leader power on team performance. Academy Of Management Journal, 56(5), 1465-1486. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0180