the development of effective leadership: investigating the ...file/dis3415.pdf · the development...

The Development of Effective Leadership:

Investigating the Antecedents of Charismatic and

Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behaviors

DISSERTATION

of the University of St. Gallen,

Graduate School of Business Administration,

Economics, Law, and Social Sciences (HSG)

to obtain the title of

Doctor Oeconomiae

submitted by

Frank Walter

from

Germany

Approved on the application of

Prof. Dr. Heike Bruch

and

Prof. Dr. Andreas Herrmann

Dissertation no. 3415

Difo-Druck GmbH, Bamberg, 2007

The University of St. Gallen, Graduate School of Business Administration,

Economics, Law and Social Sciences (HSG) hereby consents to the printing of the

present dissertation, without hereby expressing any opinion on the views herein

expressed.

St. Gallen, October 15, 2007

The President:

Prof. Ernst Mohr, PhD

Acknowledgments

There are numerous people who played important roles in the development of this

dissertation, and I am very grateful to them. First of all, I would like to thank my

doctoral supervisor, Prof. Dr. Heike Bruch, who enabled this dissertation during my

time as a research associate at the Institute for Leadership and Human Resource

Management. She has been an important source of support and has provided me with

great opportunities for cooperation in many fascinating research projects. Thanks also

to Prof. Dr. Andreas Herrmann for serving as the co-supervisor on my dissertation

committee.

Very special thanks go to Prof. Dr. Michael S. Cole for his invaluable support and

advice not only with regard to my dissertation research, but with regard to all aspects

of my academic work during the last years. I benefited hugely from Michael's

constructive, open feedback, from his willingness to share his methodological

expertise and research skills, and from countless academic discussions.

I would also like to thank Silja Drack and Jochen Menges for their great help in data

collection. Further, I gratefully acknowledge the support of Stephan Böhm, Florian

Kunze, and Dr. Bernd Vogel, who provided constructive comments and helped me

sharpen critical arguments. Thanks also to my sister, Judith Walter, who spent a lot of

time and effort thoroughly proof-reading the whole manuscript.

I am deeply indebted to my parents, Marion and Otto Walter, whose encouragement

and support I could always count on in every phase of my academic education.

Finally, I am especially grateful to my wife, Michaela Walter. Her emotional support,

her incredible patience and understanding, and her deep affection were invaluable

during the ups and downs of my dissertation project. Without her, this dissertation

would not have been possible.

St. Gallen, October 2007 Frank Walter

Overview of Contents

I

Overview of Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background of the Dissertation 1

1.2 Literature Review and Development of Specific Research Questions 6

1.3 Target Groups and Value of the Dissertation 23

1.4 Outline of the Dissertation 24

2 Study 1 - The Role of Leaders' Mood and Emotional Intelligence 31

2.1 Introduction and Intended Contributions 31

2.2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 33

2.3 Description of Study Methods 50

2.4 Results 61

2.5 Discussion of Study 1 Findings 68

3 Study 2 - The Role of Organizational Structure 78


3.2 Conceptual Issues and Definitions 80



3.5 Results 108


4 Study 3 - Theoretical Integration and Extension of Prior Work 123


4.2 Charismatic Leadership Behavior Emergence: A Theoretical Integration 124

4.3 Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behavior Emergence: A Theoretical Extension 148

4.4 Overall Conclusions from Study 3 170

5 Overall Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions 172

5.1 Overview of the Research Problem and Key Research Questions 172

5.2 Summary of Dissertation Findings 175

5.3 Main Contributions to the Literature 180

5.4 Overall Limitations and Directions for Future Research 184

5.5 Key Practical Implications 189

5.6 Overall Conclusions and Outlook 194

References 196

Curriculum Vitae 236

II Table of Contents

Table of Contents

List of Figures VII

List of Tables VIII

List of Abbreviations IX

Abstract X

Zusammenfassung XI

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background of the Dissertation 1

1.1.1 Introducing charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership 1

1.1.2 Outlining the research problem 3

1.1.3 Practical relevance 5

1.2 Literature Review and Development of Specific Research Questions 6

1.2.1 Prior research on the antecedents of charismatic and prevention- oriented leadership 7

1.2.1.1 The role of leaders' personality 7

1.2.1.2 The role of leaders' attitudes and values 9

1.2.1.3 The role of leaders' cognition 10

1.2.1.4 The role of crisis situations 11

1.2.1.5 The role of the organizational context 12

1.2.1.6 Summary 13

1.2.2 The role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence 14

1.2.3 The role of organizational structure in charismatic and prevention- oriented leadership behavior emergence 17

1.2.4 Theoretical integration of prior work on charismatic leadership behavior emergence 20

1.2.5 Theoretical extension of prior work on prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence 22

1.3 Target Groups and Value of the Dissertation 23

1.4 Outline of the Dissertation 24

1.4.1 Overall design 24

1.4.2 Methodological approach 27

1.4.3 Chapter structure 28

Table of Contents

III

2 Study 1 - The Role of Leaders' Mood and Emotional Intelligence 31



2.2.1 The role of leaders' mood 33

2.2.1.1 Theoretical background 33

2.2.1.2 Positive mood and charismatic leadership 36

2.2.1.3 Negative mood and prevention-oriented leadership 38

2.2.2 The role of leaders' emotional intelligence 41

2.2.2.1 Theoretical background 41

2.2.2.2 Emotional intelligence and charismatic leadership 42

2.2.2.3 Emotional intelligence and prevention-oriented leadership 44

2.2.3 Interactive effects of mood and emotional intelligence 46


2.3.1 Data collection and sample description 50

2.3.2 Measures 53

2.3.2.1 Leaders' positive and negative mood 53

2.3.2.2 Leaders' emotional intelligence 54

2.3.2.3 Charismatic leadership behaviors 55

2.3.2.4 Prevention-oriented leadership behaviors 57

2.3.2.5 Control variables 58

2.3.3 Data analyses 59

2.3.3.1 Aggregation analyses 59

2.3.3.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations 60

2.3.3.3 Hypotheses testing 60

2.4 Results 61

2.4.1 Aggregation statistics 61

2.4.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations 62

2.4.3 Hypotheses testing for charismatic leadership 64

2.4.4 Hypotheses testing for prevention-oriented leadership 67


2.5.1 Summary and contributions: Charismatic leadership 68

2.5.2 Summary and contributions: Prevention-oriented leadership 69

2.5.3 Limitations 71

2.5.4 Directions for future research 73

2.5.5 Practical implications 75

2.5.6 Conclusion 77

IV Table of Contents

3 Study 2 - The Role of Organizational Structure 78


3.2 Conceptual Issues and Definitions 80

3.2.1 Organizations' charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climate 80

3.2.2 Organizational centralization, formalization, and size 83


3.3.1 Theoretical background 84

3.3.2 Organizational structure and charismatic leadership climate 86

3.3.2.1 Centralization and charismatic leadership climate 86

3.3.2.2 Formalization and charismatic leadership climate 88

3.3.2.3 Organization size and charismatic leadership climate 90

3.3.3 Organizational structure and prevention-oriented leadership climate 92

3.3.3.1 Centralization and prevention-oriented leadership climate 92

3.3.3.2 Formalization and prevention-oriented leadership climate 94

3.3.3.3 Organization size and prevention-oriented leadership climate 96


3.4.1 Data collection and sample description 98

3.4.2 Measures 101

3.4.2.1 Centralization and formalization 101

3.4.2.2 Organization size 103

3.4.2.3 Charismatic leadership climate 103

3.4.2.4 Prevention-oriented leadership climate 105

3.4.2.5 Control variables 105

3.4.3 Data analyses 106

3.4.3.1 Aggregation analyses 106

3.4.3.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations 107

3.4.3.3 Hypotheses testing 107

3.5 Results 108

3.5.1 Aggregation statistics 108

3.5.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations 109

3.5.3 Hypotheses testing for charismatic leadership climate 111

3.5.4 Hypotheses testing for prevention-oriented leadership climate 112


3.6.1 Summary and contributions: Charismatic leadership climate 113

3.6.2 Summary and contributions: Prevention-oriented leadership climate 115

3.6.3 Limitations 116

3.6.4 Directions for future research 119

Table of Contents

V

3.6.5 Practical implications 120

3.6.6 Conclusion 121

4 Study 3 - Theoretical Integration and Extension of Prior Work 123


4.2 Charismatic Leadership Behavior Emergence: A Theoretical Integration 124

4.2.1 Theoretical background: Affective events theory 124

4.2.2 An AET-based framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence 128

4.2.2.1 Charismatic leadership as affect- and judgment-driven behavior 129

4.2.2.2 The dual moderating role of leaders' emotional intelligence 131

4.2.2.3 Incorporating the work environment: The role of organizational context 134

4.2.2.4 Incorporating dispositional factors: The role of leaders' personality 137

4.2.3 Discussion 142

4.2.3.1 Summary and contributions 142

4.2.3.2 Limitations and future research directions 143

4.2.3.3 Practical implications 146

4.3 Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behavior Emergence: A Theoretical Extension 148

4.3.1 Theoretical background 148

4.3.1.1 The role of threat perceptions in managerial action 149

4.3.1.2 The relevance of stress theory 150

4.3.1.3 Incorporating the individual: Regulatory focus theory 151

4.3.2 A conceptual core model of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence 153

4.3.2.1 The joint impacts of leaders' perceived threat intensity and

controllability 154

4.3.2.2 Leaders' regulatory focus and perceived threat intensity 157

4.3.2.3 A three-way interaction of leaders' regulatory focus, perceived threat

intensity, and perceived threat controllability 159

4.3.3 Discussion 164

4.3.3.1 Summary and contributions 164

4.3.3.2 Limitations and future research directions 166

4.3.3.3 Practical implications 168

4.4 Overall Conclusions from Study 3 170

VI Table of Contents

5 Overall Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions 172

5.1 Overview of the Research Problem and Key Research Questions 172

5.2 Summary of Dissertation Findings 175

5.2.1 The emergence of charismatic leadership behaviors 175

5.2.2 The emergence of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors 177

5.2.3 Comparing the emergence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors 179

5.3 Main Contributions to the Literature 180

5.3.1 Contributions to the charismatic leadership literature 181

5.3.2 Contributions to the prevention-oriented leadership literature 182

5.4 Overall Limitations and Directions for Future Research 184

5.4.1 Empirical limitations and research directions 185

5.4.2 Theoretical limitations and research directions 188

5.5 Key Practical Implications 189

5.5.1 Implications for leader selection and promotion 190

5.5.2 Implications for leadership training 191

5.5.3 Implications for the design of leaders' organizational context 192

5.5.4 Strategic development of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership 193

5.6 Overall Conclusions and Outlook 194

References 196

Curriculum Vitae 236

List of Figures

VII

List of Figures

FIGURE 1.1: OVERALL DESIGN OF THE DISSERTATION 27

FIGURE 2.1: POSITIVE MOOD – EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE INTERACTION

ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP 66

FIGURE 4.1: BASIC TENETS OF AFFECTIVE EVENTS THEORY (FROM

WEISS & CROPANZANO, 1996, P. 12) 125

FIGURE 4.2: AN AET-BASED FRAMEWORK OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

BEHAVIOR EMERGENCE 128

FIGURE 4.3: A CORE MODEL OF PREVENTION-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP

BEHAVIOR EMERGENCE 154

FIGURE 4.4: PROPOSED THREE-WAY INTERACTION OF PERCEIVED THREAT

INTENSITY, PERCEIVED THREAT CONTROLLABILITY, AND

REGULATORY FOCUS ON PREVENTION-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 162

VIII List of Tables

List of Tables

TABLE 1.1: CHAPTER STRUCTURE 30

TABLE 2.1: SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS (STUDY 1) 52

TABLE 2.2: SURVEY ITEMS FOR POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE MOOD 53

TABLE 2.3: SURVEY ITEMS FOR EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 55

TABLE 2.4: SURVEY ITEMS FOR CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP (STUDY 1) 56

TABLE 2.5: SURVEY ITEMS FOR PREVENTION-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP 57

TABLE 2.6: AGGREGATION STATISTICS (STUDY 1) 62

TABLE 2.7: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS (STUDY 1) 63

TABLE 2.8: MODERATED HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES (STUDY 1) 65

TABLE 3.1: PARTICIPANT ORGANIZATION SIZES AND WITHIN-

ORGANIZATION RESPONSE RATES (STUDY 2) 99

TABLE 3.2: SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS (STUDY 2, EMPLOYEE SAMPLE) 100

TABLE 3.3: SURVEY ITEMS FOR CENTRALIZATION AND FORMALIZATION 102

TABLE 3.4: SURVEY ITEMS FOR CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP CLIMATE

(STUDY 2) 104

TABLE 3.5: AGGREGATION STATISTICS (STUDY 2) 108

TABLE 3.6: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS (STUDY 2) 110

TABLE 3.7: HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES (STUDY 2) 112

List of Abbreviations

IX

List of Abbreviations

β Beta-coefficient (Standardized regression weight)

ρ Estimated meta-analytic population correlation

AET Affective Events Theory

AIM Affect Infusion Model

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

ASA Attraction-Selection-Attrition

cf. confer

Ed./Eds. Editor/Editors

e.g. for example

et al. et alii

HR Human Resources

ICC Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

i.e. that is

JAWS Job-related Affective Well-being Scale

MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

MSCEIT Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test

n.s. not significant

p level of significance

p. page

r Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

rwg Index of interrater agreement

VIF Variance Inflation Factor

vs. versus

WLEIS Wong-Law Emotional Intelligence Scale

X Abstract

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors. Prior research has demonstrated the beneficial consequences of

these types of leadership. The emergence of such leadership, by contrast, has received

less scholarly attention. Thus, academic knowledge has remained fragmented and

incomplete, and organizational decision-makers have been left with limited advice

from leadership research on how to facilitate the respective behaviors.

To address these issues, I examine the development of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership in three independent studies. In Study 1, based on a sample of 34

leaders and 165 direct followers, both leaders' positive mood and emotional

intelligence are shown to enhance their charismatic behaviors. Also, emotional

intelligence is found to diminish the relationship between positive mood and

charismatic leadership. Leaders' mood and emotional intelligence are shown to be

unrelated, however, to their prevention-oriented behaviors. Drawing on a sample of

16'144 employees from 125 organizations, Study 2 demonstrates organizational

centralization and size to be negatively and formalization to be positively associated

with the occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors. Also, a marginally negative

relationship is found between organization size and prevention-oriented leadership,

while formalization is shown to be positively associated with the occurrence of such

behaviors. In the first part of Study 3, I develop a comprehensive, encompassing

theoretical framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence. This framework

promotes an integrative perspective on this issue to overcome the piecemeal approach

that has characterized this line of inquiry to date. And finally, in the second part of

Study 3, I present a theoretical core model of prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence, extending prior, more informal notions by outlining the complex interplay

of leaders' threat perceptions and regulatory focus.

In sum, this thesis provides empirical evidence for the role of affective and structural

factors in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. Also, it

builds new theory to further advance these areas of research. Thus, the dissertation

contributes to a better understanding of the development of effective leadership. It

indicates important directions for future research and outlines practical

recommendations on how to nurture charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors.

Zusammenfassung

XI

Zusammenfassung

Diese Dissertation untersucht die Entstehung charismatischer und präventionsorien-

tierter Führung. Die bestehende Forschung hat die positiven Konsequenzen dieser

Führungsstile gezeigt. Dagegen wurde der Entwicklung solchen Verhaltens nur wenig

Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Das derzeitige Wissen zu diesem Thema ist deshalb

fragmentiert und unvollständig, und Entscheidungsträger in der Praxis können kaum

auf die Führungsforschung zurückgreifen, um solche Führungsstile zu fördern.

Daher beleuchtet diese Arbeit die Entwicklung charismatischer und präventionsorien-

tierter Führung im Rahmen dreier unabhängiger Studien. Studie 1 zeigt in einem Sam-

ple von 34 Führungskräften und 165 Untergebenen, dass charismatische Führung

durch die positive Stimmung von Führungskräften und durch ihre emotionale Intelli-

genz verstärkt wird. Außerdem reduziert emotionale Intelligenz den Zusammenhang

zwischen positiver Stimmung und charismatischer Führung. Im Gegensatz dazu wir-

ken sich Stimmungen und emotionale Intelligenz nicht auf präventionsorientierte Füh-

rung aus. Studie 2 zeigt in einem Sample von 16'144 Mitarbeitern aus 125 Organisa-

tionen, dass Zentralisierung und Organisationsgröße das Auftreten charismatischer

Führung vermindern, während sich Formalisierung positiv auswirkt. Ebenso reduziert

die Organisationsgröße (marginal) das Auftreten präventionsorientierter Führung,

während Formalisierung auch hier positive Effekte hat. Der erste Teil von Studie 3

entwickelt einen umfassenden theoretischen Rahmen für die Entstehung charismati-

scher Führung. Dieser integrative Ansatz trägt dazu bei, den bruchstückhaften For-

schungsstand zu diesem Thema zu überwinden. Schließlich entwickelt der zweite Teil

von Studie 3 ein theoretisches Kernmodell der Entstehung präventionsorientierter Füh-

rung. Aufbauend auf bestehenden, informelleren Ideen wird das komplexe Zusammen-

spiel der Bedrohungswahrnehmung und des Regulationsfokus von Führungskräften

dargestellt.

Insgesamt liefert diese Arbeit empirische Hinweise auf die Rolle affektiver und struk-

tureller Faktoren bei der Entstehung charismatischer und präventionsorientierter Füh-

rung. Außerdem entwickelt sie neue theoretische Ansätze, um diese Forschungsfelder

weiter voranzutreiben. Sie trägt damit zu einem besseren Verständnis der Entwicklung

effektiver Führung bei und weist auf zukünftige Forschungsrichtungen hin. Schließlich

werden praktische Empfehlungen zur Förderung charismatischer und präventions-

orientierter Führung aufgezeigt.

Introduction

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background of the Dissertation

1.1.1 Introducing charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

In today's work environment, employees constitute an important resource for

organizations and a key determinant of corporate success, with employees' creativity,

motivation, and energy driving company performance (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; Cross,

Baker, & Parker, 2003; Lawler, 2003; Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999; Van de Ven, 1986). It is

critical, therefore, to harness these employee potentials for the pursuit of company

goals. Effective leadership has been suggested to constitute one of the most relevant

success factors in this respect (Northouse, 1997; Yukl, 2002). Thus, developing such

effective leadership behaviors may be crucial for organizations.

Since the early 1980s, "New Leadership" approaches have drawn considerable

attention in organizational research (Bass, 1999; Bryman, 1996; Hunt, 1999),

including closely related concepts such as charismatic (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1987;

House, 1977), transformational (e.g., Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Tichy & Ulrich, 1984),

and visionary leadership (e.g., Sashkin, 1988). Scholars have argued that even though

these differing approaches specify somewhat different leadership behaviors, they are

nevertheless complementary to a great extent and exhibit significant overlap. As

House and Shamir (1993) noted, for instance, all of these approaches either explicitly

or implicitly feature leaders' charisma as a central concept (see also House & Aditya,

1997). I therefore chose to refer to this type of leadership behaviors as "charismatic

leadership". Specifically, charismatic leadership behaviors include leaders acting as

role models for their followers, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and

motivating followers to contribute to the achievement of common aspirations (Bass,

1985; House, 1977; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Shamir, House,

& Arthur, 1993). Charismatic leaders display a sense of power and confidence and

make bold, unconventional, and counternormative decisions (Avolio & Bass, 1988;

Conger & Kanungo, 1987; 1994; Shamir et al., 1993). They develop an intriguing,

ideological vision of the future and present it in an emotionally captivating manner,

expressing their confidence that common aspirations can be achieved through

collective efforts (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987;

House, 1977; Sashkin, 1988; Shamir et al., 1993). Research has accumulated

2 Introduction

impressive empirical evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of charismatic

leadership behaviors, as indicated in several meta-analyses (Dumdum, Lowe, &

Avolio, 2002; Fuller & Patterson, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Charismatic and transformational leaders have been shown,

for instance, to strengthen followers' satisfaction (Hater & Bass, 1988), motivation,

trust, and identification (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998), contributing to

followers' performance (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Howell & Frost, 1989;

McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002) and to their organizations' financial success

(Waldman, Javidan & Varella, 2004; Waldman, Ramírez, House, & Puranam, 2001).

Recently, scholars have suggested that an additional leadership style – labeled

prevention-oriented leadership – may complement the beneficial effects of charismatic

leadership behaviors (Bruch, Shamir, & Cole, 2005; Bruch, Shamir, & Eilam-Shamir,

2007). Such prevention-oriented leadership has been defined as "leader behavior that

focuses on threats, dangers, and possible negative consequences" (Bruch et al., 2007,

p. 135). Specifically, prevention-oriented leaders direct followers' motivation towards

the avoidance of negative outcomes by deliberately framing issues as threats (cf.

Dutton & Jackson, 1987) and by emphasizing those threats towards followers in a

vivid, emotionally captivating manner (Bruch & Vogel, 2006; Bruch et al., 2005).

Also, prevention-oriented leaders clearly outline the steps necessary to resolve such

threats, and they acknowledge progress towards this goal, thus building followers'

confidence in their ability to eventually succeed in avoiding negative consequences

(Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2007). Importantly, prevention-oriented

leadership is not based on coercion or personal punishment. Rather, "it empowers

[followers] and highlights the importance of their effort in order to prevent potential

negative consequences for the collective (group, unit, or organization)" (Bruch et al.,

2007, p. 135). Although prevention-oriented leadership has only recently been

introduced to leadership research and has received scant scholarly attention to date, the

existing literature generally points to the positive implications of such leadership.

Howell (1997, p. 25) theorized, for instance, that "leaders who label changing

environmental conditions as a 'threat' may elicit more rapid and radical organization

changes" than leaders who focus on environmental opportunities (see also Perlitz &

Löbler, 1985). Supporting this notion, both anecdotal and qualitative evidence has

suggested prevention-oriented leadership behaviors to motivate followers to

Introduction

3

acknowledge and act upon environmental threats and to proactively engage in far-

reaching changes to overcome such threats (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Bruch &

Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2007; Grove, 1996; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997; Jansen, 2004;

Kotter, 1995; Schein, 1990). And finally, prevention-oriented leadership behaviors

have been shown in two independent, quantitative studies to enhance followers' goal

commitment and to reduce followers' complacency, contributing to positive group

outcomes over and above the effects of charismatic leadership (Bruch et al., 2005).

1.1.2 Outlining the research problem

Interestingly, even though scholars have learned a lot about the beneficial impacts of

charismatic leadership and have started to investigate the consequences of prevention-

oriented leadership, relatively little is known about the development of these

leadership behaviors (Bruch, Vogel, & Krummaker, 2006). With charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership having typically been treated as predictors for various

outcome variables (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996),

both theorizing and research have generally neglected the antecedents and

prerequisites of such leadership (Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Conger, 1999; Yukl, 1999).

This is not to say that no scholarly work has been done with regard to the development

of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors; however, the existing

literature on these issues exhibits substantial gaps and has remained limited,

incomplete, and fragmented to date (cf. Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004; Bruch et

al., 2006; see chapter 1.2). In other words, the nomological nets around these

leadership behaviors have not been fully developed, leaving scholars with limited

conceptual and empirical evidence to answer theoretically and practically important

questions such as: Why are some individuals more likely to exhibit charismatic and/or

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors than others? Under what conditions are

individuals more or less likely to exhibit such leadership behaviors?

In advancing extant knowledge on charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership,

attending to these questions seems crucial (cf. Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bruch et al.,

2006). The present dissertation, therefore, addresses these issues. It focuses on the

antecedents and prerequisites of leaders' charismatic and prevention-oriented

behaviors, adopting various different theoretical and empirical perspectives to outline

conditions which may either enhance or diminish the development of such leadership.

Thus, the dissertation aims at complementing the nomological nets surrounding these

4 Introduction

leadership styles, allowing for a more precise depiction of the individual and

contextual factors which drive charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence. It contributes to a more solid knowledge basis on the

development of effective leadership behaviors in organizations, enabling scholars to

better understand the key mechanisms underlying such processes.

I chose to simultaneously investigate the emergence of both charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, because these constructs have been

suggested to represent fundamentally different, yet complementary types of leadership

(Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). Charismatic leaders motivate followers for the pursuit of

visionary aspirations (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993), while

prevention-oriented leaders, by contrast, motivate followers to avoid negative

outcomes (Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). In spite of these differences, however, both

charismatic and prevention-oriented leaders emphasize the relevance of collective

efforts in order to successfully deal with challenges posed by the organizational

environment (Bruch et al., 2007; Shamir et al., 1993). In fact, prevention-oriented

leadership has been suggested to supplement visionary, charismatic leadership

behaviors, particularly in situations of acute, external threats (Bruch et al., 2005; 2006;

2007). In sum, then, charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership utilize differing,

yet complementary routes towards follower motivation. Thus, by simultaneously

studying both types of leadership, it may be possible to reveal theoretically interesting

commonalities and differences. This may enable a better understanding of antecedent

factors that do not only promote charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership, but that

strengthen both types of leadership behaviors and, therefore, strongly contribute to the

development of effective leadership in organizations.

Besides, investigating the antecedents of both charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership offers the opportunity to contribute to two very different fields of research,

with the former representing an established construct (Conger, 1999; Hunt, 1999) and

the latter having only recently been introduced to the leadership literature (Bruch et al.,

2005; 2007). Thus, the dissertation may broaden existing knowledge in the relatively

mature field of charismatic leadership, while simultaneously exploring new areas of

inquiry by contributing to the emerging knowledge on prevention-oriented leadership.

Introduction

5

1.1.3 Practical relevance

From a practical perspective, the present lack of knowledge on the antecedents of

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership seems troublesome, because

organizations aiming to stimulate charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors in

their leaders are left with little guidance and evidence from leadership research (cf.

Bommer et al., 2004; Bruch et al., 2006).

As indicated before, both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership may

constitute important drivers of organizational success, strengthening followers'

willingness to contribute to the achievement of organizational visions and aspirations,

to work towards overcoming imminent threats in the organizational environment, and

to perform beyond expectations (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bruch et al., 2005; 2007; Judge &

Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996). Organizations may, therefore, find it critical to

nurture the performance of these behaviors in their leaders, for instance by selecting

individuals for leadership positions in an appropriate manner, by engaging in

leadership development and training programs, and by offering favorable contextual

boundary conditions for the occurrence of such leadership (cf. Bass & Avolio, 1990;

Bruch et al., 2006; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Seebacher & Klaus, 2004).

Leadership research may substantially enhance the effectiveness of such efforts by

outlining the key levers companies may utilize in order to strengthen their leaders'

charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors (cf. Bass & Riggio, 2006). Thus, such

research has the potential to contribute to organizational performance in important

ways. Given the lack of antecedent-oriented research on charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors, however, this opportunity is lost to a large extent,

limiting the usefulness and the practical applicability of the existing literature on these

types of leadership.

The present thesis addresses this issue by systematically investigating the emergence

of both of these leadership styles. It deliberately focuses on antecedent variables which

are malleable through organizational interventions, pointing organizational decision-

makers to viable opportunities for nurturing leaders' charismatic and prevention-

oriented behaviors. Also, based on the dissertation findings, I will explicitly outline

practical recommendations for facilitating charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership through different measures, including leader selection and promotion,

6 Introduction

leadership training, and the design of leaders' work context, hopefully contributing to

the effectiveness and the success of organizational efforts in this regard.

1.2 Literature Review and Development of Specific Research

Questions

In order to be able to appropriately address the research problem indicated above, it is

necessary to narrow down this general topic into more specific research questions.

These questions should refer to concrete, clearly defined aspects of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. Also, they should address

research areas that are promising and relevant both from an academic and from a

practitioner perspective. And finally, given that the dissertation aims, among other

things, at uncovering commonalities and differences in the development of charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (see chapter 1.1.2), its specific research

questions should focus on the same potential antecedent variables for both types of

leadership whenever this is theoretically sound.

Given these premises, I decided to concentrate on the following specific research

areas:

• The role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence;

• The role of organizational structure in charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behavior emergence;

• Theoretical integration of prior work on charismatic leadership behavior

emergence through the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework;

• Theoretical extension of prior work on prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence through the development of a conceptual core model.

As I will show in this chapter, these research areas are particularly interesting, because

they address gaps in the existing literature which profoundly limit our understanding

of the development of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors and

because they offer the potential for important practical recommendations. To further

outline these arguments, the following sections will first provide a review of the

Introduction

7

literature on the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership in

general.1 Then I will focus on the specific research areas to be addressed in the

dissertation in more detail, outlining the importance of these topics, depicting relevant

research gaps, and, eventually, formulating specific research questions in this regard.

1.2.1 Prior research on the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership

As indicated before, charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership research differ

pronouncedly in their respective stages of development. The former has been widely

discussed in the academic leadership literature for more than two decades (Bass, 1999;

Bryman, 1999; Hunt, 1999), while the latter has only recently been introduced (Bruch

et al., 2005; 2007). This difference is mirrored in research on the antecedents of such

leadership. In spite of substantial gaps, scholars have gained interesting insights with

regard to charismatic leadership behavior emergence. Research on the development of

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, by contrast, has been limited to date and has

often relied on qualitative and/or anecdotal evidence. The following review of the

extant literature on specific antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership quite clearly outlines these differing stages of development.

1.2.1.1 The role of leaders' personality

Leaders' stable personality dispositions have, for instance, been argued to play a key

role both in theoretical and in empirical research on charismatic leadership behavior

emergence (Bommer et al., 2004); however, such personality characteristics have not

been discussed with regard to prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence to

date.

In the charismatic leadership literature, theorists have considered a wide array of

dispositional leader characteristics as potential antecedent variables.2 House and

1 The literature reviewed here only includes studies directly pertaining to the emergence of charismatic or

prevention-oriented leadership. Studies focusing on the development of other leadership behaviors (e.g., Judge,

Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002) or on the antecedents of leadership effectiveness (e.g., Judge, Colbert, & Ilies,

2004) are excluded to allow for a concise depiction of the state of research and of relevant gaps directly

pertaining to the research problem of interest in this thesis. 2 Besides personality characteristics, some researchers have also considered the impact of leaders' gender. A

meta-analysis by Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and Engen (2003), for instance, revealed that women are generally

more likely to exhibit charismatic leadership behaviors than men (even though it should be noted that the

respective effect sizes were relatively small).

8 Introduction

Howell (1992), for instance, theorized charismatic leaders to be characterized "by

several personality traits including: cognitive achievement orientation; strong

tendencies to be creative, innovative, visionary, and inspirational; high levels of work

involvement, energy, and enthusiasm; a strong propensity to take risks; self-

confidence; a high need for social influence coupled with a strong concern for the

moral and nonexploitive use of power in a socially desirable manner; willingness to

exercise influence but not to be dominant, tough, forceful, aggressive, or critical;

strong inclinations to be confident in, and encouraging toward, followers and to show

a developmental orientation towards followers; and tendencies to be nurturant, socially

sensitive, and sensitive to and considerate of follower needs" (p. 90; see also Bass,

1988; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Zaccaro & Banks, 2001). Empirical research has found

significant associations between a similarly broad array of personality traits and

charismatic leadership behaviors, including leaders' intelligence (Atwater &

Yammarino, 1993); proactivity (Crant & Bateman, 2000; Deluga, 1998); activity

inhibition and need for achievement, power, and affiliation (De Hoogh, Den Hartog,

Koopman, Thierry, Van den Berg, Van der Weide, & Wilderom, 2005a; House,

Spangler, & Woycke, 1991); locus of control (Howell & Avolio, 1993); risk-taking

and innovativeness (Howell & Higgins, 1990); self-confidence, pragmatism,

nurturance, criticalness and aggression (Ross & Offermann, 1997); trait positive

affectivity (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005); and postconventional moral reasoning

(Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002).

Recently, scholars have started to integrate this wide variety of personality-centered

research on the antecedents of charismatic leadership by focusing on the Big Five

personality traits, i.e., on leaders' extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, and neuroticism (e.g., De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2005b;

Judge & Bono, 2000; Lim & Ployhart, 2004; Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001). With

these Big Five traits representing broad constructs that incorporate many other

personality dispositions (John & Srivastava, 1999), this framework seems useful for

systematically cumulating prior research findings. Accordingly, Bono and Judge

(2004) meta-analyzed 26 independent studies on the personality antecedents of

charismatic leadership, utilizing the Big Five framework to organize prior results.

Together, the Big Five were found to explain a total of 12% of the variance in

charismatic leadership behaviors, with a significant positive effect for extraversion (ρ

Introduction

9

= .22) and a significant negative effect for neuroticism (ρ = -.17; Bono & Judge,

2004).3

In sum, while leaders' personality dispositions have not been considered in research on

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, they have been prominently

featured in antecedent-oriented charismatic leadership research, with theoretical and

empirical work strongly pointing to the relevance of such factors. It should be noted,

however, that the respective linkages generally seem to exhibit relatively moderate

effect sizes (Bono & Judge, 2004).

1.2.1.2 The role of leaders' attitudes and values

Various authors have discussed leaders' attitudes and values as charismatic leadership

antecedents, even though this line of inquiry has received considerably less research

attention than the personality-based approaches discussed above. In the prevention-

oriented leadership literature, by contrast, leaders' attitudes and values have not been

considered to date.

Theorizing on charismatic leadership behavior emergence has, for instance, pointed to

the potential role of leaders' positive work, leadership, and spiritual values (e.g.,

protestant work ethic, accountability, and trust; Klenke, 2005). Similarly, empirical

work on this issue has shown leaders' traditional, collectivistic, self-transcendent, and

self-enhancement values to strengthen their charismatic leadership behaviors, with this

set of values contributing about 10% to the variance explained in charismatic

leadership (Sosik, 2005). Further, scholars have empirically demonstrated leaders'

perceived psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, de Janasz, & Quinn, 1999) and

leaders' positive assessments of their followers' capabilities (Richardson &

Vandenberg, 2005) to enhance their inspirational and transformational leadership. And

finally, Bommer et al. (2004) found an inverse relationship between leaders' negative

change-oriented attitudes (i.e., their cynicism about organizational change) and their

performance of transformational leadership behaviors.

3 In contrast, conscientiousness was not significantly related to charismatic leadership (ρ = .05; Bono & Judge,

2004). Further, the effects for agreeableness and openness to experience were positive and comparable in size to

those for extraversion and neuroticism (ρs = .22). The 80% credibility intervals for these variables included zero,

however, indicating that they were inconsistently related to charismatic leadership in prior studies (Bono &

Judge, 2004).

10 Introduction

In sum, research on leaders' attitudes and values as prevention-oriented leadership

antecedents has not been conducted to date. Even in the case of charismatic leadership,

however, such research has been relatively scant. Extant theoretical notions and

empirical results suggest that leaders' charismatic behaviors may hinge on their

positive values and attitudes regarding their organizations, their work, and their

followers to some extent.

1.2.1.3 The role of leaders' cognition

Leaders' style of thinking and cognitive abilities have been considered both as

charismatic and as prevention-oriented leadership antecedents. First, with regard to

charismatic leadership, a small, but nevertheless interesting line of inquiry has started

to develop which explicitly interprets the emergence of such behaviors from a

cognitive perspective. Wofford and Goodwin (1994), for instance, have theorized

transformational leadership to depend, among other things, on leaders' cognitive goal

structures and self- and follower-schemata, on the abstractness of leaders' cognitive

scripts, and on their cognitive-attentional resource capacity. Partial support for these

notions has been provided by Wofford, Goodwin, and Whittington (1998), who

demonstrated leaders' cognitive structures to differ between transformational leaders

on the one hand and transactional leaders on the other hand. Particularly, leaders'

idealization of the organizational vision and leaders' cognitive transformational

motivation scripts were found to strengthen leaders' transformational leadership

cognitions, which, in turn, were positively related to their performance of

transformational leadership behaviors (see also Goodwin, Wofford, & Boyd, 2000).

With regard to prevention-oriented leadership, scholars have pointed towards leaders'

threat-related cognitive capabilities as potential influencing factors. It should be noted,

however, that the respective studies were mainly concerned with the consequences

rather than the antecedents of such leadership. The suggested relationship are,

therefore, based on relatively informal reasoning and have not been empirically tested

to date. Bruch and colleagues (2005, p. 31) noted, for instance, that the "ability to

credibly sensitize followers for dangers, possible threats, and potential losses" may

constitute a key prerequisite for the performance of prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors. This ability, in turn, has been suggested to depend on leaders' correct

perception and understanding of environmental threats (Bruch & Vogel, 2005).

Specifically, as Bruch and Vogel (2005) argued, effectively utilizing external threats in

Introduction

11

a prevention-oriented manner should only be possible if leaders clearly recognize and

fully grasp such threats, if they understand the threats' short- and medium-term

implications, and if they can develop viable approaches to overcome the respective

threats.

In sum, initial theoretical and (in the case of charismatic leadership) empirical work

has been conducted on the cognitive antecedents of both types of leadership behaviors

of interest in the present dissertation. While focusing on a variety of cognitive aspects

with respect to charismatic leadership, scholars' preliminary notions have mainly

concentrated on leaders' cognitive ability to perceive and understand external threats

from the organizational environment in prevention-oriented leadership research.

1.2.1.4 The role of crisis situations

Beyond the leader characteristics discussed above, research has also considered the

presence of crisis situations as an antecedent of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership. With respect to charismatic leadership behavior emergence, two opposing

theoretical perspectives on this issue have been advanced (Pillai & Meindl, 1998): On

the one hand, crises may provide leaders with the opportunity to engage in the bold,

powerful, and innovative actions that characterize charismatic leadership (see also

Boal & Bryson, 1988; Shamir & Howell, 1999). On the other hand, however,

followers might blame their leaders for the crisis situation, thus reducing leaders'

charismatic appeal and their opportunities to engage in charismatic behaviors.

Empirical studies have been inconclusive, offering support for both of these

perspectives. House et al. (1991), for instance, showed that higher behavioral charisma

was ascribed to U.S. presidents who faced substantial external crises during their

presidencies. Similarly, Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl (2004a) found president George W.

Bush's rhetorical language to contain more charismatic elements in the aftermath of the

crisis induced by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In contrast, Bligh, Kohles,

and Pillai (2004b) reported charismatic leadership ratings for California's then

governor Gray Davis to be negatively related to raters' perceptions of a state of crisis

in California; and Pillai and Meindl (1998) found followers to rate their direct leaders

as exhibiting less charismatic behaviors the more their work groups experienced crisis

situations.

12 Introduction

In prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, crisis situations in general and

external threats from the organizational environment in particular have also been

assigned a central role. Bruch and colleagues' (2007) investigation of top managerial

prevention-oriented leadership, for instance, deliberately focused on such leadership in

times of crisis, because, as the authors argued, "prevention-oriented leadership […]

may be especially relevant under such circumstances" (p. 136). As Bruch and Vogel

(2005) explained, the presence of an acute crisis or threat situation may enable leaders

to more easily and more convincingly incorporate information regarding such threats

in their communication with followers and to act upon such threats in a prevention-

oriented manner. In the absence of acute external threats, however, the performance of

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors may be more difficult and may, in many

cases, even appear inauthentic to followers (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; see also

Barnett & Pratt, 2000). Thus, crisis and threat situations may provide a fruitful and,

potentially, even a necessary context for prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence.

In sum, the literature suggests that crisis and threat situations may be important for the

emergence of both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. It is

noteworthy, however, that research findings on the specific effects of such conditions

on charismatic leadership have been contradictory. Also, extant work on this issue has

remained in an early developmental stage with regard to prevention-oriented

leadership, because, as indicated before, the respective studies mainly focused on the

outcomes of such leadership and have only peripherally touched upon its potential

antecedents.

1.2.1.5 The role of the organizational context

Finally, various organizational context characteristics have been suggested to influence

leaders' performance of charismatic behaviors, while such factors have not been

discussed as prevention-oriented leadership antecedents to date. Theorists such as Bass

and Avolio (1993a), Pawar and Eastman (1997), Shamir and Howell (1999), and

Waldman and Yammarino (1999), for example, have proposed a wide array of

contextual features to influence the development of charismatic leadership, suggesting

that such leadership behaviors are more likely to occur in higher rather then lower

positions of the organizational hierarchy (see also Rainey & Watson, 1996; Spreitzer

& Quinn, 1996), under a clan mode of governance rather than a market or bureaucratic

Introduction

13

mode, and in organizational cultures characterized by high levels of adaptiveness and

by a common sense of purpose, a feeling of family, and long-term commitments.

Empirical assessments of these purported relationships are scarce and have produced

ambiguous results. Bruch and Walter (in press), for example, found charismatic

leadership behaviors to be more pronounced among higher-level than among lower-

level leaders; however, contrary to the theorizing mentioned above, Lowe et al.'s

(1996) meta-analysis provided evidence for the reverse relationship. Also, Pillai and

Meindl (1998) found work groups' collectivistic culture to enhance group leaders'

performance of charismatic behaviors.

Further, some authors have investigated performance measures not only as outcomes,

but also antecedents of charismatic leadership, demonstrating that work groups'

(Keller, 1992) and organizations' (Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006)

performance may be positively related to subsequent ratings of charismatic leadership

behaviors. And yet a different line of inquiry has considered influences on leaders'

charismatic behaviors from the social context in the respective organizations,

demonstrating that focal leaders' charismatic behaviors may be more pronounced if

their superiors (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; see also Kuhnert & Lewis,

1987) or peers (Bommer et al., 2004) also exhibit such behaviors.

In sum, theorizing on charismatic (but not prevention-oriented) leadership behavior

emergence has pointed towards the relevance of several potential antecedents from the

organizational context. Empirical research is generally lacking behind in this

development, however, with only few studies investigating the purported relationships.

1.2.1.6 Summary

Research on leaders' personality, attitudes, values, and cognitions, on crisis situations,

and on various organizational context features as charismatic leadership antecedents

has provided interesting theoretical notions and important empirical results, even

though many of these areas of inquiry clearly exhibit substantial gaps. Research on

such factors as prevention-oriented leadership antecedents, on the other hand, has been

more limited and has remained in early stages of development, mainly pointing

towards the potential relevance of external threats and of leaders' ability to perceive,

understand, and communicate such threats. Obviously, future work on many of these

14 Introduction

issues might be interesting with regard to both charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behavior emergence.

I assert, however, that further empirical research, in particular, may more strongly

contribute to the leadership literature and more significantly advance our knowledge

on the antecedent conditions of both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership by

focusing on other areas. As indicated before, this refers to the role of leaders' mood

and emotional intelligence on the one hand and of organizational structure on the other

hand. In theoretical work, by contrast, it may be worthwhile to further address the

issues reviewed above, integrating prior research on the antecedents of charismatic

leadership and conceptually extending and refining previous, preliminary notions on

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. The present thesis, therefore, will

concentrate on these topics. In the following sections, I will discuss the relevance of

the respective lines of inquiry in more detail, reviewing prior work on these aspects

(where applicable) and specifying the research questions to be addressed in the

remainder of the dissertation.

1.2.2 The role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence

In recent years, leadership scholars have increasingly acknowledged the crucial role of

feelings, arguing that leadership inherently constitutes "an emotion-laden process"

(George, 2000, p. 1046; see also Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Daus, 2002; Avolio, Gardner,

Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Humphrey, 2002; Pescosolido, 2002).

Accordingly, both charismatic (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Avolio & Bass,

1988; Howell & Frost, 1989; Shamir et al., 1993) and prevention-oriented leadership

research (e.g., Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Bruch & Vogel, 2005) have emphasized

the relevance of emotional aspects, pointing, for instance, towards the affective

consequences of such leadership (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005; McColl-Kennedy &

Anderson, 2002; Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002).

Surprisingly, however, leaders' own moods and emotions have been neglected in most

research considering the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership. In the charismatic leadership literature, for instance, theorists like

Ashkanasy and Tse (2000) have proposed such leaders to more frequently experience

positive rather than negative affect, allowing them to communicate visionary

Introduction

15

aspirations in a positive and emotionally captivating manner and to form positive

relationships with followers (see also George, 2000). Also, Gardner and Avolio (1998)

theorized charismatic leaders to deliberately display positive emotions in order to

evoke similarly positive reactions in followers, thus creating a charismatic image for

themselves (see also Schyns & Mohr, 2004). To the author's knowledge, however, the

only empirical study providing initial support for these assertions has recently been

conducted by Bono and Ilies (2006), who demonstrated the positive emotions

expressed in leaders' vision statements to enhance followers' ratings of charismatic

leadership.

In the prevention-oriented leadership literature, the relevance of leaders' moods and

emotions has been more implicitly addressed by suggesting that such leadership

hinges, among other things, on the emotionally captivating communication of external

threats towards followers (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; Bruch & Vogel, 2005). As Bruch

and Ghoshal (2004, p. 152) held, for instance, "[followers] must not only see the threat

but also experience it emotionally, in their gut". Negative moods and emotions have,

therefore, been suggested to be particularly relevant for prevention-oriented leadership

processes (Bruch & Vogel, 2005). Importantly, however, more explicit, formal

theorizing and empirical research on the role of leaders' mood in performing

prevention-oriented behaviors is lacking to date.

The related issue area of leaders' emotional intelligence (cf. Mayer, 2001) has received

a greater amount of both theoretical and empirical attention in antecedent-oriented

charismatic leadership research, while this topic has only been touched upon in

research on the development of prevention-oriented leadership. Early theorizing has

argued, for instance, that leaders' ability to recognize and influence followers'

emotions is a fundamental prerequisite for charismatic leadership (Wasiliewski, 1985).

Similarly, more current theorists have suggested emotionally intelligent leaders to be

in a particularly good position to perform charismatic leadership behaviors, because

they should be able to effectively address their followers on an emotional basis

(Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; George, 2000; Prati, Douglas,

Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003). Empirical findings have largely supported this

notion by demonstrating positive linkages between leaders' emotional intelligence on

the one hand and their performance of charismatic leadership behaviors on the other

hand (e.g., Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000; Gardner &

16 Introduction

Stough, 2002; Groves, 2005; Leban & Zulauf, 2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003;

Middleton, 2005; Palmer, Walls, Burgees, & Stough, 2001; Rubin et al., 2005; Sosik

& Megerian, 1999). It should be noted, however, that due to the relatively early stage

of development of emotional intelligence research in general (cf. Brown & Moshavi,

2005; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005), many of these studies suffer from methodological

and/or conceptual shortcomings, such as common method variance (e.g., Mandell &

Pherwani, 2003; Palmer et al., 2001), lack of control variables (e.g., Gardner &

Stough, 2002; Sosik & Megerian, 1999), small sample sizes (e.g., Leban & Zulauf,

2004; Mandell & Pherwani, 2003), and ambiguous definitions of emotional

intelligence (e.g., Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Barling et al., 2000).

Implicitly pointing to the role of leaders' emotional intelligence, the prevention-

oriented leadership literature has portrayed such leadership as extremely challenging

for leaders' emotional capabilities, because leaders need to find appropriate ways to

address their followers through the emotionally captivating communication of threats

(Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Bruch et al., 2005). As Bruch et al. (2007) argued, for

instance, prevention-oriented leadership requires leaders to balance two seemingly

contradictory tasks, as they "need to calibrate the level of threat experienced by

organization members so that it is not so high that it paralyzes them […], and at the

same time is high enough to maintain organization members' prevention-oriented

motivational forces" (p. 136; see also Barnett & Pratt, 2000). Intuitively, leaders'

emotional intelligence seems to be relevant in this respect, even though this notion has

not been explicitly voiced or empirically tested to date.

Given the state of research described above, further theorizing and, more importantly,

further empirical work on the role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence seems urgently

required. Such research may contribute to a better understanding of the affective

mechanisms that make for the development of these types of leadership. The present

thesis, therefore, develops and tests hypotheses on leaders' mood and emotional

intelligence as charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership antecedents. Thus, I aim

at advancing charismatic leadership research, in particular, by refining, extending, and

empirically scrutinizing prior theory. Also, by addressing some of the shortcomings in

previous research on the emotional intelligence – charismatic leadership linkage, I

hope to constructively replicate (cf. Eden, 2002) earlier findings, strengthening our

Introduction

17

confidence in the viability of this relationship. In addition, the dissertation may

contribute to prevention-oriented leadership research, in particular, by building upon

prior notions in developing and empirically testing theory on the role of leaders' mood

and emotional intelligence. Thus, it may take first, important steps towards outlining

the antecedent conditions of leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors in a more detailed

manner and towards more firmly anchoring affective factors in the respective

literature.

In sum, this thesis may extend prior work on the antecedents of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership by building more solid, empirically substantiated

knowledge on the role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence, supplementing the

personality, cognitive, attitude, and context-based approaches reviewed in chapter

1.2.1. Also, I hope to clarify differences and commonalities in the relevance of such

affective factors for leaders' charismatic behaviors on the one hand and their

prevention-oriented behaviors on the other hand, outlining the extent to which the

emergence mechanisms for these leadership styles overlap. And finally, I aim at

directing practitioners towards some viable levers for strengthening effective

leadership behaviors in their organizations, for instance by influencing leaders' mood

in an appropriate manner (cf. Brief & Weiss, 2002) or by strengthening leaders'

emotional intelligence (cf. Caruso & Wolfe, 2004). Hence, the dissertation will

address the following research question:

Research question 1: How are leaders' mood and emotional intelligence related

to their performance of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors?

1.2.3 The role of organizational structure in charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behavior emergence

As Porter and McLaughlin (2006) concluded from an intense review of the respective

literature, features of the organizational structure have been suggested to importantly

shape leadership processes within organizations. Interestingly, however, organizational

structure has only been a minor topic in most research on the antecedents of

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership, in particular. This literature, therefore,

has largely neglected an important class of potential influencing factors, limiting

extant knowledge on the development of such leadership.

18 Introduction

In charismatic leadership research, for instance, theorizing on the role of

organizational structure is relatively advanced, while empirical research is in an early

stage of development. Numerous theorists have proposed structural features to

influence the occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors, often focusing on the

distinction between organic versus mechanistic structures (cf. Burns & Stalker, 1994;

Tosi, 1991) in outlining this argument. As Shamir and Howell (1999, p. 269)

suggested, for example, charismatic leadership should occur more frequently in more

organic rather than mechanistic contexts, because organic organizations may "provide

both a greater need and a greater scope" for the respective leadership behaviors to

emerge (see also Bass & Riggio, 2006; Howell, 1997; Kark & Van-Dijk, 2007).

Similarly, House (1991) argued that leaders in organic organizations will rely on

charismatic sources of authority more frequently than leaders in mechanistic, highly

bureaucratic settings. And along the same lines, Pawar and Eastman (1997) proposed

transformational leadership behaviors to occur more frequently in organizations with

simple, adhocracy structures than in organizations with complex, machine-type

structures. Empirical work on the role of structural features in charismatic leadership

behavior emergence, however, has been rare, and it has mostly provided only indirect

evidence for these purported relationships. Rather than focusing on structural

influences from the organizational level, for instance, some studies have shown

charismatic leadership behaviors to occur more frequently in more organic than

mechanistic subunits of the organization (Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Shamir, Goldberg-

Weill, Breinin, Zakay, & Popper, 2000). Other researchers have focused on the

individual level of analysis, demonstrating individual employees' perceptions of the

organizational structure to significantly influence their transformational leadership

ratings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Sarros, Tanewski, Winter, Santora,

& Densten, 2002). Thus, in spite of interesting theoretical advances, there is little

empirically corroborated knowledge on the linkage between organizations' structural

setup and the occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors within the respective

organizations. I, therefore, concur with Conger's (1999) and Yukl's (1999) evaluation

that our understanding of the role of structural context factors in charismatic leadership

behavior emergence remains poor, and I echo their call for more empirical work on

this issue.

Introduction

19

In the limited literature on prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence,

organizational structure has not been discussed to date either in a theoretical or in an

empirical manner. Intuitively, however, prevention-oriented leadership should not to

be fully independent from the organizational context in which such behaviors take

place. After all, facets of the organizational structure have been suggested to strongly

shape employees' behaviors in general (e.g. Brass, 1981; Rousseau, 1978) and various

types of leadership behaviors in particular (e.g., Porter & McLaughlin, 2006). A

connection between organizational structure and the occurrence of prevention-oriented

leadership within the respective organization, therefore, seems likely. Thus, both

theorizing and research on the structural antecedents of leaders' prevention-oriented

behaviors seems required to put such intuitive notions on a more solid conceptual and

empirical fundament.

Further work on the role of organizational structure in the development of both

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, therefore, seems

worthwhile. Such research may contribute to a better understanding of potential

macro-contextual influences on these types of leadership. Thus, the present

dissertation addresses recent calls for a more prominent representation of contextual

factors in leadership research (Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 2002; Porter & McLaughlin,

2006) by developing and testing hypotheses on organizations' structure as a

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership antecedent. It may advance the specific

literature on charismatic leadership behavior emergence by extending prior theorizing

and by putting such theory to an empirical test, complementing the predominantly

conceptual perspective which has characterized this line of inquiry to date. Also, the

thesis may contribute to the prevention-oriented leadership literature, in particular, by

developing initial theoretical notions on the role of organizational structure and by

empirically testing the resulting hypotheses. This constitutes the first attempt to more

firmly locate the development of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors within its

organizational context.

In sum, by investigating the structural antecedents of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership, this dissertation may allow for the explanation of systematic

differences in such leadership not only between individual leaders, but also between

organizations, potentially providing important insights as to why the respective

leadership behaviors are more likely to emerge in some organizations than in others

20 Introduction

(cf. Conger, 1999; Yukl, 1999). Also, I aim at illuminating differences and

commonalities in the relevance of structural factors for charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors, respectively, outlining distinctive and common features

in the development of such leadership. And finally, from a practical perspective, I

hope to create more reliable knowledge on specific organizational design interventions

that may contribute to the occurrence of effective leadership behaviors by offering a

supportive context. Given these considerations, the following research question will be

investigated:

Research question 2: How is organizational structure related to the occurrence

of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors in organizations?

1.2.4 Theoretical integration of prior work on charismatic leadership behavior

emergence

When considering the antecedent-oriented literature on charismatic leadership

reviewed in this chapter, it is noteworthy that such research has generally proceeded in

a rather piecemeal, fragmented manner. Empirical studies on this issue have typically

focused on one single type of antecedent variables, specifically investigating, for

instance, the role of leaders' personality (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004), leaders' values

and attitudes (e.g., Sosik, 2005; Spreitzer et al., 1999), or of particular contextual

features (e.g., Bass et al., 1987). With few exceptions (Bommer et al., 2004; De Hoogh

et al., 2005b; Groves, 2005), such work has refrained from simultaneously testing the

impacts of different classes of variables (e.g., personality traits and contextual factors).

This approach is mirrored in research questions 1 and 2 of the present dissertation,

which separately focus on the role of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence on the

one hand and on the role of organizational structure on the other hand in charismatic

leadership behavior emergence. Interestingly, prior conceptual work has exhibited a

similar orientation. Such theorizing has typically concentrated exclusively either on

specific leader characteristics (e.g., leaders' personality [House & Howell, 1992],

values [Klenke, 2005], or cognitions [Wofford & Goodwin, 1994]) or on specific

contextual characteristics (e.g., organizational structure and culture [Pawar &

Eastman, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999]) as charismatic leadership antecedents.

Broader, more comprehensive theoretical accounts of charismatic leadership behavior

emergence, simultaneously incorporating various types of antecedent variables, by

contrast, have not been proposed to date.

Introduction

21

Hence, extant theorizing and research on the antecedents of charismatic leadership is

clearly lacking an integrative, more inclusive perspective. Little is known about the

relative importance of different types of influencing factors in driving such leadership

behaviors. Also, while the impacts of single, specific variables may be relatively well

understood, it is difficult to comprehensively evaluate the joint role and the interplay

of various different antecedents. Further conceptual work, therefore, seems required to

create initial insights in this regard. Such work should incorporate various prior

approaches towards charismatic leadership behavior emergence (e.g., simultaneously

considering the role of personality dispositions, attitudes and values, affective factors,

and contextual characteristics), thereby contributing to a better understanding of the

complex and diverse mechanisms that may underlie the development of such

leadership behaviors in organizations (cf. Hunt, 1999).

The present dissertation addresses this issue by formulating an integrative theoretical

framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence and by developing research

propositions in this regard. It will comprehensively combine various leader- and

context-based antecedent variables discussed in prior research (including those

addressed in research questions 1 and 2) into one common, overarching conceptual

model. By building such theory, I hope to broaden extant knowledge on the

development of charismatic leadership behaviors, to contribute to a better

understanding of the relative impacts and the interrelationships between different types

of influencing factors, and to advance more coherent thinking about the antecedents of

such leadership. Also, I aim at stimulating further, more comprehensive research in

this area of inquiry, overcoming the fragmentation which characterizes the existing

literature. From a practical perspective, the theoretical model to be developed here

may help organizational decision-makers to more effectively nurture charismatic

leadership behaviors by combining different types of interventions in a

comprehensive, strategically integrated manner rather than relying on single, isolated

initiatives. Building on these considerations, I will address the following theoretical

research question:

Research question 3: How can the development of charismatic leadership

behaviors be explained within a comprehensive theoretical framework?

22 Introduction

1.2.5 Theoretical extensions of prior work on prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence

Finally, the literature on prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence reviewed

here clearly reveals the early stage of development of this line of research. Empirical

studies have not been conducted to date, and even theoretical work has only started to

address the antecedents and prerequisites of leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors.

Preliminary notions in this regard have mainly pointed to the relevance of external

threats in the organizational environment and to the role of leaders' perception,

understanding, and communication of such threats (e.g., Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch

et al., 2005; 2007). As noted before, however, these suggested relationships have

remained somewhat speculative, because the respective studies were mostly concerned

with the outcomes rather than the antecedents of prevention-oriented leadership (see

chapter 1.2.1.3 and 1.2.1.4). Thus, our theoretical knowledge about the development of

this type of leadership behaviors has remained limited to date, and further conceptual

work on this issue seems urgently required. Such theorizing could build on the

preliminary considerations outlined above, extending such notions by explicating core

mechanisms of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence and outlining

crucial psychological prerequisites that may trigger such behaviors in leaders. It may

advance a more thorough understanding and contribute to overcoming the prevailing

lack of theory on the antecedents of prevention-oriented leadership.

The present dissertation addresses this issue by building a theoretical core model of

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence and by developing propositions for

future research. In line with Bruch and colleagues' initial ideas, the respective model

will center around leaders' perceptions of external threats as key drivers of prevention-

oriented leadership (cf. Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2005). It will extend these

notions and put them on a more solid theoretical foundation. Importantly, unlike the

theoretical framework to be developed with regard to research question 3, this model is

not supposed to provide an integrative theoretical account of numerous potential

antecedents. Given the existing, limited knowledge on prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence, such an approach would seem premature. Rather, the present

model will theoretically link a small, clearly defined set of proximal antecedent

variables to leaders' performance of prevention-oriented behaviors, outlining crucial

mechanisms that may provide for a possible association between leaders' threat

Introduction

23

perceptions on the one hand and their prevention-oriented leadership behaviors on the

other hand. Also, it will try to account for the potential complexities underlying this

relationship and to identify possible boundary conditions.

In sum, through the present model, I aim at creating fundamental knowledge on key

processes of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence and at building basic

theory in this respect. This should advance the literature in important ways by placing

the antecedents (rather than the consequences) of prevention-oriented leadership in the

center of considerations. Also, I hope to trigger more research in this under-explored

area by providing a viable starting point both for further theory development and,

eventually, for future empirical investigations. And finally, I aim at outlining possible

intervention opportunities for practitioners trying to nurture prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors in their organizations by illustrating potential key levers in this

regard. In sum, the dissertation will address the following, final theoretical research

question:

Research question 4: How can the development of prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors be explained within a theoretical core model, using

leaders' threat perceptions as a key antecedent variable?

1.3 Target Groups and Value of the Dissertation

Given the research problem, the specific research questions, and the aims outlined

above, the present dissertation may be of interest for leadership scholars, but also for

decision-makers in organizational practice and for students in the area of management

and organizational behavior.

For leadership scholars, the thesis may contribute to a better understanding of

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. It may, therefore,

supplement previous, outcome-focused research on these leadership styles. By

empirically scrutinizing and extending prior theorizing on the relevance of leaders'

mood, emotional intelligence, and organizational structure, for instance, the present

dissertation will build greater knowledge on the role of such antecedent variables.

Also, by developing further theory on the emergence of charismatic and prevention-

24 Introduction

oriented leadership behaviors, the thesis will promote a broader conceptual knowledge

base, and it will point towards important areas for future investigations.

Organizational decision-makers may also gain important insights into the antecedent

conditions of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership from the dissertation.

This may enable them to build their leadership development efforts on more solid,

theoretically and empirically well-founded knowledge. Based on the present results,

Human Resource professionals and top managers may, for instance, be able to

effectively incorporate affective factors in leader selection and leadership training

programs and to stimulate charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors

through the appropriate design of their organizations' structural setup. Also, this

dissertation may afford organizational decision-makers the chance to facilitate such

leadership in a more comprehensive, strategically integrated, and, eventually, more

successful manner.

Finally, students of management and organizational behavior may benefit from this

thesis, because it complements the emphasis prior work has put on the consequences

of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. The literature review

presented above, for instance, should enable students to get a quick, comprehensive

overview of extant research on the emergence of such leadership. Also, by focusing on

affective and structural factors, the dissertation may afford students with a better

understanding of the role of different types of antecedent variables. And lastly, the

theorizing offered in this thesis may help students to gain greater, well-organized

knowledge on the mechanisms driving charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence.

1.4 Outline of the Dissertation

1.4.1 Overall design

The research questions and aims to be addressed in this thesis (see chapter 1.2)

approach the central research problem (i.e., the emergence of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors) from a variety of pronouncedly differing

perspectives. These differences carry important implications in terms of the overall

design of the dissertation. Research questions 1 and 2, for instance, both take an

Introduction

25

empirical approach towards uncovering specific influencing factors of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership. Importantly, however, these questions refer to different

levels of analysis (cf. Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Rousseau, 1985). The focal level of

analysis in research question 1 is the individual leader, because leaders' mood and

emotional intelligence are investigated as antecedents of their charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. By contrast, research question 2 refers to the

organizational level of analysis, because it considers organizations' structural setup as

an antecedent of the occurrence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors within the respective organizations. As Klein, Dansereau, and Hall (1994)

noted, such differences in the focal level of analysis need to be considered in study

design, and they need to be reflected in data collection and in the measurement of

study variables.

Specifically, research questions 1 and 2 pose differing data requirements which are

difficult to reconcile within a single study. Empirically addressing research question 1

requires data on multiple individual leaders' mood, emotional intelligence, and

leadership behaviors. Addressing research question 2, on the other hand, requires data

on multiple organizations' structure and on the occurrence of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors within these organizations. In order to meet

these differing requirements, the present thesis employs two separate empirical studies

to consecutively address research question 1 (i.e., Study 1) and research question 2

(i.e., Study 2). These studies utilize different samples and different strategies of data

collection in order to account for their different levels of analysis and to provide

suitable data to appropriately address their respective research questions.4

Further, research questions 3 and 4 address the dissertation's research problem from a

conceptual perspective. They differ from the questions discussed above, because they

are directed towards theoretically integrating and extending prior work through the

development of theoretical frameworks for charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behavior emergence, rather than empirically investigating the role of

specific antecedent variables. These conceptual research questions are, therefore,

addressed in an additional, separate study (Study 3). This final study is further divided

into two parts, with the first part integrating extant research (including the results from

4 Details on the data collection procedures and the measures employed in Studies 1 and 2 are provided in

chapters 2.3 and 3.4, respectively.

26 Introduction

Studies 1 and 2) into a comprehensive framework for the emergence of charismatic

leadership behaviors (i.e., research question 3), and the second part extending previous

work by developing a theoretical core model of prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence (i.e., research question 4).

In sum, the present thesis consists of three separate studies, which adopt differing

perspectives on the underlying research problem, namely the emergence of charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. Its overall design is graphically depicted

in Figure 1.1. While this approach is somewhat unusual for a dissertation, it provides

distinct advantages which justify its use in the present case (cf. Macus, 2002). First

and foremost, adopting multiple research perspectives towards the development of

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors offers the opportunity to

illuminate different, diverse aspects of these complex phenomena. Rather than

focusing on a single set of influencing factors, multiple types of antecedent variables

can be considered in spite of differing data requirements, contributing to a more

encompassing view on the present research problem. Also, discussing such differing

types of antecedent variables in separate studies allows for greater parsimony, because

the individual studies' arguments and contributions can be outlined in a more focused

manner. And finally, by combining both empirical and conceptual approaches, the

dissertation has the chance to both test and refine prior theorizing and to extend such

theory towards new areas.

In addition, various steps are taken to interconnect the individual studies' results and to

provide for a solid integration of these separate studies. First, in spite of their differing

perspectives, the three studies all focus on the same, clearly defined issue area, as they

all share an interest in uncovering the antecedent conditions of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership. Second, when theoretically integrating and extending

prior work in Study 3, the dissertation incorporates some of the results derived from

Studies 1 and 2, thus pointing towards connections between its separate studies. And

finally, the results and considerations from Studies 1 through 3 are discussed and

summarized in a comprehensive manner in the concluding chapter. This should allow

for an overall assessment of the key learnings and implications which can be derived

from the present thesis.

Introduction

27

Figure 1.1: Overall Design of the Dissertation

Introduction

Research problem; literature review; specific research questions; outline of the dissertation

Introduction


Overall Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions

Summary of main results and contributions; discussion of limitations and implications; overall conclusions



Study 1

Empirical investigation of the role of

leaders’ mood and emotional intelligence

Study 1



Study 2


organizational structure

Study 2



Study 3

Theoretical integration and

extension of prior work

Study 3



Introduction


Introduction






Study 1



Study 1



Study 2



Study 2



Study 3



Study 3



In sum, the design of this dissertation enables multi-faceted, diverse perspectives on its

central research problem, utilizing different approaches and methods to account for

various important aspects of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence. At the same time, however, this design should allow for an integration of

these diverse approaches into a coherent view on the development of such leadership.

1.4.2 Methodological approach

In addressing its research questions, this dissertation adopts a positivist research

paradigm (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Lowe, 2002). Hence, study hypotheses and

propositions are developed in a deductive manner, building on prior theorizing and

research. Also, hypotheses testing in Studies 1 and 2 is based on quantitative data

gathered from standardized surveys in organizational field settings (see chapters 2.3

28 Introduction

and 3.4 for details). This approach is in line with a large body of research that has been

conducted on charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005;

Judge & Piccolo, 2004), even though qualitative studies have also been done on these

issues (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1993b; Bruch et al., 2007). Given the developmental stage

of leadership research in general (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997) and charismatic

leadership research in particular (e.g., Bass & Riggio, 2006), such a deductive,

quantitative paradigm seems appropriate for the present dissertation. It allows for the

systematic testing of research hypotheses in an easily replicable manner, and it enables

relatively general, abstract descriptions and conclusions (King, Keohane, & Verba,

1994; Stier, 1999; see chapter 5.4.1, however, for potential drawbacks of this

approach).

Furthermore, the thesis acknowledges the status of management research as an applied

science which is supposed to contribute both to the explanation and to the effective

design of organizational phenomena (Nienhüser, 1993; Ulrich, 1984). This implies that

the motivation for the dissertation project stems from the presence of a research

problem that is both theoretically and practically relevant. As outlined before, the lack

of knowledge on the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership is

troublesome both from a scholarly perspective (because important questions on these

issues remain unanswered) and from a practical point of view (because organizations

cannot rely on a solid base of knowledge when trying to nurture the respective

leadership behaviors). Thus, by addressing its research questions, the dissertation

contributes both to leadership research and to the practice of leadership in

organizations. Its findings may have important implications both for scholars

investigating the emergence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors and for organizational decision-makers trying to facilitate such leadership in

their organizations. These implications will be emphasized both in discussing the

individual studies' results and in concluding the overall dissertation (e.g., see chapter

5).

1.4.3 Chapter structure

In summary, this thesis is divided into five chapters to address its key research

questions. The main contents of these chapters are briefly reviewed in the following, in

order to enable a better orientation within the dissertation.

Introduction

29

• Chapter 1: Introduction

The introductory chapter defines the dissertation's focal constructs and outlines the

general research problem to be investigated. It points to the theoretical and

practical relevance of this research problem, and – based on a review of the

existing literature – it develops the specific research questions to be dealt with.

Also, this chapter provides an overview of the dissertation's overall design, general

methodological approach, and chapter structure.

• Chapter 2: Study 1 - The role of mood and emotional intelligence

This chapter addresses research question 1. First, it develops hypotheses pertaining

to leaders' mood and emotional intelligence as antecedents of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership. The chapter then describes the empirical methods

employed for testing these hypotheses and depicts the respective results. It

concludes by discussing the outcomes of Study 1, acknowledging its limitations,

and describing its implications for research and practice.

• Chapter 3: Study 2 - The role of organizational structure

This chapter addresses research question 2. It develops hypotheses linking

organizational structure to the occurrence of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors in organizations. After describing the empirical methods

employed for testing these hypotheses, the chapter outlines the respective results. It

concludes by discussing the outcomes of Study 2, acknowledging its limitations,

and reflecting on research and practical implications.

• Chapter 4: Study 3 - Theoretical integration and extension of prior work

This chapter addresses research questions 3 and 4. Integrating and extending prior

work, it builds a comprehensive theoretical framework pertaining to the

antecedents of charismatic leadership, and it develops a theoretical core model of

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. Based on these conceptual

considerations, it drafts propositions that may guide future research on the

development of such leadership. The chapter also discusses the limitations of its

theoretical models, and it outlines potential implications for further research and

practice.

30 Introduction

• Chapter 5: Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions

The final chapter provides an overview of the key findings of the thesis, integrating

and consolidating the three separate studies presented in prior chapters. It outlines

the dissertation's main contributions to the literature, critically reflects on its major

limitations, and points towards key implications for research and practice, before

concluding with some final thoughts.

In Table 1.1, the overall chapter structure of the dissertation is depicted as an

overview.

Table 1.1: Chapter Structure

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background of the Dissertation

1.2 Literature Review and Development of

Specific Research Questions

1.3 Target Groups and Value of the Dissertation

1.4 Outline of the Dissertation

Chapter 2: Study 1 – The Role of Leaders' Mood and Emotional Intelligence

2.1 Introduction and Intended Contributions 2.2 Theoretical Background and

Hypotheses Development

2.3 Description of Study Methods

2.4 Results

2.5 Discussion of Study 1 Findings

Chapter 3: Study 2 – The Role of Organizational Structure

3.1 Introduction and Intended Contributions

3.2 Conceptual Issues and Definitions

3.3 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Development


3.5 Results 3.6 Discussion of Study 2 Findings

Chapter 4: Study 3 – Theoretical Integration and Extension of Prior Work


4.2 Charismatic Leadership Behavior Emergence:

A Theoretical Integration

4.3 Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behavior

Emergence: A Theoretical Extension

4.4 Overall Conclusions from Study 3

Chapter 5: Overall Summary, Discussion and Conclusions

5.1 Overview of the Research Problem and Key

Research Questions

5.2 Summary of Dissertation Findings

5.3 Main Contributions to the Literature

5.4 Overall Limitations and Directions for

Future Research

5.5 Key Practical Implications

5.6 Overall Conclusions and Outlook

Study 1 - Mood and Emotional Intelligence 31

2 Study 1 - The Role of Leaders' Mood and Emotional

Intelligence


This chapter addresses research question 1 by empirically investigating the role of

leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in the development of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. As outlined before, charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership research have both pointed towards the relevance of

such affective factors (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Bruch et al., 2005;

Wasiliewski, 1985). These leadership styles have, for instance, been suggested to

hinge upon the emotionally captivating communication of visions and threats,

respectively (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Shamir et al., 1993). Also, both

charismatic and prevention-oriented leaders have been shown to strongly influence

their followers' moods and emotions (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005; McColl-Kennedy &

Anderson, 2002; Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002).

Notably, however, literature on leaders' mood as a potential antecedent of such

leadership behaviors has largely been theoretical in the case of charismatic leadership

(e.g., Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000), with only few initial empirical investigations (e.g.,

Bono & Ilies, 2006), and it has remained in even earlier stages of development in the

case of prevention-oriented leadership (e.g., Bruch & Vogel, 2005; see chapter 1.2.2).

Organizations aiming to nurture charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors are, therefore, left with little solid, empirically corroborated knowledge

about the role of leaders' mood in this regard.

As the literature reviewed in chapter 1.2.2 shows, this situation is somewhat different

with regard to leaders' emotional intelligence. Literature on charismatic leadership has

devoted considerable theoretical and empirical attention to this issue, pointing towards

a positive relationship between leaders' emotional intelligence and their performance

of charismatic leadership behaviors (e.g., Middleton, 2005; Rubin et al., 2005). It

should be noted, however, that much of this literature suffers from methodological

and/or conceptual problems associated with the early stage of development of

emotional intelligence research in general (cf. Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Daus &

Ashkanasy, 2005). In the case of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence,

32 Study 1 - Mood and Emotional Intelligence

scholars have also pointed towards the relevance of leaders' emotional abilities (e.g.,

Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2005), even though there has been no formal

theorizing or empirical research on this issue. Thus, further research seems required

with regard to the role of emotional intelligence in the development of both

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors.

Interestingly, neither the charismatic nor the prevention-oriented leadership literature

have empirically considered the potential interplay of leaders' mood and emotional

intelligence in influencing the respective leadership behaviors. This is surprising,

given that emotional intelligence includes, among other things, individuals' ability to

understand and effectively utilize their own moods and emotions (Mayer, 2001).5

Accordingly, theorizing clearly suggests these constructs to influence leaders'

behaviors in a non-additive, interactive manner (George, 2000). Nevertheless,

empirical research on the joint impact of leaders' mood and emotional intelligence in

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence has not been

conducted to date, substantially limiting our knowledge in this area of inquiry.

I aim at addressing these research gaps in the present study, broadening extant

knowledge about the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

and contributing to leadership theory and research in various ways. First, by

empirically considering leaders' mood as an antecedent variable of their charismatic

and prevention-oriented behaviors, I extend prior approaches to the emergence of such

leadership (e.g., the personality-, cognition-, or attitude-based approaches outlined in

chapter 1.2.1). To the author's knowledge, this research is among the first empirical

studies to investigate such linkages. It may, therefore, put prior theorizing (see chapter

1.2.2) to an initial test and promote a better understanding of the affective mechanisms

responsible for the development of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors in organizations.

Second, I aim at corroborating prior research findings on the role of leaders' emotional

intelligence as a charismatic leadership antecedent, in particular, through constructive

replication (cf. Eden, 2002), using a measure of emotional intelligence that has not be

employed in the context of charismatic leadership behavior emergence so far, namely

the scale developed by Wong and Law (2002). As Eden (2002) argued, such

5 For a more detailed definition of emotional intelligence, please refer to chapter 2.2.2.1.


constructive replication may add to existing research by strengthening confidence in

the validity and the robustness of the respective results. With regard to the role of

emotional intelligence as a prevention-oriented leadership antecedent, I aim at putting

prior, informal notions on a more solid theoretical fundament and at empirically

scrutinizing whether the asserted relevance of emotional intelligence can be supported.

This might constitute an important step towards creating a more thorough knowledge

base on the development of such leadership.

And finally, by examining potential interactive relationships between leaders' mood

and emotional intelligence in influencing their charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors, I hope to contribute to greater knowledge on the interplay of

these affective constructs as leadership antecedents. As Brown and Moshavi (2005)

argued, investigating such interactive relationships may advance both leadership and

emotional intelligence research by enabling new perspectives on these issues. Rather

than considering the role of either leaders' mood or leaders' emotional intelligence in

isolation, this approach may provide for a more complete understanding of the role of

such affective factors in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence.

In the following sections, I will describe the study's theoretical background and

develop specific research hypotheses on the role of leaders' mood, emotional

intelligence, and the interaction thereof, before explicating the empirical methods

employed for hypotheses testing. I will then outline the study results and discuss the

respective contributions to the literature, limitations, and directions for future research

and practice.

2.2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

2.2.1 The role of leaders' mood

2.2.1.1 Theoretical Background

Moods (in contrast to acute emotions) have been defined as relatively subtle, diffuse,

and enduring feeling states that are not directed towards any particular object,

providing the affective context for day-to-day thought processes and behaviors

(Forgas, 2000a; George, 1989). Based on the respective feeling states' subjective


valence, scholars have generally distinguished broad positive and negative mood

categories (e.g., Watson & Tellegen, 1985; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Such moods

may be particularly relevant for predicting individuals' cognitions and behaviors due to

their frequent occurrence and their pervasive qualities in everyday life (George &

Brief, 1996; Isen & Baron, 1991). As Forgas (2000a) argued, "moods seem to be less

subject to conscious monitoring and control and therefore have potentially more

insidious, enduring, and subtle effects on social thinking, memory, and judgments than

do distinct emotions" (p. 6; see also Elfenbein, 2007). Hence, I chose to focus on the

consequences of leaders' positive and negative mood for their performance of

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors.

When considering mood effects on such leadership, several theoretical approaches

linking individuals' feelings to their cognitions and behaviors may provide useful

starting points. Various researchers have argued, for instance, that individuals' mood

may influence their thinking "by facilitating access to related cognitive categories"

(Forgas, 2000a, p. 12) through mechanisms such as affect-congruent retrieval (i.e.,

facilitating the recall of affectively congruent material from memory) or selective

attention (i.e., directing individuals' attention towards affectively congruent material in

their environment; see Forgas, 2000a, for an overview of such processes). Other

scholars have advocated an affect-as-information perspective, arguing that mood states

may provide individuals with heuristic information about external events and

situations, with individuals' mood thus serving "as affective feedback that guides

judgment, decision making, and information processing" (Clore, Gasper, & Garvin,

2001, p. 124). Empirical results have generally supported these notions, even though

some contradictions in this literature seem to point to the need for further theoretical

refinement (for reviews, see e.g. Forgas, 2000a; Forgas & George, 2001; Martin,

2000).

The Affect Infusion Model (AIM) introduced by Forgas (1995), therefore, integrates

these differing approaches into a more comprehensive model that accounts for

potential contextual influences on the relationship between individuals' feelings on the

one hand and their cognition and behavior on the other hand. As Forgas and George

(2001) explained, affect infusion "refers to the process whereby affectively loaded

information exerts an influence on, and becomes incorporated into, a person's

cognitive and behavioral processes, entering into their constructive deliberations and


eventually coloring the outcome in a mood-congruent direction" (p. 9). Such affect

infusion may occur because the performance of complex social behaviors (such as

those frequently encountered in organizations) typically requires constructive

cognitive processing, with individuals drawing on their preexisting knowledge,

memories, and associations to construct an appropriate behavioral response (Forgas &

George, 2001). Such cognitive processing, in turn, is held to be influenced by

individuals' mood states in the various ways outlined above (Forgas, 1995; Forgas &

George, 2001). From an AIM perspective, mood impacts are, therefore, particularly

relevant when individuals are faced with complex, novel, and demanding tasks. The

extensive processing required in such situations increases the chance that affectively

primed information inadvertently enters individuals' judgments and behavioral

planning and influences the content of their thinking, their cognitive processes, and

their behavioral reactions (Forgas, 1995; 2002; Forgas & George, 2001). Hence, with

leadership usually constituting a rather complex social situation (cf. Northouse, 1997),

leaders' mood seems likely to influence the decisions, judgments, and behaviors

relevant for the emergence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership.

Even though positive and negative mood states are likely to be connected and to

correlate moderately negatively, they have typically been shown to constitute two

largely independent dimensions that are related to different classes of variables

(Carver & Scheier, 1990; Fisher, 2002; McIntyre, Watson, Clark, & Cross, 1991;

Watson & Tellegen, 1985) and that trigger differing action tendencies in individuals

(Roberts, 2006). In other words, positive and negative mood cannot be assumed to

have inverse effects (Isen & Baron, 1991). I will, therefore, separately consider the

potential impacts of leaders' positive and negative mood, respectively, on their

leadership behaviors.

As Elfenbein (2007) argued, based on an extensive review of the literature on affect in

organizations, individuals high on positive mood have generally been found to focus

on positive outcomes and to be more reactive to positive rather than negative

workplace events. Individuals high on negative mood, by contrast, have been found to

strongly focus on possible negative events and outcomes (Elfenbein, 2007). Positive

mood effects, therefore, seem particularly likely with regard to charismatic leadership,

because this leadership style has been associated with positive, visionary, and

exemplary behaviors (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993). Accordingly,


Rubin et al. (2005) found leaders' trait positive affectivity to enhance their

performance of transformational leadership behaviors, while leaders' trait negative

affectivity was not related to such leadership. By contrast, negative mood seems

particularly likely to influence prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, which have

been characterized by a focus on negative, threatening aspects of the environment and

by the communication of negative information towards followers (Bruch & Ghoshal,

2003; 2004; Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). In the following, I will, therefore, consider the

association between leaders' positive mood and their charismatic leadership behaviors

in more detail, while focusing on the relationship between leaders' negative mood and

their prevention-oriented leadership behaviors.

2.2.1.2 Positive mood and charismatic leadership

A large body of empirical research has investigated the impacts of individuals' positive

mood on their subsequent behaviors (for reviews, see Isen & Baron, 1991; Staw,

Sutton, & Pelled, 1994). In general, this research has found individuals in a positive

mood to think and act in a more positive manner than individuals in neutral or negative

mood states. Positive mood has, for instance, been demonstrated to focus people's

attention on positive information, signaling that "all is well with the world" (Forgas,

2000a, p. 17) and evoking optimistic, confident, and assertive behaviors (Forgas, 2002;

see also Mayer, Gaschke, Braverman, & Evans, 1992). Positively tempered individuals

have been shown to perceive their environment in terms of opportunities and

challenges (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000; Mittal & Ross, 1998) and to favorably

evaluate their chances for future success, while attributing past successes to

themselves rather than to external factors (Forgas, 1998; Forgas, Bower, & Moylan,

1990). They demonstrate heightened task activity and persistence even in crisis

situations (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin,

2003). In addition, positive mood has been shown to contribute to individuals' creative,

abstract, and idealized thinking (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Isen,

1999; Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987), promoting an assimilative cognitive style

which is directed towards exploring novelty (Fiedler, 2000). Individuals in a positive

mood perform better in creative problem-solving and divergent thinking tasks, and

they are able to think in broader, more inclusive, and more abstract terms (Isen &

Baron, 1991; Vosburg, 1998). Finally, positively tempered individuals are likely to

adopt a more positive view towards others (Forgas & Bower, 1987; Forgas & George,


2001). They have been argued to take more interest in others (Jones & George, 1998),

to enjoy a higher frequency and quality of social interactions (Berry & Hansen, 1996;

Watson, Clark, McIntyre, & Hamaker, 1992), and to behave in more helpful and

prosocial manners (Carlson, Charlin, & Miller, 1988; Fisher, 2002; George & Brief,

1992; Spector & Fox, 2002).

Building on the theoretical and empirical background outlined above, I argue that

leaders in a positive mood are more likely to engage in charismatic leadership

behaviors than those who are not in a positive mood. By focusing leaders' attention on

positive aspects, opportunities, and challenges in the organizational environment and

by raising their subjective assessments of the likelihood of success, for instance,

positive mood states should render leaders more likely to act in the bold, risky, and

unconventional manner which characterizes charismatic leadership and to pursue

highly ambitious goals and aspirations (cf. Avolio & Bass, 1988; Conger & Kanungo,

1987; Shamir et al., 1993). Also, such leaders should find it easier to display a sense of

power, confidence, and assertiveness towards followers and to engage in proactive,

exemplary actions even in difficult and critical situations (George & Bettenhausen,

1990). This is likely to strengthen leaders' charismatic appeal and to enhance their

suitability as charismatic role models for followers (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Schyns

& Mohr, 2004).

In addition, positive mood should strengthen leaders' ability to develop an intriguing

and challenging vision of the future and to communicate this vision towards their

followers in an emotionally captivating manner by contributing to leaders' confidence,

optimism, creativity, and idealized thinking. As Berson, Shamir, Avolio, and Popper

(2001) argued, for instance, strong, intriguing visions are typically characterized by

high levels of optimism and confidence. Such visions creatively describe an idealized

future which goes well beyond the features of the organization's status quo (Zaccaro &

Banks, 2001). Also, the emotionally captivating communication of these visionary

aspirations has been suggested to heavily rely on leaders' expression of positive moods

and emotions (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Bono & Ilies, 2006). Hence, positive mood is

likely to enhance both the content and the delivery of a leader's visionary message,

strongly contributing to these key aspects of charismatic leadership (cf. Awamleh &

Gardner, 1999; Shamir et al., 1993).


And finally, leaders' positive mood states should make it easier for them to gain

subordinates' trust and identification (cf. Shamir et al., 1993) through the impacts on

individuals' sociability, helpfulness and prosocial behaviors discussed above. By

triggering such behaviors in leaders, positive mood seems likely to enhance the quality

of leader-follower interactions and to contribute to a respectful and trusting

relationship between leaders and their followers (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000). This

should, eventually, evoke positive affective reactions in followers and strengthen

leaders' charismatic appeal (cf. Gardner & Avolio, 1998).

In sum, I suggest that charismatic leadership will be more pronounced for leaders high

rather than low on positive mood. Specifically, positive mood is argued to strengthen

the optimistic, self-confident, creative, and risky behaviors associated with charismatic

leadership, and to enhance leaders' ability to develop and communicate an emotionally

captivating vision and to gain followers' trust and identification. Leaders low on

positive mood, by contrast, are likely to lack these important benefits, thus engaging in

charismatic leadership behaviors less frequently and less effectively.

Supporting these considerations, prior empirical research has associated charismatic

leadership with leaders' trait positive affectivity (Rubin et al., 2005) and with leaders'

positive emotional expressions (Bono & Ilies, 2006). Also, charismatic leaders have

been shown to exhibit high extraversion, which includes positive emotionality as a key

feature (Bono & Judge, 2004; see chapter 1.2.1.1). As Conger and Kanungo (1987;

1994) argued, followers assess their leaders' charisma based on their perceptions of

leaders' actual behaviors. In sum, followers should, therefore, evaluate leaders in a

positive mood to behave in a more charismatic manner than leaders who are not in a

positive mood.

Hypothesis 1.1: Leaders high on positive mood will exhibit more charismatic

leadership behaviors (as rated by their followers) than leaders low on positive

mood.

2.2.1.3 Negative mood and prevention-oriented leadership

Intuitively, one might assume that leaders' negative mood diminishes their effective

leadership behaviors, for instance by harming their social relationships with followers.

Research indicates, however, that this is not necessarily the case. Scholars have, for

instance, mostly reported insignificant or only weak connections between individuals'


negative mood and the frequency and quality of their social interactions (Berry &

Hansen, 1996; Watson, 1988; Watson et al., 1992). Negative mood has not been found

to substantially diminish individuals' creativity (Isen et al., 1987; Vosburg, 1998) and

organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ & Konovsky, 1989), and in some

instances, negative mood may even strengthen creativity (George & Zhou, 2002).

Similarly, an insignificant relationship has been reported between leaders' trait

negative affectivity and their performance of transformational leadership behaviors

(Rubin et al., 2005). Finally, various authors have recently indicated potentially

beneficial consequences of negative affect in organizations (e.g., Bagozzi, 2003; Judge

& Ilies, 2004), pointing to the energizing function of negative feelings (e.g., Bruch &

Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Elfenbein, 2007), emphasizing the benefits of "appropriate

negativity" (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005, p. 685), and arguing that negative emotions

may represent powerful tools for leaders (Bono & Ilies, 2006). Drawing on these

notions, it seems possible that leaders' negative mood may contribute to their

performance of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors.

Following an affect-as-information approach (Clore et al., 2001; see chapter 2.2.1.1),

individuals' negative mood may provide them with important information about their

environment, pointing towards potential problems and threats (Aspinwall, 1998; Bless,

2000; Forgas, 2002; Hesse & Spiess, 1996; Watson, 1988). Accordingly, negative

mood has been argued to be part of a general aversive mind-set (Fiedler, 2000; Forgas,

2000a). Negatively tempered persons have been shown to evaluate external stimuli

more negatively than people in neutral or positive moods (Eich & Macaulay, 2000;

Forgas & George, 2001; Isen & Shalker, 1982), and to more frequently expect the

occurrence of negative events (Mayer et al., 1992). Leaders' negative mood may,

therefore, focus their attention on negative cues in their environment and promote their

interpretation and labeling of such cues as threats (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000;

Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Mittal & Ross, 1998). As prevention-oriented leadership is

based upon leaders' perception and definition of external threats (Bruch et al., 2005;

2007), negative mood may, therefore, build an important fundament for this leadership

style.

Above this, leaders' negative mood may also enhance their emotionally captivating

communication of perceived external threats towards followers, further contributing to

their prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (cf. Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004;


Bruch & Vogel, 2005). As leaders verbally or non-verbally express their negative

mood (cf. Schyns & Mohr, 2004), followers are likely to "catch" (Totterdell, 2000) this

mood and to eventually experience similarly negative feelings (Hatfield, Cacioppo, &

Rapson, 1992; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005). Leaders' expression of negative mood

has, accordingly, been shown to enhance subordinates' level of activation (Lewis,

2000), creating a "sense of urgency" (Kotter, 1995, p. 61) among followers, raising

their awareness of external threats, and motivating them to proactively deal with such

threats and to work towards overcoming them (Sy et al., 2005). Leaders' expressions

of negative mood states may, therefore, constitute an important aspect of prevention-

oriented leadership.

Finally, individuals' negative mood has been shown to enhance their systematic

decision-making and their focus on the details of their current situation, promoting a

thorough and analytic style of thinking (Bless, 2000; Elsbach & Barr, 1999; Fiedler,

2000; Martin, 2000) which has sometimes been labeled "depressive accuracy"

(Elfenbein, 2007, p. 48). Accordingly, negatively tempered leaders may be more likely

to thoroughly analyze threatening situations, to clearly and systematically

communicate the respective threats towards followers, and to effectively outline the

steps necessary to overcome such situations (cf. George, 2000). Leaders in a negative

mood may, therefore, be able to create a thorough understanding of the threats at hand

among their followers and to build followers' confidence by clearly demonstrating

what is necessary to successfully handle such threats. Thus, negative mood should

enhance these elements of prevention-oriented leadership (cf. Bruch et al., 2005;

2007).

In sum, leaders' negative mood seems likely to strengthen their prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors by focusing their attention on threatening aspects of the

environment, by nurturing their effective, emotionally captivating, and accurate

communication of such threats towards followers, and by enabling them to clearly and

systematically outline the steps required to overcome the respective threats. Leaders in

a negative mood may, therefore, be more likely to perform prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors than leaders who experience low levels of negative mood, with

the latter not benefiting from the mood effects indicated above to the same extent.

It is important to note that this argument does not neglect the potentially detrimental

consequences of leaders' negative feelings (cf. Frost, 2003). Particularly, I


acknowledge that extreme levels of negative affect may not be beneficial for

prevention-oriented leadership, as they may induce behavioral and cognitive rigidity

(cf. Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981) and inhibit leaders' ability to build trusting

relationships with followers (Jones & George, 1998). Also, acute, intense negative

emotions may harm individuals' overall work performance by disrupting their goal-

directed behaviors (Brown, Westbrook, & Challagalla, 2005). Nevertheless, with the

present considerations referring to subtle negative moods (as opposed to acute

negative emotions), and with organizational emotion norms (cf. Hochschild, 1979;

Kelly & Barsade, 2001; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987) generally prescribing the suppression

of extreme levels of negative affect (Domagalski & Steelman, 2005; Kramer & Hess,

2002), I argue that the positive linkage between leaders' negative mood and their

performance of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors postulated in this section will

generally hold in organizational contexts.

Hypothesis 1.2: Leaders high on negative mood will exhibit more prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors (as rated by their followers) than leaders low on

negative mood.

Having discussed potential mood effects on charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership, I will now turn towards the role of emotional intelligence in the emergence

of these leadership behaviors.

2.2.2 The role of leaders' emotional intelligence

2.2.2.1 Theoretical background

Various definitions of emotional intelligence have been employed in the literature.

Popular writings on this issue, in particular, have often employed "mixed models"

(Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005, p. 455), with emotional intelligence, according to this

definition, comprising a multitude of competencies and personality traits, including

emotional self-awareness, self-confidence, trustworthiness, conscientiousness,

motivation, organizational awareness, and communication and conflict management

skills (e.g. Goleman, 1998; 2000). Such approaches have been heavily criticized,

however, for lacking conceptual clarity, operationalizability, and measurement validity

(e.g., Brackett & Geher, 2006; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Zeidner, Matthews, &

Roberts, 2004). This dissertation, therefore, takes an ability-based approach towards

emotional intelligence, following the suggestions of numerous scholars in this field of


research (e.g., Brown, Bryant, & Reilly, 2006; Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Daus &

Ashkanasy, 2005; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). According to this definition,

emotional intelligence incorporates a clearly defined set of abilities which are closely

interrelated and build on each other. These abilities are the accurate appraisal and

expression of own and others' feelings, the effective use of feelings to improve

cognitive processes and decision-making, knowledge about the causes, consequences,

and developments of feelings, and the effective management of own and others'

feelings (Mayer et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002).

Leaders' behaviors seem likely to be strongly influenced by these abilities associated

with emotional intelligence. As George (2000) argued, leadership generally requires

leaders to manage both their own and their followers' feelings in multiple ways (see

also Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Emotional intelligence, therefore, may constitute a

critical prerequisite for effective leadership (Prati et al., 2003). In the following, I will

pursue this argument in more detail as it relates to the emergence of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors.

2.2.2.2 Emotional intelligence and charismatic leadership

Various researchers have theorized emotional intelligence to strengthen charismatic

leadership behaviors by enabling leaders to arouse and inspire followers and to create

charismatic authority (e.g., Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Prati et

al., 2003; see chapter 1.2.2). Even before the notion of emotional intelligence was

formally introduced, for instance, Wasiliewski (1985) suggested that leaders' charisma

crucially depends on their ability to evoke emotions in followers and to revoke and

reframe these emotions so as to support the leaders' cause. Also, George (2000) argued

that emotionally intelligent leaders should be particularly able to influence followers'

feelings due to these leaders' understanding and skillful use of their own and their

followers' affect. Such leaders may find it easier than those low on emotional

intelligence to convincingly act as optimistic, assertive role models and to portray a

confident, powerful, and charismatic image of themselves, thus contributing to their

charismatic appeal and strengthening the respective leadership behaviors (cf. Gardner

& Avolio, 1998; George, 2000).

Similarly, emotionally intelligent leaders should be able to create collective

enthusiasm for a common vision and common aspirations among their subordinates by


building upon and utilizing their own and their followers' feelings (George, 2000;

Sosik & Megerian, 1999). They should, for instance, be in an ideal position to realize

the extent to which they can raise followers' expectations and address followers on an

emotional basis (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Barling et al., 2000). Also, they should have

a clear-cut understanding of how to arouse followers through the use of an emotionally

captivating vision statement (cf. Mayer et al., 2004). Thus, leaders high on emotional

intelligence should be particularly effective in rallying their followers behind an

intriguing and challenging vision, which constitutes a cornerstone of charismatic

leadership (cf. Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993).

And finally, leaders' emotional intelligence has been argued to contribute to their

charismatic leadership by enhancing their ability to positively design social

interactions with followers (George, 2000). Emotional intelligence should enable

leaders to approach followers in an empathic manner and to effectively address

individual followers' emotional needs (cf. Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000). It should,

therefore, facilitate the development of high-quality relations between leaders and their

followers and strengthen followers' identification with and trust in the leader (Kellet,

Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2006; Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002), eventually

promoting leaders' charismatic appeal in important ways (cf. Gardner & Avolio, 1998;

Shamir et al., 1993).

Recent empirical findings have started to provide support for this suggested positive

relationship between leaders' emotional intelligence and their charismatic leadership

behaviors (see chapter 1.2.2). Emotionally intelligent individuals have, for instance,

been shown to produce higher quality vision statements than those low on emotional

intelligence (Mayer et al., 2004). Also, Middleton (2005) reported a positive

connection between individuals' emotional intelligence and their emergence as

charismatic leaders in a student sample. In managerial contexts, Mandell and Pherwani

(2003) and Rubin et al. (2005) found the related construct of transformational

leadership to be positively linked with leaders' emotional intelligence. And similarly,

the charismatic aspects of transformational leadership have been shown to positively

relate to leaders' emotional intelligence in various field study settings (e.g., Barbuto &

Burbach, 2006; Barling et al., 2000; Gardner & Stough, 2002; Groves, 2005; Leban &

Zulauf, 2004; Palmer et al., 2001; Sosik & Megerian, 1999).


In sum, both theoretical considerations and empirical findings suggest that leaders high

on emotional intelligence are more likely to perform charismatic leadership behaviors

than leaders low on emotional intelligence. Such low emotional intelligence leaders

are likely to lack knowledge and understanding of their own and their followers'

feelings. Also, their ability to effectively utilize and influence these feelings should be

limited, thus diminishing their performance of charismatic leadership behaviors. I

argue, therefore, that leaders' emotional intelligence will be positively related to their

charismatic leadership behaviors.

In addition, given prior evidence for the impacts of leaders' emotional intelligence, and

given that emotional intelligence covers a wide range of abilities related to the

effective management of both own and others' feelings (Mayer et al., 2004), I suggest

that emotional intelligence will contribute to charismatic leadership over and above the

effects of positive mood outlined in chapter 2.2.1.2. In other words, emotional

intelligence should incrementally contribute to the variance explained in charismatic

leadership, after the effects of positive mood have been taken into account.

Hypothesis 1.3: Leaders high on emotional intelligence will exhibit more

charismatic leadership behaviors (as rated by their followers) than leaders low

on emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence will contribute to charismatic

leadership over and above the effects of leaders' positive mood.

2.2.2.3 Emotional intelligence and prevention-oriented leadership

As indicated in chapter 1.2.2, preliminary notions in the nascent literature on

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence have pointed towards the potential

relevance of leaders' emotional capabilities (e.g., Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Bruch

et al., 2005; 2007). Supporting this reasoning, the abilities associated with emotional

intelligence (cf. Mayer et al., 2004; Wong & Law, 2002) seem to closely match the

behaviors typically required from prevention-oriented leaders. Such leaders have, for

instance, been argued to communicate external threats towards their followers in an

emotionally captivating manner, creating a sense of urgency in followers by eliciting

negative feelings (Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003; 2004; Bruch et al., 2005). Leaders high on

emotional intelligence may be particularly skillful in achieving this effect. They may

be able to effectively build upon their own and their subordinates' moods and emotions

to strongly influence followers' feelings and to arouse followers emotionally


(Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; George, 2000). Hence, such leaders may be in a particularly

good position to convey threatening information not only on a rational, but also on an

emotional basis.

Importantly, besides the emotionally captivating communication of threats,

prevention-oriented leaders have been argued to build their followers' confidence that

the respective threats can be overcome through collective efforts (Bruch et al., 2005).

Prevention-oriented leadership, therefore, combines a complex set of behaviors,

requiring leaders both to elicit negative feelings in followers and to direct these

negative feelings in a productive manner (cf. Bruch et al., 2007). First, it seems crucial

that prevention-oriented leaders elicit appropriate types of negative affect in their

followers. Aggressive feelings directed towards external targets, for instance, may

effectively drive followers' competitive spirit and strengthen their activity and

alertness, while resignative feelings, by contrast, may lead to lethargy and inactivity

(Bruch & Ghoshal, 2003). Second, prevention-oriented leaders need to evoke

appropriate degrees of negative affect in their followers. While moderately negative

moods and emotions may propel people into action (cf. Fredrickson, 1998), extremely

negative feelings may have counterproductive, paralyzing effects (cf. Sinclair,

Ashkanasy, Chattopadhyay, & Boyle, 2002; Staw et al., 1981). And third, such leaders

need to aim at a gradual transition of followers' negative feelings into more positive

ones in order to build followers' confidence and to maintain their energy in the long-

run (Bruch et al., 2005; 2007; see also Huy, 2002). Emotionally intelligent leaders may

be in a particularly good position to perform this complex set of behaviors. Such

leaders have, for instance, been suggested to clearly recognize even nuances in their

followers' feelings and to be capable of managing followers' moods and emotions in a

highly effective manner (cf. Mayer et al., 2004). They should, therefore, be able to

elicit specific types and degrees of negative affect in their subordinates by skillfully

adjusting their own behaviors and by adapting them to the respective followers' needs

(George, 2000). Also, emotionally intelligent leaders are likely to understand the

development of their followers' feelings (i.e., the temporal succession of specific

affective states; Mayer, 2001; Mayer et al., 2004), enabling them to assist followers in

the gradual transition from negative feelings towards feelings of confidence that the

threats at hand can be overcome.


In sum, I argue that leaders high on emotional intelligence may be able to perform

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors to a greater extent than their low emotional

intelligence counterparts. Emotionally intelligent leaders should be able to

communicate threats in an emotionally captivating manner, to elicit the appropriate

type and degree of negative affect in their followers, and to develop followers'

confidence that threats can be overcome. Leaders low on emotional intelligence, by

contrast, are likely to lack these crucial prerequisites for prevention-oriented

leadership.

Again, given that emotional intelligence and leadership have frequently been shown to

be related in prior research (e.g., Prati et al., 2003), and given that the abilities

associated with emotional intelligence include, among other things, the effective

management of both own and others feelings (Mayer et al., 2004), I expect emotional

intelligence to contribute to the explanation of prevention-oriented leadership over and

above the impacts of leaders' negative mood outlined in chapter 2.2.1.3.

Hypothesis 1.4: Leaders high on emotional intelligence will exhibit more

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (as rated by their followers) than

leaders low on emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence will contribute to

prevention-oriented leadership over and above the effects of leaders' negative

mood.

2.2.3 Interactive effects of mood and emotional intelligence

The impacts of leaders’ mood and emotional intelligence on their charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors may be more thoroughly understood by

considering potential interactive relationships between these antecedent variables (cf.

George, 2000; see chapter 2.1). Particularly, I have argued before that while leaders

high on positive (negative) mood may be in a good position to perform charismatic

(prevention-oriented) leadership behaviors, leaders low on positive (negative) mood

should find it more difficult to implement the respective leadership styles. These

relationships may, however, be crucially shaped by leaders' emotional intelligence. As

I will show in the following, leaders with high emotional intelligence should be able to

effectively perform charismatic leadership behaviors even if they do not experience

pronounced positive mood states, and they may be able to engage in prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors even if their negative mood is low. In other words, I


assert that the relationships between leaders' positive mood and charismatic leadership

and between leaders' negative mood and prevention-oriented leadership are moderated

by emotional intelligence. Other research has similarly suggested emotional

intelligence to moderate the relationship between individuals' affective states and their

subsequent behaviors (e.g., Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Jordan, Ashkanasy, &

Härtel, 2002). Emotional intelligence has not been empirically investigated, however,

as a moderator of the leader mood – leadership behavior linkage.

As Forgas and colleagues (Forgas, 2000b; 2002; Forgas & George, 2001) have argued,

it is possible to theoretically integrate the notion of emotional intelligence into the

Affect Infusion Model (AIM). The AIM suggests that the effects of individuals' moods

on their cognitions and behaviors may vary depending on individuals' choice of

information processing strategy. Affect infusion is argued to be reduced, in particular,

under motivated processing, with individuals deliberately trying to arrive at certain

pre-defined decisions and behaviors (Forgas, 1995). Such individuals engage in a

highly targeted and selective style of thinking, reducing the likelihood that affectively

primed information inadvertently enters their judgments, decisions, and behaviors

(Forgas & George, 2001). Personal differences may play a key role in determining

individuals' choice of processing strategy, with emotional intelligence potentially

constituting an important individual difference variable in this respect (Forgas, 2000b;

2002). Emotionally intelligent individuals seem more likely to effectively engage in

motivated processing than those with low emotional intelligence, as they are equipped

with the ability to better recognize, control, and utilize their moods, and to better

understand the implications of their feelings (cf. Mayer et al., 2004). Inadvertent affect

infusion, therefore, seems less likely for individuals with high levels of emotional

intelligence. Such individuals' behaviors should, therefore, be less subject to mood

influences.

Hence, with affect infusion being less relevant for high emotional intelligence leaders,

such leaders' charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors should depend on their

positive or negative mood states to a more limited extent than for leaders low on

emotional intelligence. Particularly, as outlined in more detail below, emotionally

intelligent leaders should be able to avoid potentially adverse effects of low positive or

negative mood on the respective types of leadership behavior by counteracting


unfavorable mood consequences for their perceptions and judgments, by effectively

managing their moods, and by engaging in impression management strategies.

Counteracting unfavorable mood consequences. Due to their self-awareness and their

ability to understand the implications of their feelings (Mayer et al., 2004; Sosik &

Megerian, 1999; Wong & Law, 2002), emotionally intelligent leaders should be able

to clearly recognize a lack of positive or negative mood and to understand the

potentially unfavorable consequences of these mood states for their charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, respectively. Such self-awareness may be a

crucial prerequisite for the effective regulation of mood impacts on individuals'

thinking and behavior (Berkowitz, Jaffee, Jo, & Troccoli, 2000). If individuals are

aware of their affective state and its potential consequences, they are more likely to

successfully correct (and sometimes even over-correct) for feeling-induced biases in

their judgments and decisions (Berkowitz et al., 2000; Parrot & Sabini, 1990). Even if

they lack positive mood, emotionally intelligent leaders should, therefore, be able to

acknowledge positive aspects of their environments and to develop intriguing visions,

retaining their ability to perform charismatic leadership behaviors (cf. George, 2000;

Shamir et al., 1993). Similarly, such leaders should recognize environmental threats

and be able to utilize them for prevention-oriented leadership (cf. Bruch et al., 2005;

2007) even if their negative mood is low. In sum, emotionally intelligent leaders

should be able to effectively circumvent the potential unfavorable consequences of

low positive and negative mood for their perceptions and judgments and, eventually,

for their charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership.

Mood management. Individuals' mood management capability constitutes a defining

feature of their emotional intelligence (Mayer, 2001; Gohm, 2003). Emotionally

intelligent people should, for instance, be able to effectively manipulate their own

mood and to deliberately suppress or evoke specific affective states by consciously

focusing on mood-congruent or mood-incongruent information (Forgas, 2000b; Forgas

& Ciarrochi, 2002; Mayer et al., 2004). Both mood maintenance and mood repair

have, accordingly, been found to be more pronounced for individuals high on

emotional intelligence than for those low on emotional intelligence (Ciarrochi et al.,

2000). Thus, emotionally intelligent leaders should be able to quickly and effectively

restore their positive mood and to reach appropriate levels of negative mood even if

they previously experienced low levels of the respective mood states (George, 2000;


Mayer et al., 2004). Leaders' emotional intelligence, therefore, should minimize

adverse mood implications for their charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors, because such leaders may be able to avoid overly low levels of positive or

negative mood over prolonged periods of time.

Impression management. Finally, emotionally intelligent leaders should be able to

effectively engage in impression management strategies by self-monitoring and

controlling their mood expressions (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002; Mayer et al.,

2004; Sosik, Avolio, & Jung, 2002). Such leaders should, therefore, be able to present

themselves towards followers in a charismatic or prevention-oriented manner,

irrespective of the leaders' actual mood states (cf. Sosik & Dworakivsky, 1998). For

instance, they may deliberately enact optimistic, confident, and visionary behaviors

and engage in expressions of positive affect even if their actual positive mood is low,

thus constructing a charismatic image of themselves (Gardner & Avolio, 1998).

Similarly, such leaders may present environmental threats through the expression of

negative feelings even if they do not actually experience negative mood, hence

enacting prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (cf. Bruch et al., 2005). As Fox and

Spector (2000) argued, non-verbal mood expressions "are generally taken as 'authentic'

or 'ungovernable' representations of true feelings; therefore, the individual who is

skillful in controlling these 'ungovernable' behaviors is at a distinct advantage in the

exchanges that serve to create impressions and define social situations" (p. 205).

Emotionally intelligent leaders' impression management capabilities, therefore, seem

likely to further reduce potentially unfavorable mood implications for their charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, because followers are unlikely to

recognize such leaders' lack of positive or negative mood, respectively.

In sum, emotionally intelligent leaders should be able to engage in charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership largely irrespective of their mood states. Leaders low

on emotional intelligence, by contrast, may depend on high levels of positive or

negative mood to perform such behaviors. They should be unable to compensate for

the unfavorable consequences of particularly low levels of positive or negative mood,

to effectively manage the respective mood states, and to successfully utilize

impression management strategies to conceal a lack of positive or negative mood from

their followers. Thus, I argue that leaders' emotional intelligence moderates the

associations between leaders' positive (negative) mood and their charismatic


(prevention-oriented) leadership behaviors suggested before (see chapters 2.2.1.2 and

2.2.1.3). For leaders high on emotional intelligence, these relationships should be

attenuated, while for leaders low on emotional intelligence, the positive slope of these

relationships is likely to be particularly pronounced.

Hypothesis 1.5: Leaders' emotional intelligence moderates the relationship

between leaders' positive mood and their charismatic leadership behaviors (as

rated by their followers). For leaders high on emotional intelligence, the

relationship between positive mood and charismatic leadership will be less

pronounced than for leaders low on emotional intelligence.

Hypothesis 1.6: Leaders' emotional intelligence moderates the relationship

between leaders' negative mood and their prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors (as rated by their followers). For leaders high on emotional

intelligence, the relationship between negative mood and prevention-oriented

leadership will be less pronounced than for leaders low on emotional

intelligence.


2.3.1 Data collection and sample description

Data for Study 1 were collected within the framework of the ongoing research at the

University of St. Gallen's Institute for Leadership and Human Resource Management

(http://www.ifpm.unisg.ch). Particularly, in order to address Study 1's hypotheses,

survey data were collected from a multinational company (headquartered in Germany)

that specializes in the manufacturing of automotive component supplies. Leaders (n =

85) located in Germany or the United States were identified by the company's Human

Resources Department. They received an e-mail invitation from the company's Vice

President of Human Resources Development describing the study's purpose in broad

terms and providing a link to a web-based survey. This leader survey measured

leaders' positive and negative mood and leaders' emotional intelligence. In addition,

the leaders initially contacted received a second e-mail from the company's Vice

President of Human Resources Development, which they were asked to forward to

five or more of their direct followers. Included in this second email was a link to a

follower survey, measuring followers' evaluations of their direct leaders' charismatic


and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (see chapter 2.3.2 for more details on the

measures employed). Thus, data for the predictor variables (leaders' positive and

negative mood and emotional intelligence) were gathered from leaders themselves,

while the outcome variable measures (charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors) were independently gathered from leaders' direct followers, alleviating

same source and common method variance concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003). All participants were asked to indicate an assigned team code in the

survey, making it possible to match leaders to their team of followers.

Both web-based surveys were hosted by the University of St. Gallen, and participants

were assured full confidentiality. Both surveys were offered in German and English.

Translations were conducted through professional translators following a double-blind

back-translation procedure to achieve semantic equivalence, as recommended by

Schaffer and Riordan (2003). In addition, company HR professionals checked for

word usage and company-specific language to ensure that the survey items were

understandable for participants and fit the company's context.

To be included in the present study, leaders had to satisfy two criteria: First, the leader

was required to complete his or her own questionnaire. This requirement was met by

58 leaders, for an initial response rate of 68 percent. Second, the respective leader had

to have at least two direct followers providing ratings of his or her leadership, as

suggested by Rubin and colleagues (2005). By following this procedure, I could ensure

that each leaders' charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors were assessed by at

least two followers, contributing to greater confidence in the validity of these ratings

(cf. Rubin et al., 2005; Tsui & Ohlott, 1988). In sum, 34 leaders met this additional

inclusion requirement. It should be noted that t-tests did not reveal significant

differences between these leaders and the ones omitted from the study sample in terms

of positive mood, negative mood, or emotional intelligence. In sum, the final dataset

consisted of 34 work teams, including one leader for each team and 165 direct

followers. On average, each leader was rated by 5 of his or her followers (minimum =

2; maximum = 14). Because the level of analysis was the leader and his or her work

team, the sample size of 34 was relatively small. As Lim and Ployhart (2004) argued,

however, this is reflective of the general problem of gathering large group-level

samples in field research (see chapter 2.5.3 for more details on this issue).


Participants in the study were primarily male (leaders – 88%; followers – 71%),

between 31 and 55 years old (leaders – 83%; followers – 73%), and have been

employed with the company for more than 5 years (leaders – 88%; followers – 66%).

They came from all major divisions of the company, with the participating leaders

representing different hierarchical levels (26% upper managers; 59% middle-

managers; 15% first-line supervisors). More details on the demographic composition

of these study samples are depicted in Table 2.1. Of the 34 work groups included in

the study, 29 were located in Germany (85%), while 5 were located in the United

States (15%). Accordingly, the majority of respondents answered the German versions

of the surveys (leaders – 82%; followers – 81%).

Table 2.1: Sample Demographics (Study 1)

Leader Sample Follower Sample

n % n %

Gender

Male 30 88 117 71

Female 4 12 38 23

No answer

0 0 10 6

Age

< 25 years 0 0 1 1

25-30 years 0 0 17 10

31-35 years 1 3 30 18

36-40 years 6 18 27 16

41-45 years 11 32 32 19

46-50 years 6 18 21 13

51-55 years 4 12 12 7

56-60 years 4 12 5 3

> 60 years 2 6 4 2

No answer 0 0 16 10

Company tenure

< 1 year 0 0 9 6

< 5 years 4 12 32 19

5-10 years 6 17 41 25

11-15 years 11 32 24 15

16-20 years 3 9 23 14

21-25 years 3 9 10 6

26-30 years 5 15 7 4

31-35 years 0 0 0 0

> 35 years 2 6 4 2

No answer 0 0 15 9

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding error.


2.3.2 Measures

The following sections describe the measures employed in the leader and follower

surveys of Study 1.

2.3.2.1 Leaders' positive and negative mood

Leaders' positive and negative mood were measured in the leader survey using ten

positive and ten negative affect items from Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, and Kelloway's

(2000) job-related affective well-being scale (JAWS; see Table 2.2 for a full list of

these items). Van Katwky et al. (2000) provided evidence for the reliability and

validity of the JAWS in a series of three independent studies. Importantly, the JAWS

has specifically been developed to capture affective experiences at work.

Table 2.2: Survey Items for Positive and Negative Mood

Positive Mood

"I personally feel…"

Negative Mood

"I personally feel…"

Item 1: "…at ease in my job."

Item 1: "…angry in my job."

Item 2: "…calm in my job."

Item 2: "…anxious in my job."

Item 3: "…content in my job."

Item 3: "…bored in my job."

Item 4: "…ecstatic in my job."

Item 4: "…depressed in my job."

Item 5: "…energetic in my job."

Item 5: "…discouraged in my job."

Item 6: "…enthusiastic in my job."

Item 6: "…disgusted in my job."

Item 7: "…excited in my job."

Item 7: "…fatigued in my job."

Item 8: "…inspired in my job."

Item 8: "…frightened in my job."

Item 9: "…relaxed in my job."

Item 9: "…furious in my job."

Item 10: "…satisfied in my job." Item 10: "…gloomy in my job."

Note: All items are taken from Van Katwyk et al. (2000).

With regard to positive mood, leaders were asked to indicate how often they

personally experienced ten positive mood states in their jobs on a 5-point scale,

ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (extremely often or always). Using the same response

scale, negative mood was captured by asking leaders to indicate how often they


personally experienced ten negative mood states in their jobs. Following Van Katwyk

et al.'s (2000) recommendations, I computed overall positive and negative mood scores

by averaging the respective items. Internal consistency reliabilities (i.e., Cronbach α;

Bortz, 1999) for these scales reached .77 for positive mood and .71 for negative mood.

2.3.2.2 Leaders' emotional intelligence

I employed Wong and Law's (2002) self-report emotional intelligence scale (WLEIS)

in the leader survey to gauge leaders' emotional intelligence. This 16-item instrument

is based on the ability-model of emotional intelligence (e.g., Mayer et al., 2004). It,

therefore, avoids the definitional ambiguities which have been associated with

alternative conceptualizations of this construct (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; see chapter

2.2.2.1). Also, the WLEIS has specifically been developed in organizational settings,

with evidence for its reliability and validity having been provided, among others, by

Law, Wong, and Song (2004), Spörrle and Welpe (2006), and Wong and Law (2002).

Importantly, given that prior empirical research on the emotional intelligence –

charismatic leadership linkage (see chapter 1.2.2) has employed other measures of

emotional intelligence (e.g., the Trait Meta Mood Scale [Palmer et al., 2001] or the

Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test [Leban & Zulauf, 2004]), utilizing

the WLEIS provided an opportunity for the present work to re-evaluate previous

research findings through constructive replication (cf. Eden, 2002).

The WLEIS assesses four dimensions of emotional intelligence with four items each:

self-emotion appraisal, others' emotion appraisal, use of emotion, and regulation of

emotion. A full list of the respective items is provided in Table 2.3. Leaders were

asked to rate themselves on these items using a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Following recommendations by Wong and Law (2002;

see also Law et al., 2004), I averaged all item responses to form an overall emotional

intelligence score. The internal consistency estimate for this measure was .88.


Table 2.3: Survey Items for Emotional Intelligence

Item 1: "I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time."

Item 2: "I have a good understanding of my own emotions."

Item 3: "I really understand what I feel."

Item 4: "I always know whether or not I am happy."

Item 5: "I always know my colleagues' emotions from their behaviors."

Item 6: "I am a good observer of others' emotions."

Item 7: "I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others."

Item 8: "I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me."

Item 9: "I am able to control my temper so that I can handle difficulties rationally."

Item 10: "I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions."

Item 11: "I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry."

Item 12: "I have good control of my own emotions."

Item 13: "I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them."

Item 14: "I always tell myself I am a competent person."

Item 15: "I am a self-motivating person."

Item 16: "I would always encourage myself to try my very best."

Note: All items are taken from Wong and Law (2002).

2.3.2.3 Charismatic leadership behaviors

I employed Bass and Avolio's (2000) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x -

short) in the follower survey to assess charismatic leadership behaviors. The MLQ is

among the most widely used measure of charismatic and transformational leadership

in organizational research (Antonakis, Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Northouse,

1997). Following prior scholars, I chose to utilize the four items rating idealized

influence – behavior and the four items rating inspirational motivation to capture

charismatic leadership, because they most clearly represent the behavioral aspects of

this leadership style relevant for the present study (e.g., Awamleh & Gardner, 1999;

Bass & Avolio, 2000; Sosik et al., 2002; Waldman et al., 2004; see chapter 1.1.1). The


respective items are provided in Table 2.4. Followers were asked to assess how often

their direct superior exhibits the respective leadership behaviors on a 5-point scale,

ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always). As is common practice, I

averaged item responses for all 8 items to compute an overall charismatic leadership

score (cf. Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Sosik et al., 2002; Waldman et al., 2004). I did

not include the items measuring idealized influence – attributed, because they have

been criticized for representing leadership impact and not leadership behavior (Kark,

Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Yukl, 1999).

Table 2.4: Survey Items for Charismatic Leadership (Study 1)

"My direct superior..."

Item 1: "...talks about their most important values and beliefs."

Item 2: "...talks optimistically about the future."

Item 3: "...talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished."

Item 4: "...specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose."

Item 5: "...considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions."

Item 6: "...articulates a compelling vision of the future."

Item 7: "...emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission."

Item 8: "...expresses confidence that goals will be achieved."

Note: All items are taken from Bass and Avolio (2000).

Further, based on appropriate statistical support (see chapter 2.4.1), individual

followers' ratings within the 34 teams in the present study were aggregated to the team

level, with each leader, therefore, being assigned one average charismatic leadership

score. This approach is commonly used in the leadership literature (e.g., Kark et al.,

2003; Rubin et al., 2005; Waldman et al., 2001; 2004) and, as outlined earlier, it has

the advantage of providing a more accurate depiction of a leader's behaviors (Tsui &

Ohlott, 1988). Following the recommendations of Chen, Mathieu, and Bliese (2004),

the internal consistency estimate for charismatic leadership was calculated at the team

level to align the assessment of the reliability of this measure with its substantive level

of analysis. This estimate reached a value of .88.


2.3.2.4 Prevention-oriented leadership behaviors

Bruch et al.'s (2005) 8-item prevention-oriented leadership measure was employed in

the follower survey to gauge prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. To the author's

knowledge, this is the only existing measure of prevention-oriented leadership, with

evidence for its psychometric soundness having been provided by Bruch et al. (2005)

in two independent studies. Following Bruch and colleagues' approach, followers were

asked to rate their direct superior's prevention-oriented leadership behaviors on a 5-

point scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always). A full list of the

respective items is provided in Table 2.5. Item responses were averaged into an overall

prevention-oriented leadership score (Bruch et al., 2005).

Further, based on appropriate statistical support (see chapter 2.4.1), individual

followers' assessments of prevention-oriented leadership were aggregated to team level

of analysis, providing one average prevention-oriented leadership rating for each

leader in the study (Bruch et al., 2005). Again, the internal consistency estimate for

this measure was computed at the team level (cf. Chen et al., 2004), and it reached a

value of .89.

Table 2.5: Survey Items for Prevention-Oriented Leadership


Item 1: "…paints a vivid picture of possible external threats."

Item 2: "…shows me how emerging threats can impact me personally."

Item 3: "…draws my attention to dangers, risks, and possible future problems."

Item 4: "…communicates clearly the negative consequences faced by the company if

people do not make a strong effort."

Item 5: "…draws my attention to the company's weaknesses."

Item 6: "…focuses my attention on negative business developments."

Item 7: "…makes me aware of the presence of possible dangers, failure, or negative

outcomes."

Item 8: "…encourages me never to feel complacent with our successes."

Note: All items are taken from Bruch et al. (2005).


2.3.2.5 Control variables

Finally, I considered several potential covariates in the analyses in order to reduce the

possibility of unmeasured influences biasing the study results. First, I captured the

country in which the respective work groups were located as a dummy-coded control

variable (1 = Germany; 0 = United States), because cultural factors might influence

participants' ratings of the study variables (cf. Schaffer & Riordan, 2003). This

information was obtained from the company's HR department.

Second, team size might influence the study results, because (even though this notion

has not been considered in prior charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership

research) leaders' behaviors may, to some extent, be influenced by the number of

followers they are confronted with (Bass, 1990). I estimated team size by the number

of follower respondents per work team. Although inexact, past research suggests this

estimate is a reasonable proxy for unit size when used as a control (Bliese &

Halverson, 1998).

Third, the hierarchical level of the focal leader was considered as a potential covariate.

As Shamir and Howell (1999) argued, higher level leaders may find it easier to

perform charismatic leadership behaviors than their lower level counterparts (see also

chapter 1.2.1.5). I, therefore, obtained leaders' hierarchical level from the leader

survey, where leaders were asked to classify themselves as either upper managers

(coded as 1), middle-managers (coded as 2), or first-line supervisors (coded as 3),

using company-specific terminology.

Fourth and finally, teams' positive affective tone (cf. George, 1996a) was gauged as a

potential covariate. It has been shown that positive affect can favorably influence

raters' evaluations of other persons (e.g., Isen & Baron, 1991; Mayer et al., 1992).

Accordingly, teams' positive affective tone might bias their leadership ratings (cf.

Brown & Keeping, 2005; Schyns & Sanders, 2003). Thus, I gauged teams' positive

affective tone in the follower survey using five items from a slightly modified version

of the JAWS (Van Katwyk et al., 2000).6 Employing a referent-shift to capture

6 Initially, I had attempted to measure team positive affective tone through the same ten positive affect items that

I also used to gauge leaders' positive mood. Aggregation to the team level was not feasible for this 10-item

measure, however, with ICCs approaching zero and the associated F value failing to reach statistical significance

(cf. Bliese, 2000; see chapter 2.3.3.1 for more details on the interpretation of these aggregation statistics).

Inspection of aggregation statistics revealed that only the low-intensity positive affect dimension identified by

Van Katwyk et al. (2000) could be aggregated to the team level. Thus, because I found it critical to control for


followers' affective experiences at the team level of analysis (Chan, 1998), followers

were asked to indicate how often the people in their work group experience five

positive affective states (i.e., at ease, calm, content, relaxed, satisfied) in their jobs on a

5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (extremely often or always). Based on acceptable

aggregation statistics (see chapter 2.4.1), I averaged followers' ratings of team positive

affective tone within the 34 work teams in the study (cf. George, 1990; 1996a). The

internal consistency estimate for this measure at the team level of analysis (cf. Chen et

al., 2004) was .77.

2.3.3 Data analyses

Data for Study 1 of this dissertation were analyzed in three phases, which will be

described in the following sections.

2.3.3.1 Aggregation analyses

In the first phase of the data analysis, the viability of aggregating the measures for

charismatic leadership, prevention-oriented leadership, and the sample covariate team

positive affective tone to the team level was examined. As Chen et al. (2004) argued,

in order to justify such aggregation, it is necessary in a first step to specify the nature

of respective higher-level constructs. Charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

were captured as direct consensus constructs in the present study, i.e., measures were

gauged from individual followers, but the underlying constructs referred to the team

level of analysis (i.e., to the respective teams' leaders), assuming relative agreement of

individuals' ratings within teams and variability between teams (cf. Chan, 1998; Chen

et al., 2004; see chapters 2.3.2.3 and 2.3.2.4, respectively). Team affective tone was

captured as a referent-shift consensus construct, i.e., measures were again gauged from

individual followers, but both the item referent and the underlying construct referred to

the team level of analysis (i.e., the teams themselves), again assuming relative

agreement of individuals' ratings within teams and variability between teams (cf.

Chan, 1998; Chen et al., 2004; see chapter 2.3.2.5). Therefore, it was necessary to

statistically justify the appropriateness of aggregating to the team level for all of these

measures by showing (a) sufficient levels of within-team homogeneity and (b)

adequate levels of between-team heterogeneity (cf. Klein et al., 1994).

team positive affective tone, I chose to utilize the 5-item measure described here instead of omitting this control

altogether.


Typically, the rwg statistic (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) is used in conjunction with

ANOVA-based intra-class correlation statistics (i.e., ICC[1] and ICC[2]) to support

such aggregation (Bliese, 2000; Chen et al., 2004). The rwg statistic provides an

assessment of interrater agreement within groups. It is derived from the difference

between the observed within-group variance of a rating variable and the expected

within-group variance based solely on random error (typically assuming a rectangular

reference distribution; James et al., 1984; 1993). By contrast, ICC(1) estimates the

amount of variance in individuals' responses that can be attributed to group

membership, or, in other words, "the degree to which a measure varies between versus

within groups" (Castro, 2002, p. 73). And finally, ICC(2) measures the reliability of

group means in a sample (Bliese, 2000; Castro, 2002). Even though there are no

absolute standards to justify aggregation based on these statistics (Lance, Butts, &

Michels, 2006), median rwg values of more than .70 and ICCs which are based on a

significant F value are usually considered sufficient (Chen et al., 2004; Kenny & La

Voie, 1985). I utilized the multilevel package (Bliese, 2005) of the statistical software

R (R Development Core Team, 2004) to compute rwg and ICC values.

2.3.3.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations

In the second phase of data analysis, I calculated descriptive statistics (i.e., mean

values and standard deviations) and bivariate correlations for all study variables to

provide an overview of the sample data. These statistics were computed at the team

level of analysis, i.e., aggregated measures were used for charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership and team positive affective tone.

2.3.3.3 Hypotheses testing

Study hypotheses were assessed in the third and final phase of data analysis using two

independent moderated hierarchical regression analyses in SPSS 12 (cf. Aiken &

West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983). When testing the hypotheses pertaining to the

emergence of charismatic leadership behaviors, I regressed followers' aggregated

evaluations of charismatic leadership on the control variables in a first hierarchical

step. In step 2, I inserted leaders' positive and negative mood, thus testing Hypothesis

1.1. In a third hierarchical step, I added leaders' emotional intelligence to the

regression equation, in order to assess Hypothesis 1.3. Finally, I inserted the

interaction terms (i.e., the cross-products) of leaders' positive mood and emotional


intelligence and of leaders' negative mood and emotional intelligence in a fourth

hierarchical step, thus testing Hypothesis 1.5.

The same approach was followed when testing the study hypotheses pertaining to the

emergence of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, utilizing followers' aggregated

prevention-oriented leadership ratings as the criterion variable. This measure was

regressed on the control variables, on leaders' positive and negative mood, on leaders'

emotional intelligence, and on the respective interaction terms in subsequent

hierarchical steps. Thus, steps 2 to 4 of this moderated hierarchical regression analysis

allowed for an evaluation of Hypotheses 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6.

Following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991), both leaders' positive and

negative mood and leaders' emotional intelligence were grand mean-centered before

creating interaction terms in order to ameliorate issues of multicollinearity (see also

Bobko, 1995).7

2.4 Results

2.4.1 Aggregation statistics

Aggregation statistics for charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership and team

positive affective tone are depicted in Table 2.6. As shown, these statistics were

acceptable for all variables, supporting the viability of aggregating to the team level of

analysis.

For instance, median rwg was .83 for charismatic leadership, indicating relatively high

levels of within-group agreement. ICC(1) for this measure was .16 and ICC(2) was

.48, with the associated F value reaching statistical significance (F[33, 128] = 1.93; p

< .01). In sum, there was sufficient statistical support for aggregating individual

7 To further examine whether multicollinearity was a problem in these analyses, I calculated variance inflation

factors (VIFs). As Neter, Kutner, Nachtsheim, and Wasserman (1996) explained, maximum VIF values in excess

of 10 typically indicate severe multicollinearity (p. 387). In the present case, none of the VIF values in the three

initial hierarchical steps exceeded 1.70. In the final step, maximum VIFs of 4.87 and 6.01 were obtained for the

interaction terms of emotional intelligence with positive and negative mood, respectively. Even though these

values are somewhat higher than desirable, this indicates that multicollinearity was not a major issue.

Nevertheless, I repeated the regression analysis on charismatic leadership without the emotional intelligence –

negative mood interaction, and the regression analysis on prevention-oriented leadership without the emotional

intelligence – positive mood interaction. In both cases, the pattern of results remained unchanged, and maximum

VIFs dropped below 1.80. In sum, it seems relatively safe to conclude that the hypotheses tests in the present

study were not biased by multicollinearity.


followers' charismatic leadership ratings to the team level of analysis, assigning one

average charismatic leadership score to each leader.

Table 2.6: Aggregation Statistics (Study 1)

Charismatic

leadership

Prevention-oriented

leadership

Team positive

affective tone

Median rwg

.83 .86 .91

ICC(1)

.16 .22 .13

ICC(2)

.48 .56 .41

F 1.93** 2.27*** 1.70*

Note: n = 165 employees (nested within 34 teams). *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05.

Similarly, aggregation statistics for prevention-oriented leadership suggested that this

measure could be aggregated to the team level, with median rwg = .86, ICC(1) = .22,

ICC(2) = .56, and F(33, 123) = 2.27 (p < .001). Aggregation was also justified for the

control variable team positive affective tone, with median rwg = .91, ICC(1) = .13,

ICC(2) = .41, and F(33, 131) = 1.70 (p < .05).

It should be noted that even though the appropriateness of aggregation could be

established for all of the above variables, the ICC(2) values were somewhat low (cf.

Bliese, 2000), particularly with respect to charismatic leadership and team positive

affective tone; however, these value are comparable to those found in prior leadership

research (e.g., Bono & Anderson, 2005; Hofmann & Jones, 2005). As Bliese (2000)

noted, ICC(2) values depend, among other things, on unit size. In the present study,

teams with only two follower respondents were included, potentially resulting in lower

values for ICC(2). This relative lack of reliability of the sample group means is likely

to attenuate team-level relationships (Bliese, 2000). Thus, hypotheses tests and results

should be interpreted as conservative (cf. Hofmann & Jones, 2005).

2.4.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table 2.7 presents the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all

Study 1 variables at the team level. First of all, it is noteworthy that charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership were virtually unrelated (r = .06; p = n.s.), indicating

that the respective measures captured different types of leadership behaviors.


Further, as expected, charismatic leadership was positively related to leaders' positive

mood (r = .43; p < .05) and emotional intelligence (r = .54; p < .01). By contrast,

bivariate correlations did not show significant relationships between prevention-

oriented leadership and leaders' negative mood (r = .07; p = n.s.) and emotional

intelligence (r = -.16; p = n.s.).

Table 2.7: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 1)

Correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Leaders' positive

mooda

3.78 0.42

2. Leaders' negative

mooda

1.78 0.45 -.38*

3. Leaders' emotional

intelligencea

3.92 0.50 .49** -.36*

4. Charismatic

leadershipb

3.81 0.45 .43* .04 .54**

5. Prevention-

oriented leadershipb

2.98 0.50 -.14 .07 -.16 .06

6. Countryc

0.85 0.36 -.04 -.21 -.29 -.36* .31

7. Team size

4.85 2.90 -.01 -.13 .07 -.15 .02 .15

8. Leaders'

hierarchical levela

1.88 0.64 .15 .25 .09 .08 -.34* -.08 .06

9. Team positive

affective toneb

3.50 0.36 .17 -.10 .11 .34* .27 .41* .09 .05

Note: n = 34 teams. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. a Ratings gauged in leader survey.

b Ratings

gauged in follower survey. c 0 = United States, 1 = Germany. ** p < .01; * p < .05.

In addition, bivariate results indicated significant associations between charismatic

leadership and country (r = -.36; p < .05) and team positive affective tone (r = .34; p <

.05). Charismatic leadership behaviors were less pronounced in Germany than in the

United States, and teams with a higher positive affective tone rated their leaders to act

in a more charismatic manner. And finally, there was a significant correlation between

prevention-oriented leadership and leaders' hierarchical level (r = -.34; p < .05), with

lower level leaders exhibiting such behaviors to a more limited extent than higher level

leaders. The potential confound team size, on the other hand, was not significantly


correlated with any of the outcome variables. As Becker (2005) argued, the inclusion

of unnecessary controls (i.e., those unrelated with outcome variables) not only reduces

statistical power, but may also yield biased parameter estimates. Based on Becker's

(2005) recommendations, I therefore decided to control for country, team positive

affective tone, and leaders' hierarchical level in testing the study hypotheses, while

excluding team size.8

2.4.3 Hypotheses testing for charismatic leadership

Results of the hypotheses tests pertaining to the emergence of charismatic leadership

behaviors are depicted in the middle column of Table 2.8. The second step of this

hierarchical regression analysis yielded a significant and positive relationship between

leaders' positive mood and charismatic leadership (β = .39; p < .05), after taking into

account the effects of the control variables. Thus, Hypothesis 1.1 was supported.

Step 3 of the regression analysis provided support for Hypothesis 1.3. After taking into

account the effects of the control variables and of leaders' positive and negative mood,

leaders' emotional intelligence was significantly and positively related to their

charismatic leadership behaviors (β = .35; p < .05). Emotional intelligence

incrementally contributed another 7% to the variance explained in charismatic

leadership, over and above the effects of the control variables and leaders' mood.

Finally, the fourth step of the regression analysis tested Hypothesis 1.5 by inserting the

interaction term of leaders' positive mood and emotional intelligence. As Table 2.8

shows, this interaction term was significantly related to charismatic leadership (β =

-.66; p < .01). The interaction of leaders' positive mood and emotional intelligence

(together with the interaction of leaders' negative mood and emotional intelligence)

incrementally contributed another 12% to the variance explained in charismatic

leadership, after taking into account control variables and main effects. According to

McClelland and Judd (1993), additional explained variance of this magnitude is quite

considerable in comparison with past research. These authors held that even moderator

effects explaining as little as 1% of variance should be considered relevant in field

research.

8 Also, I repeated all hypotheses tests (1) considering only those control variables significantly correlated with

the respective outcome variable (i.e., with either charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership), and (2) omitting

all controls. These results were largely identical to those presented in the following and, therefore, are not

reported in more detail.


Table 2.8: Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analyses (Study 1)

Charismatic

leadership

Prevention-oriented

leadership

Step 1

Country (Germany vs. USA) -.60** .19

Leaders' hierarchical level .01 -.34*

Team positive affective tone .59** .21

R2 (adjusted R

2) .42**(.36) .23*(.15)

Step 2


Leaders' hierarchical level -.08 -.39*


Leader positive mood .39* -.02

Leader negative mood .15 .23

∆R2 .11* .05

R2 (adjusted R

2) .53***(.45) .28‡(.15)

Step 3

Country (Germany vs. USA) -.38* .24



Leader positive mood .28‡ -.03

Leader negative mood .26‡ .23

Leader emotional intelligence .35* .02

∆R2 .07* .00

R2 (adjusted R

2) .60***(.51) .28(.12)

Step 4




Leader positive mood .43** .11

Leader negative mood .33** .17

Leader emotional intelligence .30* .03

Leader positive mood * leader

emotional intelligence

-.66** -.40

Leader negative mood * leader

emotional intelligence

-.42 -.59

∆R2 .12* .06

R2 (adjusted R

2) .72***(.63) .34(.13)

Note: n = 34 teams. Standardized regression weights are shown. *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05;

‡ p < .10).

In order to determine whether the significant interaction exhibited the form predicted

in Hypothesis 1.5, I graphically depicted the interactive effects of leaders' positive

mood and emotional intelligence on charismatic leadership, following the

recommendations of Aiken and West (1991). In Figure 2.1, I plotted the regression

lines of leaders' positive mood on charismatic leadership under two conditions – low

emotional intelligence and high emotional intelligence (using 1 standard deviation


below and above the mean as reference points). Supporting Hypothesis 1.5, the figure

shows that the relationship between positive mood and charismatic leadership was less

pronounced for leaders high on emotional intelligence than for those low on emotional

intelligence. Emotionally intelligent leaders were perceived by their followers as

performing charismatic leadership behaviors largely irrespective of whether the

leaders were in a positive mood or not. Leaders low on emotional intelligence, by

contrast, were more likely to be perceived as exhibiting charismatic leadership

behaviors when they were in a positive mood, while they were less likely to be

perceived as exhibiting such behaviors when their positive mood was low.

Figure 2.1: Positive Mood – Emotional Intelligence Interaction on Charismatic Leadership

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

low (-1 SD) high (+1 SD)

Leaders' positive mood

Charismatic leadership

High emotional intelligence (+1 SD)

Low emotional intelligence (-1 SD)

Note: SD = standard deviation

In sum, these analyses support the study hypotheses pertaining to the emergence of

charismatic leadership behaviors (i.e., Hypotheses 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5). Both leaders'

positive mood and leaders' emotional intelligence seem to contribute to charismatic

leadership. Importantly, however, leaders' emotional intelligence moderates the

impacts of leaders' positive mood, such that emotionally intelligent leaders do not

seem to require high levels of positive mood for the performance of charismatic


leadership behaviors, while leaders low on emotional intelligence seem to depend on

their positive mood states to lead in a charismatic manner.

2.4.4 Hypotheses testing for prevention-oriented leadership

Results of the hypotheses tests pertaining to the emergence of prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors are depicted in the right column of Table 2.8. Contrary to

Hypothesis 1.2, leaders' negative mood did not significantly contribute to the

explanation of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, after taking into account

control variables, even though the regression coefficient for negative mood in Step 2

of the regression analysis was in the predicted, positive direction (β = .23; p = n.s.).

As step 3 of the regression analysis on prevention-oriented leadership shows,

Hypothesis 1.4 was also rejected. The regression coefficient for leaders' emotional

intelligence approached zero after considering the role of control variables and leaders'

positive and negative mood (β = .02; p = n.s.).

And finally, there was no support for Hypothesis 1.6 in step 4 of the hierarchical

regression analysis, with the interaction term for leaders' negative mood and emotional

intelligence failing to significantly contribute to the explanation of prevention-oriented

leadership behavior emergence. It should be noted, however, that the respective

coefficient exhibited the direction predicted in Hypothesis 1.6 (β = -.59; p = n.s.).

In sum, the study hypotheses for prevention-oriented leadership (i.e., Hypotheses 1.2,

1.4, and 1.6) were rejected based on these findings. Neither leaders' negative mood,

nor leaders' emotional intelligence, nor the interaction of these variables was

significantly associated with leaders' performance of prevention-oriented behaviors. In

fact, the only variable significantly related to prevention-oriented leadership in the

present study was the covariate leaders' hierarchical level, with upper level leaders

performing prevention-oriented behaviors to a greater extent than leaders on lower

hierarchical echelons.



The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between leaders' mood and

emotional intelligence and their performance of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors. In the following sections, I will summarize the study findings

and outline the most important contributions for charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership research, respectively, before discussing key limitations, possible future

research directions, and practical implications.

2.5.1 Summary and contributions: Charismatic leadership

Broadly speaking, the results of Study 1 suggest that both leaders' positive mood and

leaders' emotional intelligence are positively related to their performance of

charismatic leadership behaviors. Together, leaders' mood, emotional intelligence, and

the respective interaction terms explained about thirty percent of the variance in

charismatic leadership, over and above the impacts of control variables. It should be

noted that these findings are not inflated by same source variance, because leadership

ratings were collected from a different source than mood and emotional intelligence

ratings (cf. Podsakoff et al., 2003). While some of the present results reinforce prior

findings, others extend antecedent-oriented charismatic leadership research towards

new areas.

This study, for instance, is among the first to empirically investigate the role of

leaders' mood in charismatic leadership behavior emergence. Thus, by demonstrating

that leaders high on positive mood are more likely to engage in such behaviors than

their low positive mood counterparts, it corroborates prior theorizing (e.g., Ashkanasy

& Tse, 2000; Gardner & Avolio, 1998), and it extends previous empirical work that

has concentrated on personality (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004), attitude (e.g., Bommer et

al., 2004), cognition (e.g., Wofford et al., 1998), or context (e.g., Pillai & Meindl,

1998) based antecedents (see chapter 1.2.1). The study shows that leaders' feelings

may play a key role for the development of charismatic leadership behaviors,

reiterating previous notions about the affective nature of such leadership (e.g.,

Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Shamir et al., 1993; Wasiliewski, 1985).

In addition, this investigation constructively replicates (cf. Eden, 2002) prior research

demonstrating a positive linkage between emotional intelligence and charismatic

leadership (e.g., Barling et al., 2000; Gardner & Stough, 2002; Mandell & Pherwani,


2003; Middleton 2005; Palmer et al., 2001; Rubin et al., 2005; see chapter 1.2.2).

Together with these convergent research findings, the present results suggest that

leaders' emotional intelligence constitutes a crucial prerequisite for the respective

leadership behaviors. These accumulated findings are encouraging, since various

measures of both charismatic leadership (or related constructs such as transformational

leadership) and emotional intelligence have been utilized, producing largely equivalent

outcomes. This study, for instance, is the first to employ the WLEIS (Wong & Law,

2002) as an emotional intelligence measure predicting charismatic leadership. In

addition, it shows that leaders' emotional intelligence influences their charismatic

leadership behaviors over and above the impacts of their positive mood. The relevance

of emotional intelligence may, therefore, be regarded with considerable confidence.

Finally, the present study is the first to demonstrate an interactive relationship between

leaders' positive mood and emotional intelligence in charismatic leadership behavior

emergence. It contributes to the literature, therefore, by outlining the interplay of these

affective factors. Specifically, the relationship between positive mood and charismatic

leadership was shown to be moderated by leaders' emotional intelligence, with this

linkage being less pronounced for leaders high rather than low on emotional

intelligence. Emotionally intelligent leaders, in particular, seem to be able to

compensate for a lack of positive mood in their performance of charismatic leadership

behaviors. On the other hand, leaders in a positive mood may also be able to engage in

charismatic leadership to a high degree, irrespective of their emotional intelligence. In

other words, leaders' positive mood and emotional intelligence seem to substitute for

each other, with each of these constructs allowing leaders to compensate for a lack of

the other one. Leaders seem to require either high levels of positive mood or high

levels of emotional intelligence to lead in a charismatic manner.

2.5.2 Summary and contributions: Prevention-oriented leadership

While the results for charismatic leadership are encouraging, findings pertaining to the

linkages between prevention-oriented leadership and leaders' negative mood and

emotional intelligence did not support the proposed patterns. Neither the main effects

nor the interaction of these constructs significantly contributed to the explanation of

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. In sharp contrast to the findings

for charismatic leadership, the present study results, therefore, suggest that leaders'

mood and emotional intelligence may not play a relevant role as prevention-oriented


leadership antecedents, refuting the hypotheses put forward in chapter 2.2 in this

regard. While any post-hoc explanation of these outcomes is necessarily speculative, it

nevertheless seems worthwhile to explore some of the potential reasons for these

unexpected results.

As various authors have argued, negative feelings may exhibit greater diversity than

positive ones (i.e., there may be a broader array of specific negative rather than

positive affective states) and may evoke a wider array of possible behavioral responses

(e.g., Baumeister, Braslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Elfenbein, 2007; Lee &

Allen, 2002; Rozin & Royzman, 2001). While some specific negative affective states

(e.g., mild depression) may go along with favorable behavioral and cognitive

consequences such as those described before (see chapter 2.2.1.3; see also Elfenbein,

2007), others (e.g., envy or jealousy) may be more damaging in a leadership context

(Stein, 1997; 2005). The present study design did not allow for an examination of

specific negative affective states (e.g., discrete negative emotions). Therefore, such

differing consequences may account for the lack of a significant association between

the broad measure of negative mood employed here and prevention-oriented

leadership.9 Also, with the impacts of negative affect potentially being more

differentiated than initially assumed, the role of leaders' emotional intelligence (which

includes their ability to deal with such affective states; Mayer, 2001) in prevention-

oriented leadership behavior emergence might also be more complex than postulated

in developing the study hypotheses.

Interestingly, the only significant predictor of prevention-oriented leadership that

emerged in the present study was leaders' hierarchical level, with upper level leaders

engaging in such behaviors to a greater extent than lower level leaders. This finding

suggests that, possibly even to a greater extent than for charismatic leadership (see

chapter 1.2.1.5), prevention-oriented leadership behaviors may require the higher

autonomy, discretion, and authority upper level leaders typically enjoy (cf. Kanter,

1979; Pavett & Lau, 1983; Shamir & Howell, 1999). Also, upper level leaders may be

in a better position to accurately perceive external threats, because their job

9 It was possible, however, to take a more differentiated look at leaders' negative mood by separately considering

the low-intensity (i.e., bored, depressed, discouraged, fatigued, gloomy) and high-intensity (i.e., angry, anxious,

disgusted, frightened, furious) negative mood dimensions contained in the JAWS (Van Katwyk et al., 2000).

Testing the study hypotheses pertaining to prevention-oriented leadership by using these separate negative mood

dimension did not change the pattern of results reported above. The relationships between negative mood,

emotional intelligence, and prevention-oriented leadership remained non-significant.


responsibilities often crucially include the proactive "monitoring of the business

environment" (Kraut, Pedigo, McKenna, & Dunnette, 1989, p. 288). With prevention-

oriented leadership possibly hinging on leaders' threat perceptions (Bruch & Vogel,

2005; see also chapter 1.2.1.3), leaders on higher hierarchical echelons may, therefore,

be more likely to perform such behaviors. Obviously, more research is required to

further investigate and potentially corroborate these speculations.

2.5.3 Limitations

In spite of some methodological strengths of Study 1 (e.g., independent data sources

for the predictor and outcome variables, multiple raters of leadership behavior), there

are several limitations. First, the generalizability of the findings is limited, because all

data were collected from one organization (i.e., a multinational corporation

manufacturing automotive component supplies). It is not possible, therefore, to

determine the extent to which the relationships uncovered here also apply for leaders

in other organizations and industries. Future research could achieve higher

generalizability by collecting data on leaders' mood, emotional intelligence, and

leadership behaviors from more diverse samples, covering multiple types of

organizations and spanning multiple industrial contexts.

Second, the relatively small sample size deserves mentioning, as it may further limit

the generalizability of the findings and diminishes statistical power. A power analysis

(Cohen, 1988) showed that with n = 34 work teams, there was a chance of 67% for

detecting effects of r = .40 at conventional levels of statistical significance (p < .05,

two-tailed). This might – at least partially – account for the lack of associations found

between negative mood, emotional intelligence and prevention-oriented leadership. It

should be noted, however, that even when relaxing the criterion for statistical

significance to p < .10 (two-tailed), none of these relationships was significant, in spite

of a chance of 77% for detecting effects of r = .40 (cf. Cohen, 1988). As indicated

before, the sample size issue is reflective of the general problem of attaining large

group-level samples in field research pertaining to work teams (Lim & Ployhart,

2004). Hofmann and Stetzer (1996), for instance, reported a group-level sample size of

21, while Bono and Anderson (2005) and Lim and Ployhart (2004) each analyzed 39

teams. Nevertheless, future research could achieve higher generalizability and

statistical power – and thus, greater confidence in the validity of the findings – by

collecting data from a greater number of leaders and their work teams.


Third, I employed a cross-sectional, non-experimental field study design, rendering it

impossible to unambiguously determine issues of causality (cf. Cook & Campbell,

1979; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Rather than leaders' positive mood

contributing to their charismatic leadership behaviors, for instance, followers'

perceptions of charismatic leadership might have resulted in more favorable leader-

follower relations (Shamir et al., 1998), which may have contributed to leaders'

positive mood. Given the amount of research demonstrating impacts of individuals'

mood (e.g., Isen & Baron, 1991; Staw et al., 1994) and emotional intelligence (e.g.,

Law et al., 2004; Mayer et al., 2004) on their subsequent behaviors, the flow of

causality suggested in the present study appears likely. Nevertheless, I cannot exclude

the reverse direction of causality based on the present data, and even reciprocal or

spurious relationships remain possible (cf. Shadish et al., 2002). Future research might

utilize experimental or longitudinal studies to gain greater confidence about the causal

connections between leaders' mood and emotional intelligence on the one hand and

their leadership behaviors on the other hand.

Fourth, even though I included various control variables in the analyses, a number of

variables were not measured and controlled for that might also influence the

emergence of charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, potentially

biasing the study results. As indicated in chapter 1.2.1.1, for instance, a meta-analysis

by Bono and Judge (2004) showed that the Big Five personality dimensions in general

and leaders' extraversion and neuroticism in particular were significantly related to

charismatic leadership. Controlling for such leader personality traits would have

provided a more rigid test of the study hypotheses.

And finally, I did not directly evaluate leaders' charismatic and prevention-oriented

behaviors in this study but relied on followers' assessments thereof, as is common

practice in leadership research (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2003; Bommer et al., 2004;

Hater & Bass, 1988; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Sosik, 2005). As Javidan and Dastmalchian

(1993) argued, direct subordinates may be particularly suitable in providing accurate

information about their leaders' behaviors, due to their social proximity. Also, the

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership items employed here all describe

concrete leader behaviors (Bass and Avolio, 2000; Bruch et al., 2005; see chapters

2.3.2.3 and 2.3.2.4). And in addition, the use of multiple raters for each leader, along

with the high level of interrater agreement that could be demonstrated (see chapter


2.4.1), suggests that I was able to capture actual leadership behaviors, rather than

followers' idiosyncratic perceptions thereof (cf. Tsui & Ohlott, 1988). Nevertheless, a

more direct assessment of leaders' charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors

might have been possible by utilizing other methods of data collection (e.g., direct

observation; Van der Weide & Wilderom, 2004), and it would have been interesting to

see whether such alternative ways of capturing leaders' behaviors would have yielded

results similar to the ones reported here.

2.5.4 Directions for future research

Beyond addressing these limitations, the present study suggests several interesting

directions for future research. First, scholars could explore the relationship between

leaders' mood and emotional intelligence and leadership behaviors other than

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership. Such research could, for instance,

investigate the emergence of leadership behaviors like intellectual stimulation,

individualized consideration, contingent reward, management by exception, and

laissez-faire (cf. Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass, 1985). Some studies have examined the

connection between leaders' emotional intelligence and such leadership styles (e.g.,

Barling et al., 2000; Gardner & Stough, 2002; Palmer et al., 2001; Rubin et al., 2005).

It would be interesting to extend these investigations to also incorporate leaders'

positive and negative mood and potential interactive relationships between these

affective states and leaders' emotional intelligence. Such research might contribute to

more general and complete knowledge about the role of affective factors in the

development of a wide array of leadership styles.

Second, future research could move beyond considering broad positive or negative

moods as leadership behavior antecedents by investigating the impacts of leaders'

discrete emotional states. The behavioral implications of subtle moods on the one hand

and acute emotions on the other hand have been suggested to differ pronouncedly

(Sinclair et al., 2002). Also, different specific emotions may evoke different cognitive

and behavioral reactions in individuals, even if their subjective valence is similar

(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). As indicated above, these differences may be

particularly pronounced for negative emotions (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2001;

Elfenbein, 2007; Lee & Allen, 2002; Rozin & Royzman, 2001). Bodenhausen,

Sheppard, and Kramer (1994), for example, demonstrated angry individuals to

increasingly rely on stereotypes in social judgments, while they found no such effect


for sadness. Lerner and Keltner (2001) demonstrated fear to increase, but anger to

decrease individuals' risk-judgments. And finally, Carlson and Miller (1987) found

feelings of guilt to enhance individuals' helping behaviors, while there was no such

effect for sadness. By considering such specific emotions as leadership antecedents,

scholars might contribute to a more fine-grained depiction and to a better

understanding of the role of affective factors in leadership behavior emergence.

Third, with regard to prevention-oriented leadership in particular, the present findings

suggest that it may be useful for future research to focus on antecedents other than

leaders' mood and emotional intelligence. While completely ruling out affective

influences on such leadership based on these initial results might be premature, other

potential influencing factors may be more promising in this respect. Future scholars

could, for instance, move beyond individual leaders' characteristics and consider the

role of contextual aspects in prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence.

Obviously, such additional work would also be interesting with regard to charismatic

leadership, in spite of the significant findings obtained here. In Study 2, greater

attention will be devoted to such contextual antecedent variables, potentially taking

important steps in this direction (see chapter 3).

And finally, the present study has argued and found leaders' positive mood to enhance

their charismatic leadership behaviors. Some scholars have, however, pointed to the

possibility that individuals might become "too positive" (Judge & Ilies, 2004, p. 154;

see also Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), with exaggerated positive mood diminishing

people's attention towards potentially disconfirming information and promoting a

superficial, simplified style of thinking (cf. Bless, 2000; Elsbach & Barr, 1999; Huber,

Beckmann, & Herrmann, 2004). Excessively positive leaders might, therefore, tend to

lose touch with reality and to become overly visionary and idealistic, eventually

harming their charismatic appeal (cf. Conger, 1990; George, 2000). Future research

could elaborate on the role of positive mood in charismatic leadership emergence by

theoretically and empirically investigating such potentially unfavorable effects of

extreme levels of positive mood.


2.5.5 Practical implications

From a practical perspective, different implications can be drawn from this study for

organizations trying to develop charismatic behaviors on the one hand and prevention-

oriented behaviors on the other hand in their leaders. Importantly, rather than stressing

"rationalist preferences" (Beatty, 2000, p. 334; see also Putnam & Mumby, 1993)

organizations should acknowledge the relevance of affective factors in the emergence

of charismatic leadership behaviors. In order to enable their leaders to effectively

perform such behaviors, companies should aim at nurturing leaders' positive mood

and/or at strengthening leaders' emotional intelligence. This carries important practical

implications in terms of leader selection, leadership training, and the design of leaders'

work environment.

Organizations should, first of all, utilize personality and emotional intelligence tests as

important selection criteria when recruiting or promoting individuals for leadership

positions (see also Cascio, 2003; Sosik & Megerian, 1999). Personality tests might, for

instance, assess candidates' extraversion. This personality dimension has been argued

to represent individuals' general tendency towards positive feelings, with individuals

high on extraversion frequently experiencing positive mood states (George, 1992;

McCrae & Costa, 1991). Also, as indicated before, this personality disposition has

been directly associated with the performance of charismatic leadership behaviors

(e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; see chapter 1.2.1.1). By preferentially selecting individuals

for leadership positions who exhibit high extraversion and/or who achieve high

emotional intelligence scores on instruments such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso

Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2004)10, companies might,

therefore, be able to enhance the potential for charismatic leadership behaviors in their

newly hired or promoted leaders (cf. Rubin et al., 2005).

Further, organizations should incorporate emotional intelligence in their charismatic

leadership training efforts, striving to enhance the emotional intelligence of their

current leaders. Tests of emotional intelligence might be used as diagnostic tools to

identify leaders' strengths and weaknesses in this regard (Gardner & Stough, 2002).

These results could then form the basis for coaching and training programs aimed at

10 The MSCEIT is a performance-based test which assesses individuals along the abilities associated with

emotional intelligence (i.e., the perception and appraisal, use, understanding, and management of emotions;

Bracket & Geher, 2006; Mayer et al., 2004).


improving the abilities associated with emotional intelligence, building upon the

respective strengths and addressing the respective weaknesses (cf. Caruso & Wolfe,

2004; Mayer & Caruso, 2002; Watkin, 2000). Given that I have shown leaders'

emotional intelligence both to directly enhance their charismatic leadership and to

decouple their performance of such leadership behaviors from the potential ups and

downs of their current mood states, such training efforts may be particularly

worthwhile.

Finally, organizations could try to nurture leaders' positive mood by creating a

favorable work environment for them to facilitate charismatic leadership. Research

suggests that there are several levers to promote employees' positive mood through

favorable working conditions, reaching from interpersonal interactions on the job to

work-group characteristics, organizational reward and punishment systems, and even

the physical setting of the workplace (e.g., Basch & Fisher, 2000; Brief & Weiss,

2002). Above this, top managerial leadership may play a key role in contributing to

middle- and lower level leaders' positive mood. Charismatic leadership itself may be

crucial in this respect. Scholars have frequently demonstrated charismatic leadership to

arouse followers emotionally and to enhance their positive feelings (e.g., Ashkanasy &

Tse, 2000; Howell & Frost, 1989; Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002). Thus, by exhibiting

strong charismatic leadership at the top of the organization, a positive affective climate

may be created throughout the company (cf. Bass, 1990), enhancing middle- and lower

level leaders' positive mood and contributing to the cascading of charismatic

leadership behaviors across the organizational hierarchy (cf. Bass et al., 1987).

By contrast, the present results offer only limited practical advice for organizations

trying to strengthen their leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors. Importantly, affective

factors seem to be of little relevance in this regard. Study findings suggest, in

particular, that organizations cannot enhance prevention-oriented leadership by relying

on leaders' mood or emotional intelligence. Organizational decision-makers should,

therefore, creatively seek other opportunities to nurture such leadership behaviors. In

Studies 2 and 3, I will consider several potential prevention-oriented leadership

behavior antecedents other than leaders' mood and emotional intelligence. These

studies may, therefore, offer more concrete implications on how to strengthen the

occurrence of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors in organizational practice (see

chapters 3.6.5 and 4.3.3.3).


2.5.6 Conclusion

Research on the relationship between leaders' mood and emotional intelligence and

their leadership behaviors is only in its beginnings (cf. Brown & Moshavi, 2005; see

chapter 1.2.2). The present study has taken some steps towards better understanding

the connection between these constructs. On the one hand, it illustrated the key role

such factors may play in charismatic leadership behavior emergence. And on the other

hand, it demonstrated prevention-oriented leadership to be largely independent from

affective influences. In sum, I assert this investigation contributes to the leadership

literature in important ways, extending prior work on the emergence of charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership by promoting greater knowledge about their

affective antecedent conditions and pointing towards pronounced differences in the

development of these leadership styles. Hopefully, the present results may stimulate

further research in these areas of inquiry and may enhance the effectiveness of

organizations' efforts to facilitate such leadership.

78 Study 2 - Organizational Structure

3 Study 2 - The Role of Organizational Structure


This chapter addresses research question 2 by empirically investigating the relevance

of organizational structure for charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership. As

indicated in the introduction to this thesis, organizations' structural setup may

importantly influence leadership processes within organizations (e.g., Porter &

McLaughlin, 2006). Nevertheless, research on the antecedents of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership has frequently neglected the role of structural features

(see chapter 1.2.3). In the case of charismatic leadership, such work has mostly been

theoretical (e.g., Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999), with only few

empirical investigations (e.g., Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Sarros et al., 2002). Prevention-

oriented leadership research, by contrast, has not considered structural antecedents to

date. Thus, there is little solid evidence on viable design interventions for

organizations trying to strengthen the occurrence of charismatic and prevention-

oriented behaviors among their leaders.

The present study attends to this research gap by developing and empirically testing

hypotheses on the linkage between organizational structure on the one hand and the

occurrence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors in the

respective organizations on the other hand. I thereby aim at contributing to a better

understanding of the role of organizational context factors in the emergence of these

effective leadership behaviors, and at providing organizational decision-makers with

important recommendations on how to facilitate such leadership. Also, I hope to

address some of the key limitations that have characterized prior theoretical and

empirical work on the structural antecedents of charismatic leadership, in particular.

As indicated in chapter 1.2.3, both theorizing and empirical research has typically

focused on the distinction between organic vs. mechanistic structures (cf. Burns &

Stalker, 1994; Tosi, 1991) when considering structural impacts on charismatic

leadership (e.g., Kark & Van-Dijk, 2007; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Shamir & Howell,

1999; Shamir et al., 2000; for exceptions see Podsakoff et al., 1996; Sarros et al.,

2002). This distinction refers to a wide variety of organizational characteristics,

including task specialization and abstractness, the definition of rights and obligations,

hierarchical structures of control, authority, and communication, centralization of

Study 2 - Organizational Structure 79

knowledge, vertical vs. horizontal interaction tendencies, reliance on top-down

instructions and obedience to supervisors, and the prevalence of local versus general

knowledge and skills (Burns & Stalker, 1994, p. 120). Given this broad variety of

structural facets, Howell (1997; see also James & Jones, 1976) argued that it may be

difficult for empirical research to accurately capture organizations along a continuum

from more organic to more mechanistic structures and to relate such measures to the

occurrence of specific leadership behaviors. In addition, conceptualizing

organizational structure in such a broad manner may result in a relatively superficial

depiction of the structure – leadership linkage, and important details of this

relationship (e.g., potential differences in the effects of specific structural elements)

may be lost. Howell (1997), therefore, suggested focusing on specific structural facets

that distinguish organic and mechanistic organizations in empirical research on the

antecedents of leaders' behaviors. Following this suggestion, I decided to concentrate

on three specific facets of organizational structure (i.e., organizational centralization,

formalization, and size) in the present study, rather than employing a broad distinction

between more organic vs. more mechanistic organizations (see chapter 3.2.2). By

separately considering these aspects, I hope to contribute to a more fine-grained and

differentiated depiction of the impacts of organizational structure in charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. This may provide for a more

detailed understanding of these issues, and it may point organizational decision-

makers to more specific intervention opportunities to strengthen such leadership.

Also, while extant theoretical work refers to the relevance of organizational structure

for charismatic leadership, empirical research has typically focused on the effects of

structure at lower levels of analysis (e.g., the work unit or the individual level; Pillai

and Meindl, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Sarros et al. 2002; Shamir et al., 2000; see

chapter 1.2.3). To the author's knowledge, there is no empirical study to date that

examines structural impacts on charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership at the

organizational level. Thus, given the problems associated with generalizing

relationships across levels of analysis (Rousseau, 1985), additional empirical research

seems required to expand prior findings and to investigate their transferability to such

higher levels. The present study is, therefore, located at the organizational level of

analysis, with both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership being

conceptualized as organization level climate variables (cf. Chen & Bliese, 2002;


Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; see chapter 3.2.1). Specifically, this study focuses on the

impacts of organizational structure on the average occurrence of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors in different organizations. Thus, I aim at

supplementing prior lower-level research and at increasing our knowledge on the

relevance of organizational structure in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence. Also, I hope to underline the need for scholars and practitioners

to consider structural features from the organizational level when investigating or

trying to nurture such leadership.

In the following sections, I will first explicate some conceptual issues and define key

constructs, before outlining the study's theoretical background and developing specific

research hypotheses. I will then describe the empirical methods employed and the

results obtained, and I will discuss the study's contributions to the literature,

limitations, and implications for research and practice.

3.2 Conceptual Issues and Definitions

3.2.1 Organizations' charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climate

As indicated above, this study focuses on the emergence of organizations' charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership climates, as opposed to individual leaders'

charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors. These leadership climates are defined

as the extent to which leaders in the organization collectively (i.e., on average) engage

in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, respectively. Numerous

authors have similarly captured leadership as a collective level climate variable (e.g.,

Bliese & Halverson, 1998; 2002; Bliese, Halverson, & Schriesheim, 2002; Gavin &

Hofmann, 2002; Markham & Halverson, 2002). Also, scholars have pointed to the

general viability of considering collective behaviors at the organizational level of

analysis (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). Investigating the development of organizations'

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climates, therefore, may represent a

worthwhile and interesting extension to prior research on the antecedents of such

leadership.

If charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership are to be meaningfully applied as

collective, organizational level phenomena, however, it is necessary to assume (and to

empirically demonstrate) that individual leaders' respective behaviors exhibit sufficient


similarity within and variability between organizations (cf. Bliese et al., 2002; Chen &

Bliese, 2002; Klein et al., 1994). It is important, therefore, to conceptually justify why

such within-organization homogeneity (and between-organization heterogeneity) in

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors can reasonably be expected.

Phrased more abstractly, this refers to the question of how collective, organizational

level leadership climate may emerge from individual leaders' charismatic or

prevention-oriented behaviors (cf. Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Morgeson & Hofmann,

1999; Ostroff & Bowen, 2000; Rousseau, 1985).

As Klein and colleagues (1994) argued, homogeneity within and heterogeneity

between collective units (e.g., organizations) may arise from various different

organizational practices and processes. Attraction-selection-attrition (ASA)

mechanisms may, for instance, be critical in this respect. Different types of

organizations have been suggested to attract, select, and retain different kinds of

individuals, for example, through the use of organization specific HR systems or by

satisfying some employees' needs better than others' (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). Over

time, such ASA cycles should contribute to the similarity of people (and their

behaviors) within the organization and to differences from other organizations'

members (Schneider, 1987). Second, socialization has been suggested to be crucial

(Klein et al., 1994). As newcomers enter an organization, they typically adapt their

attitudes and behaviors to the organization's practices, policies, and culture through

social interactions with incumbent employees in a gradual manner. This should

attenuate differences between individual organization members over time, and it

should enhance the distinctiveness of specific organizations' members' attitudes and

behaviors (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). And finally, scholars have pointed to the

relevance of the common experiences and common social influences that employees

face (Klein et al., 1994). Members of an organization may collectively encounter

specific events that non-members do not participate in, influencing their

interpretations, attitudes, and behaviors in a similar manner (Schneider & Reichers,

1983). Also, organization members may interact more closely with each other than

with members of other organizations. Employees within an organization should,

therefore, share their attitudes, perspectives, and feelings to a greater extent and

converge on common, collective interpretations and behavioral reactions over time

(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Importantly, the above


mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. They may combine to strongly enhance the

homogeneity of individuals' attitudes, feelings, and behaviors within organizations. At

the same time, all of these mechanisms should also contribute to between-organization

heterogeneity along such dimensions (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Schneider &

Reichers, 1983).

In sum, organizations can, therefore, be expected to attract, select, and retain specific

types of leaders, to socialize these leaders in a specific manner, and to expose these

leaders to specific types of experiences and social influences (cf. Klein et al., 1994).

Individual leaders' behaviors within an organization should, therefore, exhibit

substantial homogeneity, while such behaviors should differ from leaders in other

organizations. Based on these conceptual arguments (and based on appropriate

statistical evidence; see chapter 3.5.1), it seems possible to treat charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership as organization level climate variables in the present

study. Obviously, this is not to say that all leaders within an organization should

exhibit identical levels of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership. Such

behaviors may also be subject to the influences of various individual difference

variables (e.g., leaders' mood or emotional intelligence; see chapter 2). Nevertheless,

the mechanisms indicated above should account for greater homogeneity in

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors within organizations than

between organizations, enabling the conceptually and empirically meaningful use of

such leadership behaviors as climate variables at the organizational level of analysis.

As I will show in the following, organizations' structure may shape the prevalence of

specific types of leadership behaviors, influencing organizations' charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership climates. Before elaborating on this argument in more

detail, however, I will first focus on the specific facets of organizational structure to be

discussed here, pointing to the relevance of considering organizational centralization,

formalization, and size in particular and providing definitions for these constructs.


3.2.2 Organizational centralization, formalization, and size

Following James and Jones (1976), organizational structure is defined here as "the

enduring characteristics of an organization reflected by the distribution of units and

positions within the organization and their systematic relationships to each other" (p.

76). Scholars such as Hage and Aiken (1967) and Pugh, Hickson, Hingins and Turner

(1968) have suggested a wide array of specific facets that may be utilized to depict

organizational structure. Features such as organization size, centralization of decision

making and authority, configuration, formalization, specialization, and standardization,

for example, may be relevant in describing organizations' structural setup and

influencing various outcome variables (see also James & Jones, 1976).

As indicated before, I decided to investigate three specific facets of organizational

structure as potential antecedents of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

climate, namely centralization, formalization, and organization size. Organizational

centralization is defined as the degree to which authority is concentrated within an

organization (cf. Schminke, Ambrose, & Cropanzano, 2000). Specifically, I chose to

focus on what Hage and Aiken (1967, p. 78) labeled "hierarchy of authority", i.e., the

concentration of decision-making power with regard to performing work tasks.

Directly influencing organization members in their daily jobs, this type of

centralization may have particularly strong impacts on employees' attitudes and

behaviors (cf. Lambert, Hogan, & Allen, 2006). Further, organizational formalization

is defined here as "the extent to which rules, procedures, instructions, and

communications are written" within an organization, following the classic work of

Pugh and colleagues (1968, p. 75). And finally, as has been common practice in prior

research (e.g., Schminke et al., 2000; Schminke, Cropanzano, & Rupp, 2002; Wally &

Baum, 1994), I define organization size as the total number of employees working in

an organization. As Schminke and colleagues (2000; 2002) noted, this

conceptualization of organization size is largely interchangeable with alternative

measures such as companies' total assets (see also Agarwal, 1979).

Organizational centralization, formalization, and size represent key constructs in what

has been labeled a "traditional view" on organizational structure (Brass, 1984, p. 519).

They have been associated with important outcome variables in organizational

behavior research, such as, for example, employees' justice perceptions (Schminke et

al., 2000; 2002), work alienation (Sarros et al., 2002), and decision-making (Wally &


Baum, 1994). Also, even though centralization and formalization represent key

characteristics of the broad distinction between organic and mechanistic structures (cf.

Burns & Stalker, 1994), they are not necessarily closely connected. As Tannenbaum

and Dupuree-Bruno (1994) argued, "it is quite possible for an organization to have a

strong degree of formalization and yet also have a participatory, decentralized

structure" (p. 175). Accordingly, centralization and formalization have generally been

found to be only weakly (and sometimes even negatively) related both to each other

and to organization size (e.g., Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar, & Howard, 1996;

Gillen & Carroll, 1985; Hage & Aiken, 1967; Montanari & Freedman, 1981; Payne &

Mansfield, 1973; Schminke et al., 2000; 2002). It seems worthwhile, therefore, to

separately consider the impacts of centralization, formalization, and organization size

on the emergence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climates, because

these structural dimensions cannot be readily assumed to have parallel effects.

3.3 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

3.3.1 Theoretical background

Scholars have suggested various conceptual models linking organizational context

characteristics (including specific facets of the organizational structure) to

organization members' behaviors. When considering structural influences on

organizations' charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climates, these models

may provide interesting theoretical starting points.

Oldham and Hackman (1981), for instance, have proposed the "job-modification

framework" (p. 68) to account for the relationship between organizational structure on

the one hand and employees' attitudes and behaviors on the other hand. This

framework argues "that the structural properties of organizations influence employee

reactions by shaping the characteristics of their jobs" (Oldham & Hackman, 1981, p.

68; see also Brass, 1981). In other words, organizational characteristics such as

centralization, formalization, and size are suggested to impact the job features

employees face (e.g., their autonomy, role ambiguity, role conflict, task significance,

etc.), influencing employees' psychological reactions to their jobs and shaping their

subsequent behavioral responses (cf. Rousseau, 1978). Given Sutton and Rousseau's

(1979) contention that organizational characteristics may be particularly relevant in


influencing managerial attitudes and behaviors, the job modification framework seems

likely to generalize towards the occurrence of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors in organizations and, by extension, to the development of

organizations' charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climates.

Interestingly, Stewart's (1976; 1982) demands-constraints-choices model of

managerial jobs leads to similar conclusions. As Stewart (1982, p. 2) argued, jobs in

organizations (and managerial jobs in particular) are characterized by demands (i.e.,

tasks that must be done) and constraints (i.e., factors that limit what can be done).

Together, these demands and constraints determine the extent to which organization

members have choices with regard to the activities they perform. In sum, then,

demands, constraints, and choices constitute job characteristics that are likely to shape

organization members' behaviors in their jobs. Numerous authors have noted that the

organizational context (including various specific facets of organizational structure)

may critically impact the demands and constraints organization members face and the

choices they take, with contextual features, therefore, influencing organization

members' behaviors in general and leaders' behaviors in particular (e.g., Green,

Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Hammer & Turk, 1987; Osborn & Hunt, 1975). By

influencing leaders' demands, constraints, and choices, organizational structure may,

for instance, either facilitate or restrict leaders' opportunities to perform charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, and – within the remaining area of

discretion – shape leaders' decisions on whether to engage in such behaviors. Thus,

both from a job-modification (Oldham & Hackman, 1981) and from a demands-

constraints-choices perspective (Stewart, 1976; 1982), structural features of the

organization seem likely to impact leaders' charismatic and prevention-oriented

behaviors and, therefore, to influence organizations' respective leadership climates.

As indicated above, this is not to say that, given specific structural features, I expect all

leaders in the organization to exhibit equivalent levels of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership (see chapter 3.2.1). Even organization members in highly similar

situations may have (or perceive) somewhat different job characteristics, demands, and

constraints and differ in the choices they take to some degree (cf. Stewart, 1982).

Individual differences in leadership behaviors within organizations, therefore, remain

possible. Nevertheless, with organizational structure representing a shared property of

the organization (cf. Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Schneider & Reichers, 1983), I


expect structural characteristics to influence all leaders' behaviors to a certain extent

and, accordingly, to shape organizations' overall charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership climates. In the following, I will outline this argument in more detail,

developing specific study hypotheses on the role of organizational centralization,

formalization, and size as antecedents of organizations' charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership climates.

3.3.2 Organizational structure and charismatic leadership climate

3.3.2.1 Centralization and charismatic leadership climate

First of all, I suggest centralization to be inversely associated with organizations'

charismatic leadership climate. Particularly, centralization seems likely to influence

leaders' job characteristics throughout the organization and to place specific demands

and constraints on leaders which may prevent them from engaging in charismatic

behaviors.

As Pawar and Eastman (1997) argued, for instance, upper level leaders in highly

centralized organizations are often overburdened by the multitude of operational

decisions handed upwards through the hierarchy, because decision-making authority

regarding work tasks, by definition, is concentrated at the top (see also Hage & Aiken,

1967). This should absorb upper level leaders' attention and, therefore, restrain their

ability to focus on more complex, overarching issues and to develop an inspirational,

long-term vision for the organization. Similarly, lower level leaders are likely to

remain preoccupied with the implementation of operational directives from higher

hierarchical echelons in such settings, also reducing their ability to identify and

articulate visionary aspirations (Howell, 1997; Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Visionary

leadership behaviors, which constitute a hallmark of charismatic leadership (House &

Shamir, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 1990), therefore, seem less likely to occur the higher

the degree of organizational centralization, diminishing the respective organizations'

charismatic leadership climate.

Further, centralization may hamper organizations' charismatic leadership climate by

constraining leaders' opportunities to engage in innovative, charismatic actions. Highly

centralized organizations have, for instance, been suggested to inhibit employees'

awareness of potential innovations by diminishing their involvement in work-related

decisions, by constraining available channels of communication, and by hindering


employees' access to important information (Tannenbaum & Dupuree-Bruno, 1994;

Wally & Baum, 1994). Also, as Russel and Russel (1992) argued, centralized

structures may leave organization members with limited autonomy and control over

organizational resources, thus restricting their ability to initiate and test creative,

innovative ideas. Leaders in highly centralized settings may, therefore, find it difficult

to portray a charismatic image by acting in a bold, unconventional, and

counternormative manner (cf. Avolio & Bass, 1988; Conger & Kanungo, 1987;

Shamir et al., 1993). Also, leaders' ability to identify and articulate innovative,

visionary goals that are substantially discrepant from the status quo (cf. Conger &

Kanungo, 1987; Zaccaro & Banks, 2001) should remain limited in such situations.

Above this, leaders in highly centralized organizations may frequently choose not to

engage in charismatic leadership behaviors even within their areas of discretionary

choice, because they may not perceive the necessity to perform such behaviors to

achieve their goals, further weakening the respective organizations' charismatic

leadership climate. In such settings, leaders throughout the hierarchy should be able to

rely on their "position, reward and sanction power", because they are equipped with

strong formal authority over followers (Howell, 1997, p. 11). Thus, there is little need

for the personal, informal bases of power charismatic leaders utilize when performing

role-modeling behaviors, communicating an inspirational vision, or fostering the

acceptance of common goals. Such personal bases of power may, by contrast, gain

greater relevance in the absence of strong formal authority, i.e., under conditions of

low centralization (House, 1991; Tosi, 1991), which should, therefore, strengthen

organizations' charismatic leadership climate.

And finally, centralization may further deprive leaders in the organization of their

motivation to engage in charismatic leadership behaviors by contributing to leaders'

negative work attitudes. As Paglis and Green (2002) argued, leaders' willingness to

contribute their leadership efforts on the organization's behalf may hinge, at least

partially, on their attitudes towards the organization. Also, as indicated in chapter

1.2.1.2, charismatic leadership research has found the respective leadership behaviors

to depend on leaders' positive work attitudes (e.g., Bommer et al., 2004; Spreitzer et

al., 1999). Interestingly, centralization has generally been associated with negative

attitudes among employees due to its detrimental impacts on organization members'

perceived control over important work decisions, contributing, among other things, to


employees' work alienation (Sarros et al., 2002) and diminishing their perceptions of

organizational justice (Schminke et al., 2000; 2002). High levels of centralization

should, therefore, diminish leaders' willingness to engage in specific charismatic

leadership behaviors which require substantial effort on behalf of the organization,

such as developing and articulating an overarching vision, acting as a role model, and

fostering the acceptance of organizational goals (cf. Podsakoff et al., 1990).

Based on these arguments, highly centralized organizations should generally exhibit

limited levels of charismatic leadership climate. Organizations low in centralization,

by contrast, may preserve leaders' ability to identify and communicate inspirational,

far-reaching, and innovative visions and to role-model bold, counternormative,

charismatic actions, and they should maintain leaders' perceived necessity and

willingness to engage in such behaviors to a greater extent. Charismatic leadership

climate should, therefore, be stronger in this type of settings. Providing initial, indirect

support for this assertion, Sarros et al. (2002) demonstrated individual employees'

ratings of top managers' transformational leadership to be negatively associated with

their perceptions of organizational centralization.

Hypothesis 2.1: Charismatic leadership climate will be more pronounced in

organizations characterized by low rather than high levels of centralization.

3.3.2.2 Formalization and charismatic leadership climate

Traditionally, formalization has been associated with negative consequences for

employees' job characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors (Organ & Greene, 1981). It has

been suggested, for instance, to diminish employees' perceived autonomy and to

increase their job stress (e.g., Nasurdin, Ramayah, & Beng, 2006; Sutton & Rousseau,

1979; Wally & Baum, 1994). Early-on, however, researchers have also pointed

towards the potential positive implications of organizational formalization. As Organ

and Greene (1981) noted, for example, a bureaucratic, formalized structural setup

"might even facilitate the work of professionals if it improved coordination and

communication" (p. 238). In line with the latter reasoning, Podsakoff et al. (1996)

found significant, positive correlations between employees' perceptions of

formalization and their transformational leadership ratings at the individual level of

analysis. I suggest, accordingly, that formalization will be positively associated with

organizations' charismatic leadership climate, because it may benefit relevant job


characteristics and favorably influence the demands, constraints, and choices of

leaders throughout the organization.

First and foremost, formalization may disburden leaders in the organization from

specific demands and constraints that might otherwise distract them from charismatic

leadership and, by consequence, diminish the organization's charismatic leadership

climate. Particularly, formalization has been argued to contribute to organizational

efficiency through the provision of written rules, procedures and regulations

(Hetherington, 1991). As suggested by Howell, Dorfman, and Kerr (1986),

formalization may, therefore, serve as a substitute for efficiency-oriented leadership

(e.g., path-goal clarification; cf. House, 1996). Thus, rather than investing their time

and energy on such behaviors, leaders in formalized settings may have the opportunity

to focus their attention on more far-reaching, charismatic activities, for example, on

the identification and articulation of visionary aspirations or on the provision of role-

modeling behaviors (cf. Bass, 1985; Podsakoff et al., 1990). They should find it easier

to engage in such behaviors than leaders in organizations with little formalization.

Above this, the presence of clear-cut guidelines, procedures, and policies may promote

organizations' charismatic leadership climate by clarifying organizational requirements

for leaders and helping leaders in prioritizing conflicting expectations, thus

diminishing their perceived role ambiguity and role conflict (James & Jones, 1976;

Michaels, Cron, Dubinsky, & Joachimsthaler, 1988; Organ & Greene, 1981;

Podsakoff, Williams, & Todor, 1986). Leaders in formalized organizations should,

therefore, have a clear picture of what is expected from them, what actions are

appropriate, and how to deal with contradictory demands. This should place them in a

better position to develop and articulate visionary aspirations in line with

organizational expectations, to foster the acceptance of common organizational goals

among their followers, and to role-model appropriate goal-directed behaviors, as is

characteristic for charismatic leadership (cf. Podaskoff et al., 1990).

And finally, formalization may increase the likelihood that leaders in the organization

choose to engage in charismatic behaviors within their areas of discretion, further

nurturing the organization's charismatic leadership climate. Importantly, research

indicates that formalization may positively influence employees' work attitudes.

Reinforcing the organization's predictability and reliability and clearly outlining

members' responsibilities and contributions to the organization's overall goals,


formalized structures have, for instance, been shown to strengthen employees'

commitment to and identification with the organization (Michaels et al., 1988; Organ

& Greene, 1981; Podsakoff et al., 1986) and to contribute to their perceptions of

distributive, interactional, and procedural justice (Schminke et al., 2000; 2002). Given

such positive attitudinal implications, I suggest leaders in formalized organizations

will exhibit higher willingness to invest their efforts on the organizations behalf by

acting in a charismatic manner (cf. Bommer et al., 2004; Paglis & Greene, 2002). They

may, for instance, be more motivated to develop and articulate overarching visions, to

act as role models for their followers, and to foster the acceptance of organizational

goals, thus contributing to these key aspects of charismatic leadership (cf. Podsakoff et

al., 1990).

In sum, I expect organizational formalization to be positively related to organizations'

charismatic leadership climate. Formalized organizations should exhibit such

leadership climate to a greater extent. In weakly formalized settings, by contrast,

charismatic leadership climate seems likely to suffer from leaders' need to focus on

efficiency-oriented rather than visionary, charismatic behaviors, from leaders' lack of

orientation and role clarity, and from leaders' limited motivation to act in a charismatic

manner.


organizations characterized by high rather than low levels of formalization.

3.3.2.3 Organization size and charismatic leadership climate

Various scholars have suggested organization size to influence leaders' behaviors (for

a review, see Bass, 1990), speculating, for instance, that larger organizations may

potentially constitute a "confronting context" for charismatic and transformational

leadership (Berson et al., 2001, p. 58). Echoing this notion, I hold that organization

size will negatively relate to organizations' charismatic leadership climate, because it

may deteriorate leaders' job characteristics, imposing specific demands and constraints

on leaders in the organization and negatively coloring their choices to engage in

charismatic behaviors.

Large organizations are typically characterized by higher levels of complexity than

small ones, because they comprise a greater number of employees and specialized

work units (e.g., teams, departments, and divisions), and because they have more


complex and diversified contacts with their environments (Tushman & Romanelli,

1985). Leaders in large organizations may, therefore, find it more difficult to fully

capture their potential contributions to the organization's overall objectives, and they

may feel limited responsibility for achieving organizational aspirations (cf. Ghobodian

& Gallear, 1997; James & Jones, 1976). Also, as Iaquinto and Fredrickson (1997)

argued, different members of large, complex organizations may hold profoundly

differing perceptions of organizational attributes and processes. This may further

contribute to leaders' ambiguity about the organizations' overall goals. And above this,

such goals may remain remote and abstract to followers in large organizations,

because these aspirations may have limited connections to employees' daily work.

Eventually, therefore, organizations' size may weaken their charismatic leadership

climate by depriving leaders of their ability to develop and effectively communicate an

overarching vision based on organizational objectives and aspirations, to role-model

proactive, goal-directed behaviors, and to promote the acceptance of clear-cut

organizational goals among followers.

Above this, the coordination requirements associated with increasing organization size

may evoke an emphasis on conventionality and administrative efficiency rather than

innovativeness in the organization (Payne & Mansfield, 1973), further diminishing

leaders' capability to engage in bold, counternormative actions and to develop and

communicate innovative, inspiring visions. Organization size has, accordingly, been

found to reduce the inspirational content of leaders' visions, operating "as a boundary

condition for the level of confidence and optimism contained in a leader's vision

statement" (Berson et al., 2001, p. 69). Thus, organizations' size may substantially

weaken these key aspects of their charismatic leadership climate (cf. Shamir et al.,

1993).

Further, large organizations' charismatic leadership climate may suffer from leaders'

reduced ability to engage in charismatic relationships with their followers.

Organization size has, for instance, been found to widen the psychological distance

between leaders and their direct subordinates (Payne & Mansfield, 1973) and to

diminish the quality of leader-follower relations (Schminke et al., 2000; 2002) due to

the inherent complexity of large organizations. In such settings, leaders may find it

particularly difficult to function as personal role-models for their followers and to


convincingly promote common goals, as is characteristic of charismatic leaders

(Podsakoff et al., 1990).

And finally, organizations' size may weaken their charismatic leadership climate by

negatively biasing leaders' choices to engage in charismatic behaviors, because it may

evoke negative attitudes towards the organization and diminish leaders' motivation to

invest their efforts on the organization's behalf by acting in a charismatic manner (cf.

Bommer et al., 2004; Paglis & Green, 2002; see chapter 1.2.1.2). Accordingly,

research has shown members of large organizations to often experience a lack of social

integration and a sense of alienation due to the higher perceived anonymity in such

settings, with organization size, therefore, diminishing members' job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and justice perceptions (James & Jones, 1976; Ragins,

Cotton, & Miller, 2000; Schminke et al., 2002).

In sum, charismatic leadership climate should remain limited in large organizations.

Small organizations, by contrast, may exhibit stronger charismatic leadership climate.

They should enable leaders to more fully capture their contributions to organizational

goals, they should preserve leaders' ability to formulate and effectively communicate

innovative, visionary aspirations, to engage in bold, unconventional actions, and to

build charismatic relationships with their followers, and they should retain leaders'

motivation to perform charismatic behaviors to a greater extent.


small rather than large organizations.

3.3.3 Organizational structure and prevention-oriented leadership climate

3.3.3.1 Centralization and prevention-oriented leadership climate

As in the case of charismatic leadership, I expect organizational centralization to

negatively relate to organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate. Particularly,

centralization seems likely to shape leaders' job characteristics so as to impede both

their ability and their motivation to perform prevention-oriented behaviors through the

demands and constraints it imposes on them.

First of all, high centralization seems likely to reduce leaders' capability to perceive

and act upon external threats, diminishing this key prerequisite for the performance of

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (cf. Bruch & Vogel, 2005). As indicated


before, in highly centralized organizations, leaders at the upper levels of the hierarchy

often face a large number of internal, operational decisions that are handed towards

them from lower hierarchical echelons, because decision-making power – even with

regard to minor work tasks – is concentrated at the top (Hage & Aiken, 1967; Pawar &

Eastman, 1997; see chapter 3.3.2.1). Theories of social cognition argue "that

individuals have a limited capacity to deal with all the information in their

environments and to process what they do perceive" (Kiesler & Sproull, 1982, p. 552).

Thus, with upper level leaders' cognitive capacities largely being absorbed by internal

issues, they may find it difficult to focus on external threats in the organization's

environment and to convincingly communicate such threats towards followers.

Similarly, lower level leaders are likely to face a large number of operational

directives from higher hierarchical echelons in highly centralized organizations. Their

cognitive capacities are likely to be focused on the implementation of such directives

(cf. Howell, 1997; Pawar & Eastman, 1997) rather than on the identification and

communication of external threats. In sum, organizations' prevention-oriented

leadership climate is likely to remain limited in highly centralized settings, because

leaders throughout the organization should find it difficult to recognize external threats

and to incorporate such threats into their leadership behaviors in a prevention-oriented

manner.

In addition, centralized structures may diminish leaders' motivation to engage in

prevention-oriented behaviors even if leaders recognize external threats. This may be

particularly relevant for lower level leaders. As Howell (1997) argued, in highly

centralized organizations with a strong hierarchy of authority, "followers comply with

leaders' directives in order to obtain specific rewards or approval and avoid

punishments or disapproval" (p. 12). Lower level leaders may, therefore, tend to

primarily base their actions on directives and orders from their superiors rather than on

their own observations of issues (e.g., external threats) in the organizational

environment (cf. Howell, 1997). Thus, even if they clearly notice external threats, they

may have limited incentives to deal with such issues in a proactive manner and to

engage in prevention-oriented leadership behaviors unless their superiors direct them

to do so. In such circumstances, lower level leaders' perceptions of external threats are

unlikely to translate into prevention-oriented behaviors, diminishing the respective

organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate.


These negative motivational implications may be further exacerbated through

centralization's detrimental effects on leaders' attitudes. As indicated before, leaders'

willingness to invest their efforts on the organizations' behalf hinges on their positive

attitudes towards the organization to a large extent (Paglis & Green 2002; see chapter

3.3.2.1). Prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, in particular, seem likely to require

substantial effort on the part of the leader, requiring him or her to vigilantly scan the

environment for potential threats, to convincingly communicate such threats towards

followers, and to build followers' confidence that threats can be overcome through

collective efforts (Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). By contributing to leaders' work

alienation (Sarros et al., 2002) and by diminishing their perceptions of organizational

justice (Schminke et al., 2000; 2002), organizational centralization should, therefore,

decrease leaders' motivation to perform such prevention-oriented behaviors, reducing

the organization's prevention-oriented leadership climate.

In sum, organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate should remain limited in

the presence of high centralization. Organizations low in centralization, by contrast,

should exhibit stronger prevention-oriented leadership climate, because they may

preserve leaders' ability to perceive external threats and to act upon these threats in a

prevention-oriented manner, and because they may maintain leaders' motivation and

willingness to engage in such behaviors to a greater extent.

Hypothesis 2.4: Prevention-oriented leadership climate will be more

pronounced in organizations characterized by low rather than high levels of

centralization.

3.3.3.2 Formalization and prevention-oriented leadership climate

Again mirroring the arguments for charismatic leadership to some degree, I suggest

that formalization will positively relate to organizations' prevention-oriented

leadership climate, because it may positively influence leaders' relevant job

characteristics and improve upon the demands and constraints leaders face. As a

consequence, both leaders' ability and leaders' motivation to engage in prevention-

oriented behaviors may benefit.

As suggested in chapter 3.3.2.2, organizational formalization may disburden leaders

from the need to engage in efficiency-oriented behaviors to a large extent, because it

contributes to organizational efficiency through the provision of written rules,


procedures, and regulations (Hetherington, 1991; Howell et al., 1986). Organizational

formalization may, therefore, free cognitive and attentional capacities in leaders (cf.

Kiesler & Sproull, 1982) that may be employed for prevention-oriented leadership

activities, such as scanning the environment for potential threats to the organization,

communicating such threats towards followers, and developing actionable steps to

overcome such threats (cf. Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). Enabling leaders to focus on such

behaviors instead of internal efficiency issues, formalization should strengthen

organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate.

Above this, formalization may strengthen leaders' ability to engage in prevention-

oriented behaviors by enhancing their perceived role clarity. Specifically, a formalized

structural setup has been found to reduce organization members' role ambiguity and

role conflicts, because it explicates individual members' tasks and demonstrates how

these tasks fit into the organization's overall context (James & Jones, 1976; Michaels

et al., 1988; Organ & Greene, 1981; Podsakoff et al., 1986). Leaders in formalized

organizations may, therefore, find it easier to comprehend how specific external

threats to the organization may affect both themselves and their subordinates, and they

may be more readily able to discern their potential contributions towards overcoming

such threats. This may put them in a better position to communicate external threats

towards followers, to emphasize the relevance of such threats in a captivating manner,

and to outline concrete steps for threat resolution, strengthening these key

characteristics of prevention-oriented leadership (cf. Bruch et al., 2005; 2007) and,

eventually, enhancing organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate.

And finally, organizational formalization may not only increase leaders' ability, but

also strengthen their motivation to engage in prevention-oriented behaviors. As

indicated before, formalization has been found to contribute to members'

organizational commitment, identification, and justice perceptions by enhancing the

organization's predictability and reliability (Michaels et al., 1988; Organ & Greene,

1981; Podsakoff et al., 1986; Schminke et al., 2000; 2002). With prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors typically requiring substantial effort from leaders (see chapter

3.3.3.1), these positive attitudes towards the organization may crucially strengthen

their willingness to engage in such leadership and to invest their energy on the

organization's behalf in a prevention-oriented manner (cf. Paglis & Green, 2002).


Therefore, I suggest prevention-oriented leadership behaviors to occur more frequently

in organizations characterized by high rather than low levels of formalization.

In sum, then, I expect high formalization to enhance organizations' prevention-oriented

leadership climate. Organizations low in formalization, by contrast, seem likely to

exhibit prevention-oriented leadership climate to a more limited extent, because

leaders may lack the cognitive/attentional resources, the role clarity, and the

motivation required to effectively perform such behaviors.


pronounced in organizations characterized by high rather than low levels of

formalization.

3.3.3.3 Organization size and prevention-oriented leadership climate

Finally, I expect organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate to be negatively

associated with their size, because organization size may have detrimental impacts on

leaders' relevant job characteristics (such as the demands and constraints leaders face)

and on leaders' choices to engage in prevention-oriented behaviors.

First of all, I suggest the increasing complexity and functional diversification that

typically goes along with organization size (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985) to impede

key aspects of organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate. Scholars have

argued, for instance, that leaders may often fail to perceive external threats and to

recognize the relevance of such threats if they concern functional areas unfamiliar to

the respective leaders (Beyer, Chattopadhyay, George, Lick, obilvie, & Pugliese,

1997). Functionally specialized leaders in large, diversified organizations may,

therefore, more frequently fail to identify and correctly assess specific external threats

than their more generalistic counterparts in small organizations. Also, leaders in large

organizations may find it more difficult to outline concrete steps towards overcoming

specific external threats, because their area of responsibility and functional expertise

should be more limited and because the implications of the respective threats may be

more complex. Thus, with increasing organization size, specific external threats are

less likely to be incorporated into leaders' behaviors and into their communications

with followers, diminishing large organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate

(cf. Bruch et al., 2005; 2007).


Above this, increasing organization size has been suggested to enhance the amount of

political behaviors within the organization due to the higher number of diversified

subunits that compete for organizational resources (Conner, 2006; Tushman &

Romanelli, 1985). Leaders' attention may, therefore, be diverted from potential

external threats in the organizational environment, as they focus on internal issues to a

greater extent to effectively cope with political matters and with the additional job

stress created in such settings (cf. Ferris et al., 1996; Valle & Perrewe, 2000). Thus,

leaders in large organizations seem likely to be less attentive to external threats than

leaders in small organizations. This crucial prerequisite for the development of a

strong prevention-oriented leadership climate (cf. Bruch & Vogel, 2005) should,

therefore, be diminished with increasing organization size.

And lastly, organization size may negatively bias leaders' motivation to engage in

prevention-oriented behaviors, even to the extent that they perceive external threats in

the organizational environment and recognize the relevance of such threats. As

indicated in chapter 3.3.2.3, organization size has been shown to evoke negative work

attitudes in organization members, because it contributes to a lack of social integration

and to a sense of alienation, diminishing, for instance, members' job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and justice perceptions (James & Jones, 1976; Ragins et

al., 2000; Schminke et al., 2002). Such negative attitudes are likely to curb leaders'

willingness to invest their efforts on the organizations behalf (cf. Paglis & Green,

2002), potentially limiting their motivation to proactively engage in effortful

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (e.g., scanning the environment for possible

threats, communicating such threats to followers, and developing steps to overcome

the respective threats; cf. Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). These negative motivational

effects of organization size seem likely to further diminish large organizations'

prevention-oriented leadership climate.

In sum, organizations' size and their prevention-oriented leadership climate should be

inversely associated. Small organizations may exhibit stronger prevention-oriented

leadership climates than large ones, because leaders should find it easier to focus their

attention on external threats and to act upon such threats, and because leaders should

be more motivated to engage in prevention-oriented behaviors.


pronounced in small rather than large organizations.



3.4.1 Data collection and sample description

Data for the present study (as in the case of Study 1) were collected within the

framework of the ongoing research at the University of St. Gallen's Institute for

Leadership and Human Resource Management (http://www.ifpm.unisg.ch).

Particularly, in order to address Study 2's hypotheses, survey data were collected in

cooperation with an external company (i.e., Compamedia GmbH;

http://www.compamedia.de) from 125 small to medium-sized organizations located in

Germany. Initially, 147 organizations who had expressed their interest were invited to

participate in the study. Of these, 22 subsequently failed to provide sufficient data or

decided to withdraw their participation, resulting in an organizational level response

rate of 85%. Participating organizations represented companies from a variety of

industries, including manufacturing (46%), services (31%), finance and insurance

(10%), trade (10%), and logistics and construction (4%). Participant organizations

ranged in size from 13 to 4'745 employees (median = 154; see Table 3.1 for more

details). It should be noted that eliminating organizations with 1'000 or more

employees (n = 12) and 20 or less employees (n = 2) did not change the pattern of

results. Thus, all sample organizations were utilized in hypotheses testing. As in prior

research (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Schminke et al., 2000; 2002; Slevin &

Covin, 1997), participant organizations, therefore, represented a heterogeneous sample

from diverse industries and sizes, increasing the likelihood of finding substantial

variation in terms of other structural facets (e.g., organizational centralization and

formalization).

Data were collected in participant organizations from various sources to alleviate

concerns about common source bias and common method variance (cf. Podsakoff et

al., 2003). In order to ensure equivalence of data collection, standardized procedures

were employed across all organizations. First, general information on the participating

organizations (including organization size; see chapter 3.4.2.2) were gauged through a

key informant survey which was completed by the organizations' Human Resources

executives or another member of their top management teams. Answers to this key

informant survey were required to confirm organizations' participation in the study, so

the respective data were available for all 125 organizations.


Table 3.1: Participant Organization Sizes and Within-Organization Response Rates (Study 2)

n %

Organization size

1-20 employeesa 2 2

21-50 employees 18 14

51-100 employees 30 24

101-250 employees 26 21

251-500 employees 20 16

501-1000 employees 17 14

1001-2000 employees 6 5

> 2000 employees 6 5

Within-organization response rate

1-10% 8 6

11-20% 17 14

21-30% 14 11

31-40% 16 13

41-50% 16 13

51-60% 12 10

61-70% 16 13

71-80% 8 6

81-90% 9 7

91-100% 9 7

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding error. a Converted to full-time equivalents.

Second, employee survey data were collected to gauge information on charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership climate, centralization, and formalization, following

prior research (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Schminke et al., 2002;

see chapter 3.4.2). Participating organizations sent a standardized e-mail invitation to

all employees through their Human Resources departments (if applicable) or through a

top management team member's e-mail address, describing the study's purpose in

broad terms and providing a link to a web-based survey hosted by an independent third

company (computer terminals were installed to enable the participation of employees

without own company e-mail address). Survey respondents were assured full

anonymity. Based on an algorithm programmed in the survey web-site, respondents

were randomly directed to one out of two survey versions, thus implementing a split-

sample design (Rousseau, 1985) with independent raters for the predictor variables on

the one hand and the outcome variables on the other hand (for similar approaches, see

Dickson, Resick, & Hanges, 2006; Erdogan, Liden, & Kraimer, 2006). The first

employee survey version measured centralization and formalization, while the second

version measured charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climate. Both

employee survey versions were translated to German through professional translators


following a double-blind back-translation procedure to ensure semantic equivalence

with the original, English items (cf. Schaffer & Riordan, 2003).

Table 3.2: Sample Demographics (Study 2, Employee Sample)

Survey version 1 Survey version 2 Total sample

n % n % n %

Gender

Male 3793 48 3882 48 7675 48

Female 3621 45 3703 45 7324 45

No answer

570 7 575 7 1145 7

Age

< 26 years 946 12 980 12 1926 12

26-30 years 1013 13 1023 13 2036 13

31-35 years 1094 14 1210 15 2304 14

36-40 years 1375 17 1441 18 2816 17

41-45 years 1200 15 1197 15 2397 15

46-50 years 793 10 725 9 1518 9

51-55 years 560 7 540 7 1100 7

56-60 years 237 3 244 3 481 3

61-65 years 45 1 45 1 90 1

> 65 years 7 0 10 0 17 0

No answer 714 9 745 9 1459 9

Company tenure

< 1 year 929 12 937 12 1866 12

1-3 years 1607 20 1586 19 3193 20

4-10 years 2773 35 2906 35 5679 35

11-25 years 2089 26 2105 26 4194 26

> 26 years 303 4 363 4 666 4

No answer 283 4 263 3 546 3

Hierarchical level

Top management 181 2 186 2 367 2

Middle

management

724 9 701 9 1425 9

First-line

supervisor

1040 13 1048 13 2088 13

Employee 4525 57 4774 58 9299 57

Other (e.g.,

apprentice)

935 12 943 12 1878 12

No answer 579 7 508 6 1087 7

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding error.

In sum, 16'144 employees chose to voluntarily participate in the study, with 49% (n =

7'984) answering survey version 1 and 51% (n = 8'160) answering survey version 2.

Between 4 and 758 version 1 surveys were completed per organization (median = 30),

while between 3 and 753 version 2 surveys were completed per organization (median


= 28). Individual level response rates within participant organizations ranged from 3%

to 100% (median = 45%; see Table 3.1 for more details).11 Excluding organizations

with response rates of 20% or below (n = 25) did not change the pattern of results; I

therefore chose to retain all organizations in the following analyses (see chapter 3.6.3

for more details on this issue).

Individual respondents to the employee surveys similarly represented males (48%) and

females (45%), with 7% choosing not to indicate their gender. The majority of

respondents was between 26 and 45 years old (59%), and has been employed with

their organization for more than 4 years (65%). Participants came from all major

divisions of their organizations and represented different hierarchical levels (2% top

management; 9% middle management; 13% first-line supervisors; 57% employees

without leadership responsibility; 12% other [e.g., apprentice]; 7% no answer). More

details on the demographic composition of the individual study participants can be

found in Table 3.2.

3.4.2 Measures

The following sections describe the measures utilized in both employee survey

versions and in the key informant survey of Study 2.

3.4.2.1 Centralization and formalization

Both centralization (i.e., hierarchy of authority) and formalization were captured in

employee survey version 1 through measures employed by Schminke and colleagues

(2000; 2002), which were to be answered on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 5 (strongly agree). These 5-item measures were averaged to form overall scores for

centralization and formalization, respectively (cf. Schminke et al., 2000; 2002). They

are derived from the classic work of Hage and Aiken (1969) in the case of

centralization and Pugh et al. (1968) in the case of formalization, and evidence for

their psychometric soundness has been amply provided (e.g., Schminke et al., 2000;

2002). A full list of the respective items is provided in Table 3.3.

11 Some organizations were unable or unwilling to invite all employees to participate in the surveys. This

explains the low response rate in some instances.


Table 3.3: Survey Items for Centralization and Formalization

Centralization

Item 1: "There can be little action here until a supervisor approves a decision."

Item 2: "A person who wants to make his or her own decisions would be quickly

discouraged."

Item 3: "Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer."

Item 4: "I have to ask my boss before I do almost anything."

Item 5: "Any decision I make has to have my boss's approval."

Formalization

Item 1: "The company has a large number of written rules and policies."

Item 2: "A 'rules and procedures' manual exists and is readily available within this

company."

Item 3: "There is a complete written job description for most jobs in this company."

Item 4: "The company keeps a written record of nearly everyone's job performance."

Item 5: "There is a formal orientation program for most new members of the company."

Note: All items are taken from Schminke et al. (2000; 2002).

Following the notion that organizational structure represents a shared phenomenon

which characterizes the overall organization (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003), I

aggregated individual employees' ratings of centralization and formalization to the

organizational level, based on appropriate statistical support (see chapter 3.5.1). Each

sample organization was, therefore, assigned a single average score for centralization

and formalization, respectively. This should provide a more accurate depiction of an

organization's structure by incorporating multiple raters' perspectives and perceptions.

Thus, prior research has frequently assessed organizational structure in a similar

manner (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Schminke et al., 2000; 2002). Internal

consistency reliabilities for centralization and formalization were computed at the

organizational level of analysis, following the recommendations of Chen et al. (2004).

These estimates reached values of .98 for centralization and .80 for formalization.


3.4.2.2 Organization size

Participating organizations' size was captured in the key informant survey by asking

for the number of employees in the respective organization (converted to full-time

equivalents; see Table 3.1 for an overview). As indicated before, this way of assessing

organization size is commonly used, and it has been shown to be largely equivalent to

other size measures (e.g., companies' total assets; Agarwal, 1979; Schminke et al.,

2000; 2002). In line with previous research, I performed a log transformation on the

number of employees, in order to reduce skewness in the distribution (cf. Schminke et

al., 2000; 2002; Tannenbaum & Dupuree-Bruno, 1994).

3.4.2.3 Charismatic leadership climate

It was not possible in the present study to utilize the MLQ to capture charismatic

leadership (as in Study 1), because the MLQ is a proprietary measure of Mind Garden,

Inc. (http://www.mindgarden.com). For the purposes of Study 1, Mind Garden offered

the MLQ at a discounted rate. This rate was not applicable for Study 2, however,

because the study setting included commercial interest on the part of Compamedia

GmbH. Therefore, charismatic leadership climate was gauged in employee survey

version 2 using items from the instrument developed by Podsakoff and colleagues

(1990; 1996). Prior research has frequently employed this measure to capture

charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors and has provided ample

evidence for its psychometric soundness (e.g., Agle et al., 2006; Bommer et al., 2004;

2005; Podsakoff et al., 1990; 1996; Rubin et al., 2005; Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, &

DeChurch, 2006).

For the present purpose, I utilized three dimensions from Podsakoff and colleagues'

instrument, namely identifying and articulating a vision (5 items), providing an

appropriate role model (3 items), and fostering the acceptance of group goals (4 items;

see Table 3.4 for a full item list). I chose to focus on these items because they most

closely match both the definition of charismatic leadership provided in chapter 1.1.1

and the measure of charismatic leadership employed in Study 1 (see chapter 2.3.2.3).

Employees were asked to assess the extent to which their direct superior exhibits the

respective leadership behaviors on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree). As Javidan and Dastmalchian (1993) argued, employees are in a

particularly good position to provide accurate information about their direct leaders'


behaviors. It seemed appropriate, therefore, to utilize employees' direct leaders as a

referent when measuring charismatic leadership climate. As in prior research (e.g.,

Agle et al., 2006; Bommer et al., 2004; 2005; Rubin et al., 2005), I averaged all items

to compute an overall charismatic leadership score.

Table 3.4: Survey Items for Charismatic Leadership Climate (Study 2)


Item 1: "…gets the group to work together for the same goal."

Item 2: "…encourages employees to be 'team players'."

Item 3: "…fosters collaboration among work groups."

Item 4: "…develops a team attitude and spirit among his/her employees"

Item 5: "…leads by 'doing' rather than simply by 'telling'."

Item 6: "…provides a good model to follow."

Item 7: "…leads by example."

Item 8: "…has a clear understanding of where we are going."

Item 9: "…paints an interesting picture of the future for our work group."

Item 10: "...is able to get others committed to his/her dream of the future."

Item 11: "…inspires others with his/her plans for the future."

Item 12: "…is always seeking new opportunities for the work group."

Note: All items are taken from Podsakoff et al. (1990; 1996).

As outlined in chapter 3.2.1, the present study is located at the organizational level of

analysis, investigating the extent to which leaders within organizations collectively

(i.e., on average) engage in charismatic leadership behaviors (i.e., organizations'

charismatic leadership climate). Therefore, based on appropriate statistical support

(see chapter 3.5.1), I aggregated individual employees' charismatic leadership ratings

to the organizational level, obtaining one average charismatic leadership climate score

for each of the 125 organizations in the study sample (for a similar approach, see

Dickson et al., 2006). The internal consistency reliability estimate for charismatic

leadership climate at the organizational level of analysis (cf. Chen et al., 2004) was

.98.


3.4.2.4 Prevention-oriented leadership climate

As in Study 1, prevention-oriented leadership was captured with Bruch et al.'s (2005)

8-item measure, which was included in employee survey version 2. Given Javidan and

Dastmalchian's (1993) contention that followers are particularly suitable in assessing

their direct leader's behaviors, employees were asked to rate their direct superior's

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree). A full list of the respective items can be found in Table 2.5. As

suggested by Bruch and colleagues (2005), all item responses were averaged into an

overall prevention-oriented leadership score.

Further, as indicated before, I was interested in the development of organizations'

prevention-oriented leadership climate (as opposed to individual leaders' prevention-

oriented behaviors) in Study 2. Therefore, based on appropriate statistical support (see

chapter 3.5.1), individual employees' prevention-oriented leadership ratings were

aggregated to the organizational level of analysis, providing one average prevention-

oriented leadership climate score for each of the 125 organizations in the study sample.

The internal consistency reliability estimate for prevention-oriented leadership climate

at the organizational level of analysis (cf. Chen et al., 2004) reached a value of .93.

3.4.2.5 Control variables

Several potential covariates were considered to control for possible biasing impacts on

the study findings. First, employees' hierarchical level might influence their

assessments of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership and of organizational

centralization and formalization. Charismatic leadership, for instance, has been

suggested to occur more frequently at higher rather than lower hierarchical echelons

(e.g., Shamir & Howell, 1999; see chapter 1.2.1.5). A similar relationship was found

for prevention-oriented leadership in Study 1 (see chapter 2.5.2). Also, employees

have been shown to rate their job characteristics more favorably the higher their

hierarchical positioning (Payne & Mansfield, 1973; Robie, Ryan, Schmieder, Parra, &

Smith, 1998). The hierarchical distribution of respondents within participating

organizations might, therefore, influence the present study's organization level

measures of leadership climate and organizational structure, potentially biasing study

results. To control for this possibility, I averaged individual respondents' hierarchy

specifications within participant organizations (1 = top management, 2 = middle


management, 3 = first-line supervisor, 4 = employee without leadership responsibility;

see chapter 3.4.1 for the respective distribution of respondents) and considered this

average hierarchical level when analyzing Study 2 data.12

Second, in order to ensure that industry differences do not bias the relationships

obtained, I considered organization's affiliation with one out of five broad classes of

industries (i.e., manufacturing, services, finance and insurance, trade, logistics and

construction; see chapter 3.4.1) as a control variable (cf. Bass & Riggio, 2006;

Dickson et al., 2006). For bivariate analyses, each organization was assigned five

dummy-coded variables indicating their affiliation with each of the above industry

categories (1 = belongs to the respective industry; 0 = does not belong to the respective

industry). For multivariate regression analyses, four of these variables were included

in the regression equation, using manufacturing as the reference category (cf. Bobko,

1995; Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Third and finally, prior organization level research has frequently employed

organization size as a control variable (e.g., Agle et al., 2006; Waldman et al., 2001).

In the present study, however, organization size was a variable of substantive research

interest. It was, therefore, included in all hypotheses tests, effectively controlling for

the potential biasing effects of organization size on the relationships between other

study variables.

3.4.3 Data analyses

Similar to Study 1, data for the present study were analyzed in three phases, which will

be described in the following sections.

3.4.3.1 Aggregation analyses

In a first phase of data analysis, the appropriateness of aggregating the measures for

centralization, formalization, charismatic leadership climate, and prevention-oriented

leadership climate to the organizational level was established. All of these measures

were captured as direct consensus constructs (Chan, 1998), i.e., ratings were gauged

from individual employees, but the underlying constructs referred to the organizational

level of analysis, assuming relative homogeneity of individual ratings within

12 Other ways of capturing the hierarchical distribution within organizations (e.g., percentage of managerial vs.

non-managerial employees) yielded equivalent results in hypotheses testing.


organizations and relative heterogeneity between organizations (cf. Chen et al., 2004;

see also chapter 3.2.1). I therefore assessed the appropriateness of aggregation to the

organizational level for all of these measures using interrater agreement statistics (rwg,

assuming a rectangular reference distribution; James et al., 1984) and intraclass

correlation coefficients (ICC[1] and ICC[2]; Bliese, 2000; Chen et al., 2004).

As outlined in more detail in chapter 2.3.3.1, the rwg statistic is based on a comparison

of the within-unit (or, in the present case, within-organization) variance of a rating

variable with the expected within-unit variance based solely on random error (James et

al., 1984; 1993). ICC statistics, by contrast, are based on ANOVA results, comparing

the within- and between-unit variance of a rating variable. ICC(1) indicates the amount

of variance that can be explained through unit membership, and ICC(2) represents the

reliability of unit means in a sample (Bliese, 2000; Castro, 2002). As Lance et al.

(2006) noted, there are no absolute standards to justify aggregation based on these

statistics. Typically, however, median rwg values of more than .70 and ICCs which are

based on significant F values are considered sufficient (Chen et al., 2004; Kenny & La

Voie, 1985).

3.4.3.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations

In the second phase of data analysis, I calculated descriptive statistics (i.e., mean

values and standard deviations) and bivariate correlations for all Study 2 variables to

provide an overview of the sample data. These statistics were computed at the

organizational level of analysis, i.e., aggregated measures were utilized for

organizational centralization and formalization and for organizations' charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership climates.

3.4.3.3 Hypotheses testing

Finally, study hypotheses were tested at the organizational level of analysis using two

independent hierarchical regression analyses in SPSS 12 (cf. Bobko, 1995; Cohen &

Cohen, 1983). To address Hypotheses 2.1 through 2.3 (pertaining to the development

of charismatic leadership climate), I regressed organizations' charismatic leadership

climate on the control variables (step 1) and on centralization, formalization, and

organization size (step 2). Similarly, to address Hypotheses 2.4 through 2.6 (pertaining

to the development of prevention-oriented leadership climate), I regressed

organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate on the control variables in a first


hierarchical step and on centralization, formalization, and organization size in step 2.

These analyses allow for an evaluation of the incremental variance explained in

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climate through organizational

structure, over and above the effects of control variables. Also, they enable a

simultaneous assessment of the relative importance of organizations' centralization,

formalization, and size, respectively, for their charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership climates.

3.5 Results

3.5.1 Aggregation statistics

Aggregation statistics for charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climate and

organizational centralization and formalization are depicted in Table 3.5. As shown,

these indices were acceptable, even though median rwg values were somewhat low.

Table 3.5: Aggregation Statistics (Study 2)

Charismatic

leadership climatea

Prevention-oriented

leadership climatea

Centralizationb Formalization

b

Median rwg

.68 .71 .60 .79

ICC(1)

.06 .04 .09 .22

ICC(2)

.80 .70 .87 .94

F 4.95*** 3.35*** 7.51*** 17.51***

Note: a n = 8160 employees (nested within 125 organizations).

b n = 7984 employees (nested within

125 organizations). *** p < .001.

Median rwg, for instance, was .68 for charismatic leadership climate. ICC(1) reached a

value of .06 for this variable, however, and ICC(2) was .80, with the associated F

value being statistically significant (F[124, 7846] = 4.95; p < .001). In sum, this

indicates sufficient within-organization homogeneity and between-organization

variability and provides evidence for the reliability of organizations' mean charismatic

leadership climate values (cf. Bliese, 2000; Castro, 2002; Chen et al., 2004; Kenny &

La Voie, 1985). Hence, there was statistical support for aggregating individual

employees' ratings to form a charismatic leadership climate score at the organizational

level of analysis. Similarly, aggregation statistics for prevention-oriented leadership


climate showed that this measure could be aggregated to the organizational level, with

median rwg = .71, ICC(1) = .04, ICC(2) = .70, and F(124, 7661) = 3.35 (p < .001).

Aggregation to the organizational level was also justified for both centralization

(median rwg = .60, ICC[1] = .09, ICC[2] = .87, and F[124, 7673] = 7.51 [p < .001]) and

formalization (median rwg = .79, ICC[1] = .22, ICC[2] = .94, and F[124, 7331] = 17.51

[p < .001]). Overall, these results suggest that it was appropriate to use all Study 2

variables at the organizational level of analysis in hypotheses testing.

3.5.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all study variables, at the

organizational level of analysis, are presented in Table 3.6. It is noteworthy that

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climate were only weakly (albeit

significantly) correlated (r = .23; p < .05), indicating that the respective measures

captured different (if not completely independent) types of leadership.

Further, as expected, charismatic leadership climate within participating organizations

was negatively related to centralization (r = -.49; p < .001) and organization size (r =

-.31; p < .01), and it was positively related to formalization (r = .23; p < .05). By

contrast, prevention-oriented leadership climate was positively related to formalization

(r = .23; p < .05), as expected, but correlations with centralization (r = .04; p = n.s.)

and organization size (r = -.12; p = n.s.) were not significant.

110

Study 2 - Organizational Structure

Table 3.6: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 2)

Correlations

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1. Average hierarchical levela,b

3.40

.26

2. Manufacturing

0.46

.50

-.03

3. Services

0.31

.47

-.08

-.62***

4. Finance and insurance

0.10

.30

.29** -.30**

-.22*

5. Trade

0.10

.30

-.06

-.30**

-.22*

-.11

6. Logistics and construction

0.04

.20

-.08

-.19*

-.14

-.07

-.07

7. Centralizationa

2.39

.46

.15

-.01

-.09

.03

.01

.16

8. Formalizationa

3.20

.49

.11

.01

.01

.09

-.13

-.01

.03

9. Organization size (log)c

2.24

.56

.19*

.06

-.17

.19*

-.02

-.01

.08

.19*

10. Charismatic leadership

climateb

5.03

.49

-.22*

-.12

.25**

-.16‡

.01

-.06

-.49***

.23*

-.31**

11. Prevention-oriented

leadership climateb

4.27

.41

-.14

.16‡

-.12

-.07

-.02

.03

.04

.23*

-.12

.23*

Note: n = 125 organizations. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. a Rating provided through employee survey version 1. b Rating provided through employee

survey version 2. c Rating provided through key informant survey. *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; ‡ p < .10 (two tailed).


Bivariate results also indicated a significant association between charismatic

leadership climate and the sample covariate average hierarchical level (r = -.22; p <

.05), with such leadership climate ratings being less pronounced the lower the

respondents' average hierarchical level in the respective organizations. In addition,

organizations' industry affiliation was related to their leadership climates. Charismatic

leadership climate, in particular, was significantly higher in service companies (r =

.25; p < .01) and marginally lower in finance and insurance companies (r = -.16; p <

.10) than in other organization types. Prevention-oriented leadership climate was

marginally more pronounced in manufacturing companies than in other industries (r =

.16; p < .10). It was, therefore, both justified and necessary to control for average

hierarchical level and for industry affiliation. For the sake of model comparability, I

included these control variables in evaluating the hypotheses pertaining to both

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climate emergence, even though they

were not equally related to both types of leadership climate. Considering Becker's

(2005) caveat that the use of "impotent" control variables may unduly bias study

results, however, I also tested all hypotheses without including any covariates. These

analyses yielded similar results, contributing to greater confidence in the robustness of

the findings reported in the following.

Finally, measures for centralization, formalization, and organization size were weakly

associated, with only one significant correlation between formalization and

organization size (r = .19; p < .05). It was justified, therefore, to separately assess the

consequences of these differing structural facets for organizations' charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership climates.

3.5.3 Hypotheses testing for charismatic leadership climate

Results of the hypotheses tests pertaining to organizations' charismatic leadership

climate are depicted in the middle column of Table 3.7. As shown, the second step of

this hierarchical regression analysis yielded significant coefficients for centralization,

formalization, and organization size, even when these variables were considered

together with the sample covariates in one regression equation. Supporting Hypothesis

2.1, centralization was found to negatively relate to organizations' charismatic

leadership climate (β = -.45; p < .001). In contrast, there was a positive association

between formalization and charismatic leadership climate (β = .32; p < .001), as

predicted in Hypothesis 2.2. And finally, organization size and charismatic leadership


climate were negatively related (β = -.27; p < .001), offering support for Hypothesis

2.3.

In sum, all study hypotheses pertaining to the emergence of organizations' charismatic

leadership climate were supported in the present study. Considered collectively,

centralization, formalization, and organization size incrementally accounted for about

34% of the variance explained in organizations' charismatic leadership climate, over

and above the effects of the control variables (i.e., average hierarchical level and

industry affiliation).

Table 3.7: Hierarchical Regression Analyses (Study 2)

Charismatic

leadership climate

Prevention-oriented

leadership climate

Step 1

Average hierarchical level -.19* -.13

Services .22* -.17‡

Finance and insurance -.05 -.08

Trade .04 -.08

Logistic and construction

-.05 -.01

R2 (adjusted R

2) .11* (.07) .04 (.01)

Step 2

Average hierarchical level -.10 -.14

Services .16* -.19*

Finance and insurance -.05 -.07

Trade .08 -.05

Logistic and construction .03 -.02

Centralization -.45*** .05

Formalization .32*** .28**

Organization size (log)

-.27*** -.17‡

∆R2 .34*** .09*

R2 (adjusted R

2) .45 (.41)*** .13* (.07)

Note: n = 125 organizations. Standardized regression weights are shown.*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p

< .05; ‡ p < .10.

3.5.4 Hypotheses testing for prevention-oriented leadership climate

Results of the hypotheses tests pertaining to organizations' prevention-oriented

leadership climate are depicted in the right column of Table 3.7. Mirroring the

bivariate correlation results, centralization was not significantly associated with

prevention-oriented leadership climate in step 2 of this hierarchical regression


analysis, with the respective coefficient approaching zero (β = .05; p = n.s.). Thus,

Hypothesis 2.4 was rejected. Formalization, by contrast, was positively associated with

prevention-oriented leadership climate in this regression equation (β = .28; p < .01),

supporting Hypothesis 2.5. And finally, organization size and prevention-oriented

leadership climate were marginally related in the hierarchical regression analysis (β =

-.17; p = .07). Even though this relationship was in the predicted, negative direction

and approached conventional levels of statistical significance, Hypothesis 2.6,

therefore, could not be unequivocally supported.

In sum, the asserted relevance of organizational formalization in prevention-oriented

leadership climate emergence was corroborated in hypotheses testing, while the role of

organization size remained more ambiguous. The purported linkage between

organizational centralization and prevention-oriented leadership climate, however, was

clearly refuted. When considered collectively, the structural facets investigated in this

study incrementally contributed about 9% to the variance explained in organizations'

prevention-oriented leadership climate, over and above the impacts of the control

variables.


The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between organizational

structure (i.e., centralization, formalization, and organization size) and the occurrence

of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors in organizations (i.e.,

organizations' charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climates). The following

sections will summarize the key study findings and outline the most important

contributions for charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership research,

respectively, before discussing study limitations, possible directions for future

research, and practical implications.

3.6.1 Summary and contributions: Charismatic leadership climate

The present results show that organizational centralization, formalization, and size are

strongly related to the occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors in organizations.

Together, these structural variables explained about one third of the variance in

organizations' charismatic leadership climate, over and above control variables. As

predicted, both centralization and organization size were negatively associated with


charismatic leadership climate, while there was a positive linkage for formalization.

With data on organizational structure and charismatic leadership climate having been

collected from different sources, these findings cannot be explained by common

method variance (cf. Podsakoff et al., 2003). Organizational structure, therefore, seems

to constitute an important contextual prerequisite for the development of charismatic

leadership behaviors. I contend these findings contribute to the charismatic leadership

literature in various ways by corroborating and extending prior work on the role of

organizational context factors as antecedents of such leadership.

First and foremost, study results support previous theoretical considerations (e.g.,

Howell, 1997; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999; see chapter 1.2.3) by

demonstrating that organizational structure and charismatic leadership are indeed

closely connected. This investigation is among the first to empirically address this

issue. Particularly, it advances the limited empirical literature that considers structural

influences on charismatic leadership by examining such relationships at the

organizational level of analysis. Prior research, by contrast, has typically focused on

the department, work unit, or individual level (e.g., Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Sarros et

al., 2002; Shamir et al., 2000; see chapter 1.2.3). The present results, therefore, build

greater confidence in the viability of prior theorizing on the relevance of

organizational level influences, and they contribute to a better understanding of the

role of organizational structure, in particular, in charismatic leadership behavior

emergence. Hence, this study enables a better explanation of why charismatic

leadership behaviors are more likely to occur in some organizations than in others.

Considered collectively, findings from prior research and current study results may

indicate that the linkage between structure and charismatic leadership might generalize

across levels of analysis, with structural characteristics of work units, departments, and

organizations influencing the extent to which leaders are willing and able to engage in

such behaviors. Future research directly examining the validity of this conclusion

would be highly interesting.

In addition, this study extends previous research by moving beyond the broad

distinction between organic versus mechanistic structures that has characterized prior

theoretical (e.g., Shamir & Howell, 1999) and empirical work (e.g., Pillai & Meindl,

1998; Shamir et al., 2000) on the antecedents of charismatic leadership. By examining

the role of more specific structural aspects, the present investigation contributes to a


more detailed and more differentiated depiction of the relevance of organizational

structure for charismatic leadership behaviors in organizations. Particularly, it

demonstrates that organizational centralization, formalization, and size may carry

pronouncedly differing implications. Such differences would be lost by utilizing

broader conceptualizations of organizational structure. Hence, this study contributes to

a better, more fine-grained understanding of the role of structural aspects in

charismatic leadership behavior emergence, and it demonstrates the benefits of

considering specific facets of the organizational structure when investigating such

contextual antecedent variables.

3.6.2 Summary and contributions: Prevention-oriented leadership climate

The present study also offers some interesting findings and contributions with regard

to prevention-oriented leadership climate emergence. Most importantly, these

leadership behaviors were found to occur more frequently in organizations

characterized by high rather than low levels of formalization, while organization size

was negatively (albeit marginally) related to such leadership. Thus, paralleling the

results for charismatic leadership, formalization seems to benefit the development of

organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate, while (to a more limited extent)

organization size seems to be detrimental in this regard.13 Together, the structural

facets considered here explained about 9% of the variance in organizations'

prevention-oriented leadership climate, over and above control variables. As indicated

before, these findings are not attributable to same source bias, because data for

organizational structure on the one hand and organizations' prevention-oriented

leadership climate on the other hand were collected from independent sources (cf.

Podsakoff et al., 2003).

The results obtained for formalization and organization size, therefore, advance the

literature on prevention-oriented leadership in important ways. They constitute the first

empirical demonstration of the explanatory power of a particular set of antecedent

variables of such leadership. Thus, they enable a better understanding of the

development of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors in organizations, and they

contribute to the explanation of between-organization differences in such leadership.

Also, given that these findings were similar for both charismatic and prevention-

13 Obviously, given the marginally significant result for organization size, future research is required to

corroborate the viability of this linkage.


oriented leadership climate emergence, they illustrate important commonalities in the

development of the respective leadership behaviors. In sum, the present study strongly

suggests that scholars should further consider the relevance of structural characteristics

in general and of organizational formalization and size in particular as antecedents of

prevention-oriented leadership.

Contrary to my expectations and to the theorizing put forward in this study (and

contrary to the results obtained for charismatic leadership climate), however,

centralization was found to be unrelated to organizations' prevention-oriented

leadership climate. This structural facet, therefore, seems to be of little relevance for

the emergence of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. It seems worthwhile to

consider potential reasons for this unexpected result, in order to provide for a better

understanding of the study findings. Centralization was theorized to negatively impact

organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate, among other things, by diverting

leaders' attention away from external threats and towards internal, operational issues

(see chapter 3.3.3.1). This argumentation may, however, have underestimated the

cognitive and motivational relevance of threat situations. Research has shown negative

events (such as threats) to powerfully draw individuals' attention, to influence their

feeling and thinking, and to shape individuals' behaviors in an overproportional

manner (Baumeister et al., 2001; Rozin & Royzman, 2001). Given this tremendous

importance of threat situations, leaders may be able to perceive and willing to act upon

threatening stimuli even in relatively adverse contexts (e.g., in highly centralized

organizations). Leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors may, therefore, suffer to a more

limited extent in such settings than initially expected. Obviously, more research is

required to test the viability of this post-hoc explanation. Nevertheless, it might allow

for a reasonable interpretation of the unexpected finding encountered here.

3.6.3 Limitations

There are several limitations in Study 2 that deserve specific mention. First, data were

collected at one point in time, utilizing a non-experimental field-study design. As a

consequence, causality cannot unambiguously be inferred (cf. Cook & Campbell,

1979; Shadish et al., 2002). Possibly, echoing Pawar and Eastman's (1997) notion that

aspects of the organizational context may both influence leadership behaviors and be

influenced by leadership, specific facets of the organizational structure might function

both as antecedents and as consequences of organizations' charismatic and prevention-


oriented leadership climates. Centralization may, for instance, diminish organizations'

charismatic leadership climate, as argued before. At the same time, however, such

reduced charismatic leadership climate might give rise to a greater use of authority-

based, directive leadership behaviors in the organization (cf. House, 1991),

contributing to the centralization of decision-making power. Even though, based on

the theorizing put forward in chapter 3.3, the order of causality assumed in this study

seems likely, this issue cannot be resolved based on the present data. Potentially, the

study variables might be linked in the reverse direction of causality, or they might be

connected in a reciprocal, dynamic, or even spurious manner. Future research could

address this issue by employing (quasi-) experimental or longitudinal study designs

(cf. Shadish et al., 2002).

Second, the generalizability of the present findings is limited, because all participant

organizations were located in Germany. As Hofstede (2001) argued, for instance, the

German national culture is characterized by relatively high levels of individualism and

masculinity, by relatively low levels of power distance, and by medium levels of

uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation. With such cultural factors potentially

shaping leaders' behaviors (cf. House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), the

relationships found in this study might follow different patterns if measured in other

countries. Scholars could, therefore, achieve greater cross-cultural validity by

systematically including organizations from diverse national backgrounds in their

investigations.

Third, even though I took care to utilize various data sources, some of the results

might still be influenced by common method variance (cf. Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Particularly, data for centralization and formalization were collected from the same

respondents, potentially inflating the relationship between these constructs and biasing

standard error estimates for analyses which include both as independent variables. It

should be noted, however, that measures for centralization and formalization were

virtually unrelated (r = .03, p = n.s.), suggesting that common method variance did not

constitute a problem in this regard. In addition, organization size was gathered from an

independent data source, and I was able to further minimize common method issues by

employing a split-sample design (cf. Rousseau, 1985) for measuring centralization and

formalization on the one hand and charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership


climate on the other hand. In sum, method variance is unlikely to have meaningfully

affected the present study findings.

Fourth, I included respondents' average hierarchical level and organizations' industry

affiliation as control variables in the analyses and, by utilizing organization size as a

variable of substantive research interest, effectively controlled for this organizational

characteristic. A number of variables were not measured and controlled for, however,

that might also influence organizations' charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership

climates. Theorists have, for instance, pointed to the potential relevance of

organizational culture in this respect (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1993a; Pawar & Eastman,

1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999; see chapter 1.2.1.5). Controlling for such additional

organizational characteristics would have provided a more robust test of the study

hypotheses.

Fifth, the relatively low response rates within some participating organizations need to

be acknowledged (see Table 3.1). Higher response rates would have been desirable in

order to be more confident about the accuracy of the measures of centralization,

formalization, and leadership climate in describing the respective organizations. It

should be noted, however, that the pattern of study findings was not affected by

excluding organizations with response rates below 20 percent.14 This issue, therefore,

seems unlikely to have distorted the present study results in important ways.

And finally, House (1991; see also James & Jones, 1976) argued that an assessment of

the overall structure of large, complex organizations may be problematic, because

different divisions may have different structural setups. In the present case, however,

aggregation statistics for centralization and formalization showed that it was justified

to utilize these variables at the organizational level of analysis (see chapter 3.5.1).

Aggregation statistics also pointed to the viability of conceptualizing charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership climate at the organizational level. And in addition,

results were robust to the exclusion of organizations with more than 1'000 employees,

suggesting that the pattern of findings was not substantially affected by the presence of

larger, multi-divisional organizations.

14 Other researchers have suggested that an even lower within-organization response rate of 15 percent may be

sufficient in large organizations to capture organization-level climate variables from individuals' aggregated

responses (cf. Ostroff, 1992).


3.6.4 Directions for future research

Beyond addressing some of the above limitations, this study suggests several

interesting directions future research might take in further investigating the

development of effective leadership behaviors in organizations. First, even though the

present findings demonstrated the role of specific structural features (i.e.,

centralization, formalization, and organization size) in charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership climate emergence, they are not exhaustive in considering all

possible facets of organizational structure. Future research could, for instance,

examine structural dimensions such as specialization, standardization, and

configuration (cf. Pugh et al., 1968), potentially adding to a more general

understanding of the relevance of organizational structure in this regard. Also, such

research could move beyond structural aspects and investigate external, environmental

context factors as charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership antecedents (cf.

Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Given that

centralization, formalization, and organization size were found to explain only a

limited amount of variance in organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate, in

particular, research examining additional structural and environmental antecedents

may be especially interesting with respect to this type of leadership behaviors.

Further, the present investigation could be extended by simultaneously considering

organizational structure and structural variables from lower levels of analysis (e.g.,

work unit or positional characteristics). As Berger and Cummings (1979) argued, for

instance, organization size might interact with subunit (e.g., work group) size or with

individuals' hierarchical level in influencing employees' attitudes and behaviors. Also,

prior research has demonstrated the relevance of lower level structural antecedents

(e.g., work units' organic vs. mechanistic setup), at least with regard to charismatic

leadership (Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Shamir et al., 2000; see chapter 1.2.3). Examining

cross-level interactions (cf. Gavin & Hofmann, 2002) between such aspects and

organizational structure in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence, therefore, might contribute to a better understanding of these phenomena

by explaining both within- and between-organization differences in such leadership,

clarifying the interplay of a diverse set of structural antecedent variables.

And finally, future research could move beyond a focus on charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership in investigating structural impacts on organizations'


leadership climates. Scholars could, for instance, examine the relevance of various

structural characteristics for leadership styles such as exchange-based or transactional

leadership (cf. Bass, 1985; Howell, 1997), authentic leadership (cf. Avolio et al., 2004;

Luthans & Avolio, 2003), servant leadership (cf. Greenleaf, 1977), ethical leadership

(cf. Brown & Treviño, 2006), or management by exception and laissez-faire leadership

(cf. Bass, 1985). Such investigations could contribute to a better and more thorough

understanding of the role of organizational structure in leadership processes in general,

and they could promote important insights with regard to the similarities and

differences in the emergence of various different leadership behaviors.

3.6.5 Practical implications

From a practical perspective, the present findings offer several important suggestions

for organizations striving to enhance the strength of their charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership climates. Organizations frequently focus on leadership training

programs in trying to nurture and facilitate the occurrence of such effective leadership

behaviors (cf. Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Given the present findings,

however, I agree with Bommer et al.'s (2004) conclusion that although such leadership

training may be useful to a certain extent (e.g., see chapter 2.5.5), it is unlikely to be

sufficient in the absence of an organizational context supporting charismatic or

prevention-oriented leadership.

Particularly, it seems vital for organizations to adapt their structures so as to provide a

viable context for the emergence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors. Rather than broadly focusing on the establishment of more organic

structures (cf. Shamir & Howell, 1999), the study results suggest that such leadership

may benefit from considering and carefully adjusting specific structural facets (see

also Howell, 1997). First of all, organizational formalization may constitute a powerful

and important tool, because it may contribute to the occurrence of both charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. Organizational decision-makers should,

therefore, provide adequately formalized structures for leaders in the organization by

offering clear-cut, reliable processes, policies, regulations, and guidelines.

Further, the present results suggest that organizations may be able to strengthen the

occurrence of charismatic (if not prevention-oriented) leadership behaviors by

decentralizing their structural setup. By delegating authority to leaders and by allowing


for leaders' far-reaching independence and autonomy in decision-making about daily

work-tasks, in particular, organizations may be able to create favorable contextual

conditions for such leadership and to remove important barriers for the development of

a strong charismatic leadership climate (see also Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996).

Finally, this research suggests that large organizations may find it particularly difficult

to nurture charismatic and – to a more limited extent – prevention-oriented behaviors

in their leaders. Decision-makers in large organizations, therefore, seem well advised

to closely monitor the respective leadership climates to uncover possible problems in

this regard. They should creatively seek to offset the potential negative implications of

organization size for the development of charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors. Large organizations may, for instance, place particular emphasis

on formalization and decentralization, utilizing these structural features to compensate

for negative size effects at least to some extent.

In sum, based on this study, organizations should be aware that structural facets might

influence their charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climates, and they

should adjust their structural setups so as to prove most beneficial for the development

of such leadership behaviors. Formalization may be especially promising in this

regard, because it may strengthen both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership.

In addition, decentralization may constitute an important lever for nurturing the

occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors. And finally, large organizations, in

particular, should be aware of potential difficulties in terms of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership climate emergence, and they should take decisive

countermeasures if problems occur in this respect.

3.6.6 Conclusion

Even though theorists have pointed to the crucial role of organizational structure for

the development of specific leadership behaviors in organizations (e.g., Pawar &

Eastman, 1997; Porter & McLaughlin, 2006; Shamir & Howell, 1999), empirical

research on this issue has remained limited to date in the literature on charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership (see chapter 1.2.3). Study 2 has taken some important

steps towards addressing this research gap. By demonstrating the relevance of

organizational centralization, formalization, and size for charismatic and (to a more

limited extent) prevention-oriented leadership climate emergence, this study


contributed to a better understanding of the structural antecedents and prerequisites of

such leadership. Also, it enabled a better explanation of why charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors may occur more frequently in some

organizations than in others. The present findings may stimulate future theoretical and

empirical research to further extend our knowledge about the influencing factors of

effective leadership. Also, I hope this study will help practitioners in successfully

nurturing and facilitating such leadership behaviors within their organizations.

Study 3 - Theoretical Integration and Extension 123

4 Study 3 – Theoretical Integration and Extension of Prior

Work


This chapter addresses research questions 3 and 4. It is, therefore, divided into two

parts. First, it builds a comprehensive theoretical framework of charismatic leadership

behavior emergence, addressing research question 3. By integrating numerous

potential influencing factors discussed in prior research (including Studies 1 and 2 of

the dissertation), this framework aims at overcoming the relative fragmentation which

has characterized the antecedent-oriented charismatic leadership literature to date (e.g.,

Bommer et al., 2004; Klenke, 2005; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; see chapter 1.2.4). I hope,

therefore, to advance a more complete depiction of charismatic leadership behavior

emergence, to outline the relative importance and the complex interplay of various

antecedent variables, and to stimulate more coherent thinking and research in this

regard. This should contribute to a better, more inclusive understanding of the

development of charismatic leadership behaviors in organizations. Also, it should

enable organizational decision-makers to adopt more integrated, comprehensive

strategies for nurturing charismatic leadership rather than relying on isolated, small-

scale interventions.

In its second part, this chapter builds a theoretical core model of prevention-oriented

leadership behavior emergence, addressing research question 4. As outlined in chapter

1.2.5, this model will focus on leaders' threat perceptions as key psychological

mechanisms driving such leadership. It aims, therefore, at extending prior, more

informal notions on the role of these potential antecedent constructs (cf. Bruch &

Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2005) and at overcoming the lack of theory in this area of

inquiry, taking important steps towards a better, theoretically well-founded

understanding of the development of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. Also, I

aim at advancing more reliable knowledge on the potential complexities and boundary

conditions involved in this process, and at creating a solid fundament for future

theorizing and research. And finally, from a practical perspective, I hope to point

organizational decision-makers towards key, proximal levers of prevention-oriented

leadership, contributing to the effectiveness of their attempts to facilitate the

occurrence of such behaviors.

124 Study 3 - Theoretical Integration and Extension

In sum, this chapter adopts substantially different theoretical perspectives in its

following parts, taking an encompassing, integrative approach towards charismatic and

a more fundamental, clearly delineated approach towards prevention-oriented

leadership. As outlined before, the developmental stages of research on the

antecedents of such leadership behaviors differ widely (see chapter 1.2). In spite of

substantial gaps and a high degree of fragmentation in this literature, scholars have

created important knowledge on the emergence of charismatic leadership behaviors.

Research on the antecedents of prevention-oriented leadership, by contrast, has been

much more limited and has only taken initial, preliminary steps. The differing

theoretical routes adopted here, therefore, seem both justified and necessary to account

for the distinct stages of existing knowledge on the leadership behaviors of interest in

this thesis. They allow for a comprehensive integration of prior findings on

charismatic leadership on the one hand, while enabling the development of new, basic

conceptual insights on prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence on the other

hand.

In the following, I will first focus on charismatic leadership behavior emergence,

outlining the respective conceptual framework and discussing its contributions to the

literature, its limitations, and its resulting directions for future research and practice.

Then, I will turn towards prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, again

describing the respective theoretical model and explicating its contributions,

limitations, and implications.

4.2 Charismatic Leadership Behavior Emergence: A Theoretical

Integration

4.2.1 Theoretical background: Affective events theory

Given the multitude of influencing factors discussed in prior research (see chapter 1.2

for an overview), it seems critical to build on a strong theoretical basis for the

inclusion of specific antecedents when developing a comprehensive conceptual model

of charismatic leadership behavior emergence. Otherwise, this model is at risk of

becoming eclectic and suffering from a lack of parsimony. Following Bommer and

colleagues (2004), I therefore utilized an established theoretical framework to guide

the selection of constructs to be incorporated in the present considerations.


Specifically, I chose to employ the Affective Events Theory (AET) put forward by

Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) in deciding which antecedents to consider. AET has

gained substantial prominence in organizational research in recent years (Ashton-

James & Ashkanasy, 2005). Importantly, an AET perspective allows for the inclusion

of a wide array of both leader- and context-based factors as potential antecedents of

charismatic leadership, while at the same time clearly delineating the interplay of these

factors and delimiting the range of constructs to be incorporated.

Figure 4.1 depicts the basic tenets of AET, as described in Weiss and Cropanzano's

(1996) seminal article. As shown, this theoretical framework comprises various

influencing factors of employees' behaviors in the workplace, including their affective

reactions, work attitudes, and personality dispositions, features of the work

environment, and work events. The existing research on charismatic leadership

behavior emergence reviewed in chapter 1.2 has also considered such aspects to be

highly relevant (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; Bommer et al., 2004; Shamir & Howell,

1999). Thus, utilizing an AET framework may provide a viable opportunity to

integrate this literature in a comprehensive manner.

Figure 4.1: Basic Tenets of Affective Events Theory (from Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996, p. 12)

Work

Environment

Features

Personality

Dispositions

Affective

ReactionsWork Attitudes

Judgement-Driven

BehaviorsWork Events

Affect-Driven

Behaviors

Work

Environment

Features

Personality

Dispositions

Affective

ReactionsWork Attitudes

Judgement-Driven

BehaviorsWork Events

Affect-Driven

Behaviors

AET distinguishes affect-driven and judgment-driven behaviors in organizations.

While, as Weiss and Beal (2005) noted, the original formulation of AET does not

contain a systematic classification of specific behaviors as either affect- or judgment-

driven, it is clear from Weiss and Cropanzano's (1996) work that the most important

difference between these types of behaviors refers to their origin. Affect-driven


behaviors are proximally caused by individuals' affective reactions (i.e., by their

moods and emotions), with no (or only minor) cognitive influences. As Weiss and

Cropanzano (1996) argued, spontaneous helping behaviors may, for instance, fall into

this category. Judgment-driven behaviors, by contrast, are proximally caused by

individuals' work attitudes, i.e., by relatively well-considered judgments and

evaluations employees form about their job, their work, or their organization (Weiss &

Beal, 2005; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Moods and emotions only play a minor,

indirect role in this respect. Important instances of such behavior may include, for

example, employees' voluntary turnover (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Recent

applications of AET have emphasized that work behaviors can be subject to both

affective and attitudinal influences (e.g., Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Lee & Allen,

2002). Rather than being exclusively based either on individuals' affect or on

individuals' attitudinal judgments, the relative importance of these factors is likely to

differ, depending on whether a specific behavior is more affect- or more judgment-

driven (Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, West, & Dawson, 2006).15

Besides focusing on the behavioral consequences of affective reactions and attitudinal

judgments, AET also addresses the antecedents of individuals' moods, emotions, and

attitudes in organizations. As Ashton-James and Ashkanasy (2005, p. 24) argued,

"[t]he crux of AET is that elements of the organizational environment that are

perceived to facilitate or to impair an organizational member's progress toward

workplace goals (i.e., experienced hassles or uplifts […]) lead to transient positive or

negative affective responses". In other words, work environment features are

suggested to evoke affective reactions in employees, because they make specific

(positive or negative) affective work events more or less likely (Weiss & Cropanzano,

1996). In addition, AET suggests a direct connection between work environment

features and employees' work attitudes, because employees will compare such features

to some set of standards (e.g., values, expectations, etc.), with the match between

actual work features and these standards determining employees' evaluations and,

therefore, their attitudinal responses (Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999a). And finally,

15 Obviously, this notion implies that employees' affect on the one hand and attitudes on the other hand constitute

differing constructs. As Weiss and Beal (2005) argued, this distinction is generally well understood today, with

work attitudes representing evaluative judgments about one's job or organization, "different from but influenced

by the emotional experiences one has on one's job" (p. 3). Empirical research has generally supported this

distinction (for a review, see Weiss & Beal, 2005).


AET also argues employees' moods and emotions to influence their work attitudes,

because such affective states may color employees' evaluative judgments (Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996).

With work environment features (and the associated work events) influencing

employees' affective reactions and attitudes and these affective reactions and attitudes,

in turn, influencing behavioral outcomes, AET postulates indirect linkages between

employees' work environment and their behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). First,

the relationship between work environment features and affect-driven behaviors is

suggested to be mediated through employees' moods and emotions (Ashkanasy, 2002;

Weiss & Beal, 2005). And second, work environment features are suggested to

indirectly influence judgment-driven behaviors via two alternative, mediated routes:

On the one hand, such features may be linked to the respective behaviors by

influencing employees' work attitudes through the cognitive comparison processes

outlined above, with employees' attitudes, therefore, functioning as a central mediating

mechanism (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). And on the other hand, features of the work

environment may influence employees' judgment-driven behaviors in a more distal

manner, by influencing employees' affective reactions which, in turn, shape their work

attitudes (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Weiss et al., 1999a). In this scenario,

employees' moods and emotions again take a central mediating role, even with respect

to judgment-driven behaviors.

Finally, AET also acknowledges the role of individuals' stable personality traits.

Employees' personality is suggested to indirectly shape both affect-driven and

judgment-driven behaviors through two different mechanisms, namely (1) by directly

influencing the moods and emotions employees experience, and (2) by moderating the

relationship between affective work events and employees' affective reactions (Weiss

& Cropanzano, 1996). Personality characteristics are, therefore, regarded as important

dispositional influencing factors both of employees' tendency to experience specific

feelings and of employees' way of reacting to specific events in the workplace.


4.2.2 An AET-based framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence

In the following sections, I will apply these basic tenets of AET to explain the

development of charismatic leadership behaviors in organizations within a

comprehensive theoretical model. The resulting AET-based framework of charismatic

leadership behavior emergence is graphically depicted in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: An AET-Based Framework of Charismatic Leadership Behavior Emergence

Leader Positive

Affect

Leader Work

Attitudes

Charismatic

Leadership Behaviors

Leader Emotional

Intelligence

Work Events

Organizational

Context Features

Leader

Personality

Leader Positive

Affect

Leader Work

Attitudes

Charismatic

Leadership Behaviors

Leader Emotional

Intelligence

Work Events

Organizational

Context Features

Leader

Personality

As shown, this framework suggests charismatic leadership behaviors to be influenced

by a variety of antecedent constructs, including organizational context characteristics

and the associated work events as well as leaders' positive affective reactions, work

attitudes, personality dispositions, and emotional intelligence. In line with Weiss and

Cropanzano's (1996) presentation of AET, these constructs mostly indicate relatively

wide content areas. For example, I refer to organizational context features, work

events, and work attitudes in a broad sense, rather than focusing on specific contextual

characteristics, events, and types of attitudes. On the one hand, this may lead to a

relatively abstract depiction of the role of these antecedent constructs (see chapter

4.2.3.2). On the other hand, however, this approach should contribute to a more easily

generalizable perspective on charismatic leadership behavior emergence, and it should

allow for a comprehensive integration of the numerous specific antecedent variables

that have been discussed in the diverse and fragmented literature on this issue. Rather

than outlining the particular functioning of narrowly defined influencing factors,

therefore, the present model represents an encompassing conceptual framework that


depicts broad interrelationships between different classes of antecedent constructs and

that should enable greater flexibility for future research in theoretically extending

these considerations and in further specifying and empirically testing important aspects

thereof.

4.2.2.1 Charismatic leadership as affect- and judgment-driven behavior

In order to explain the emergence of charismatic leadership within an AET-based

framework, it is necessary, in a first step, to determine whether the respective

behaviors are affect- or judgment-driven (cf. Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Building on

the research conducted in Study 1 and on the literature reviewed in chapter 1.2, I hold

that charismatic leadership behaviors may exhibit both types of characteristics and,

therefore, may be subject to both affective and attitudinal influences.

As discussed in Study 1 and as outlined by several prior theorists (e.g., Ashkanasy &

Tse, 2000; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Schyns & Mohr, 2004), leaders' positive affect

may directly strengthen their performance of charismatic leadership behaviors.

Individuals' positive feelings have, for instance, been shown to contribute to their

positive, optimistic thinking, to enhance their creativity, and to nurture their sociability

(cf. Amabile et al., 2005; Forgas, 2000a; Forgas & George, 2001; Isen & Baron,

1991). Leaders who experience positive affective states should, therefore, find it easier

to convincingly act as powerful and confident role models, to develop and

communicate a creative, emotionally captivating vision, and to engage in positive

relationships with followers, strengthening these key aspects of charismatic leadership

(cf. Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993; see chapter 2.2.1.2 for more details

on this argument). Supporting this notion, I empirically demonstrated leaders' positive

mood to strengthen their charismatic leadership behaviors in Study 1, as outlined in

chapter 2.4.3. Similarly, Bono and Ilies (2006) found the positive emotional

expressions contained in leaders' vision statements to enhance followers' ratings of

charismatic leadership. Interestingly, however, leaders' negative mood was shown to

be unrelated to their performance of charismatic leadership behaviors in the present

dissertation's Study 1. Also, prior theorizing has typically emphasized the role of

positive rather than negative affective states in this regard, specifically describing, for

instance, the display of genuine positive emotions charismatic leaders utilize to

effectively convey their visionary message (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Thus, even

though it may be interesting to further explore the role of leaders' negative feelings in


the charismatic leadership process (cf. Bono & Ilies, 2006), the existing literature

suggest leaders' positive, but not leaders' negative affect to influence the respective

behaviors.

In addition, both theoretical (e.g., Klenke, 2005) and empirical research (e.g., Bommer

et al., 2004; Sosik, 2005; Spreitzer et al., 1999; Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005) have

argued various types of attitudes to shape leaders' performance of charismatic

behaviors, with such leadership occurring more frequently for leaders who hold

positive attitudes towards their work, their followers, and their organization than for

leaders' who hold negative attitudes in these respects (see chapter 1.2.1.2). This

reasoning is in line with Paglis and Green's (2002) more general notion that leaders'

willingness to engage in discretionary, effortful leadership behaviors will depend on

their positive work attitudes to a large extent. After all, charismatic behaviors such as

acting as a role model, fostering the acceptance of common goals, and developing and

communicating an inspiring, emotionally captivating vision (cf. Conger & Kanungo,

1987; Shamir et al., 1993) should require the respective leaders' willingness to invest

substantial efforts on behalf of their organization and their work group. Even though

more research is certainly required in this area of inquiry, charismatic leadership,

therefore, seems likely to hinge, at least partially, on leaders' work attitudes.

Based on these considerations, charismatic leadership seems likely to contain both

affect- and judgment-driven elements, with both leaders' positive affective reactions

and leaders' work attitudes influencing their performance of the respective behaviors.

Importantly, however, these affectively and attitudinally based antecedents are

unlikely to be fully independent from each other. As indicated before, AET suggests

that "emotional states [...] lie at the core of attitude formation", with employees' affect

influencing their evaluative judgments and attitudes (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002, p. 78;

see also Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). This is in line with Forgas' (1995) Affect

Infusion Model which, as outlined in more detail in chapter 2.2.1.1, suggests

individuals' feelings to shape their cognitive processes by influencing, for instance,

their recall of affect-congruent memories and by selectively directing their attention to

specific aspects of the environment (see also Forgas, 2000a; Forgas & George, 1991).

Scholars have, accordingly, argued and found individuals' positive affective states to

enhance their subsequent, positive attitudes (e.g., Fisher, 2000; 2002; Weiss et al.,

1999a) and to reduce their negative attitudes in the workplace (e.g., Cole, Bruch, &


Vogel, 2006). Hence, there may be two causal routes relating leaders' positive feelings

to their performance of charismatic leadership behaviors. On the one hand, these

constructs may be directly linked through proximal affective influences on charismatic

leadership (e.g., on leaders' optimistic, creative, and sociable actions). On the other

hand, however, leaders' positive affect may also shape their charismatic behaviors in a

more indirect manner by positively influencing their work attitudes and, subsequently,

contributing to their willingness to engage in such leadership.

In sum, I propose leaders' positive affect, work attitudes, and charismatic leadership

behaviors to be connected in a pattern of partial mediation (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986;

Mathieu & Taylor, 2006), with leaders' positive feelings influencing their charismatic

leadership behaviors both directly and indirectly (through leaders' work attitudes). In

other words, work attitudes should partially (but not fully) account for the positive

affect – charismatic leadership linkage.

Proposition 1.1: (a) Leaders' positive affect and work attitudes both contribute

to their performance of charismatic leadership behaviors. (b) Leaders' work

attitudes partially mediate the relationship between positive affect and

charismatic leadership.

4.2.2.2 The dual moderating role of leaders' emotional intelligence

Given the relative prominence of emotional intelligence in prior antecedent-oriented

charismatic leadership research (see chapter 1.2.2) and given the results from Study 1,

it seems both necessary and useful to incorporate emotional intelligence in the present

framework. It should be noted that even though emotional intelligence is not part of

Weiss and Cropanzano's (1996) initial formulation of AET (see Figure 4.1), more

recent refinements of this theory have explicitly considered this aspect (e.g.,

Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002).

As outlined in chapter 1.2.2, leaders' emotional intelligence has frequently been

theorized to enhance their charismatic leadership behaviors by enabling leaders to

effectively utilize their own feelings and to enthuse followers for a shared vision and

common aspirations (e.g., Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; George, 2000; Prati et al., 2003).

This notion has been supported both in prior empirical research (e.g., Barling et al.,

2000; Middleton, 2005, Palmer et al., 2001; Rubin et al., 2005; Sosik & Megerian,

1999) and in Study 1 of this thesis, which found leaders' emotional intelligence to


strengthen their performance of charismatic behaviors over and above the impacts of

positive mood (see chapter 2.4.3). Thus, a direct connection between emotional

intelligence and charismatic leadership can be assumed with considerable confidence.

Given that the mechanisms underlying this linkage have been explicated in some detail

in Study 1 (see chapter 2.2.2.2), it does not seem necessary to further elaborate on this

relationship here.

Notably, however, the role of leaders' emotional intelligence in charismatic leadership

behavior emergence may be more complex, with emotional intelligence moderating

both the direct and the indirect connection between leaders' positive affect and

charismatic leadership suggested in chapter 4.2.2.1. I argue that emotionally intelligent

leaders will be able to effectively perform charismatic leadership behaviors

irrespective of their affective states (i.e., even if they do not experience positive

feelings), while leaders low on emotional intelligence should require strong positive

feelings in this respect. As discussed in Study 1, for instance, emotional intelligence

may minimize the direct, negative implications of low positive affect for charismatic

leadership, because emotionally intelligent leaders should be able to counteract

unfavorable affective consequences for such behaviors (e.g., George, 2000; Mayer et

al., 2004), to avoid experiencing low positive feelings over prolonged periods of time

(e.g., Ciarrochi et al., 2000), and to deliberately and effectively engage in impression

management strategies to disguise a lack of positive affect from their followers (e.g.,

Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; see chapter 2.2.3 for more

details). Leaders low on emotional intelligence, by contrast, should lack these abilities.

Thus, I suggest emotional intelligence to serve as a moderator of the direct linkage

between positive affect and charismatic leadership, with high emotional intelligence

reducing the strength of this relationship. Empirical support for this notion has been

provided in Study 1 of the present dissertation (see chapter 2.4.3).

Further, leaders' emotional intelligence is likely to also influence the indirect

relationship between positive affect and charismatic leadership (through leaders'

attitudes). Specifically, emotional intelligence may serve as a moderator in the linkage

between the positive feelings leaders experience at work and their subsequent work

attitudes. Emotionally intelligent individuals may be able, for instance, to recognize

and to deliberately correct for affective biases on their evaluations and judgments,

minimizing the potential negative implications of low positive affect for their work


attitudes by constraining processes of affect infusion (cf. Berkowitz et al., 2000;

Forgas, 2000b; Mayer et al., 2004; Parrot & Sabini, 1990). Leaders high on emotional

intelligence should, therefore, be able to effectively compensate for a lack of positive

feelings, retaining positive work attitudes largely irrespective of their affective states.

Low emotional intelligence leaders' work attitudes, by contrast, should be subject to

strong affective influences, with such attitudes being more favorable the higher the

level of positive affect these leaders experience. Thus, I suggest leaders' emotional

intelligence to reduce the strength of the relationship between their positive affect on

the one hand and their work attitudes on the other hand. With leaders' work attitudes

partially mediating the linkage between positive affect and charismatic leadership (see

chapter 4.2.2.1), this moderating role of emotional intelligence may give rise to a

pattern of moderated mediation (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986; Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt,

2005).16 The indirect relationship between positive affect and charismatic leadership

(through leaders' work attitudes) should be less pronounced for leaders high on

emotional intelligence, because affective influences on leaders' work attitudes should

be diminished in this case. For leaders low on emotional intelligence, by contrast, this

indirect relationship should be relatively strong, with their attitudes hinging on their

affective states to a large extent.

In sum, besides the immediate effects of emotional intelligence on charismatic

leadership, I argue for a dual moderating role of leaders' emotional intelligence in both

the direct and the indirect linkage between leaders' positive affect and their respective

leadership behaviors. Both of these relationships should be more pronounced for

leaders low rather than high on emotional intelligence. Thus, irrespective of the

positive affective states they experience, emotionally intelligent leaders should be able

to exhibit charismatic behaviors to a high degree. Leaders low on emotional

intelligence, by contrast, should only be able to perform such behaviors if they

experience strong positive feelings.

16 Moderated mediation has been argued to occur, for instance, if a moderating variable influences the

relationship between an independent variable and a mediator, which may, eventually, influence the indirect

relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, as transmitted through the mediator

(Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, in press).


Proposition 1.2: (a) Leaders emotional intelligence contributes to their

performance of charismatic leadership behaviors. Above this, leaders'

emotional intelligence (b) moderates the direct relationship between leaders'

positive affect and charismatic leadership and (c) moderates the indirect

relationship between leaders' positive affect and charismatic leadership, as

transmitted through leaders' work attitudes. Both the direct and the indirect

relationship between positive affect and charismatic leadership will be more

pronounced for leaders low rather than high on emotional intelligence.

4.2.2.3 Incorporating the work environment: The role of organizational

context

The above considerations have not yet utilized one of the most interesting aspects of

AET, namely the opportunity to integrate both individual characteristics and work

environment features into one common framework (cf. Ashton-James & Ashkanasy,

2005; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). As indicated both in prior research (see chapter

1.2.1.5) and in Study 2, numerous organizational context factors may influence

leaders' performance of charismatic behaviors, including, for example, facets of the

organizational or departmental structure and culture (e.g., Pawar & Eastman, 1997;

Shamir & Howell, 1999), leaders' hierarchical positioning (e.g., Lowe et al., 1996;

Rainey & Watson, 1996), prior work group and organizational performance (e.g., Agle

et al., 2006; Keller, 1992), and the leadership behaviors exhibited by leaders' own

superiors and peers (e.g., Bass et al., 1987; Bommer et al., 2004). Building upon and

extending AET, I argue that such factors will shape charismatic leadership behaviors

both directly and indirectly. Specifically, leaders' positive affect and work attitudes

both are suggested to partially account for (i.e., mediate) the relationship between

organizational context features and leaders' performance of charismatic behaviors.

First, organizational context factors may directly influence leaders' behaviors because

they may shape the demands, constraints, and job characteristics leaders face at work

(cf. Oldham & Hackman, 1981; Stewart, 1976; 1982; see chapter 3.3.1 for more

details). To a large extent, contextual characteristics may, therefore, determine both

what must be done and what can be done in specific situations, setting the boundary

conditions for individuals' behaviors within organizations and influencing the

feasibility of specific types of actions (cf. Green et al., 1996; Hammer & Turk, 1987;

Osborn & Hunt, 1975; Stewart, 1982). By conclusion, organizational context factors


seem likely to impact the viability of charismatic leadership and to influence the

likelihood that leaders will engage in such behaviors (Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Shamir

& Howell, 1999). This suggested relationship is exemplified, for instance, in Study 2

of this thesis, which argued specific facets of the organizational structure (i.e.,

organizational centralization, formalization, and size) to promote or constrain leaders'

ability to engage in charismatic behaviors by defining the contextual boundary

conditions for the occurrence of such leadership. Supporting this argument, these

structural facets were found to directly influence organizations' charismatic leadership

climate. Similar relationships seem likely with regard to other contextual aspects, such

as those discussed in prior research (see chapter 1.2.1.5). Cultures characterized by

high levels of collectivism, for instance, have been suggested to render organizations

and work groups more susceptible to the values and visions charismatic leaders

convey, promoting the emergence of such leadership (Pillai & Meindl, 1998; see also

Bass & Avolio, 1993a; Shamir & Howell, 1999). In sum, based on the above

arguments, I propose a direct linkage between the organizational context

characteristics leaders face and their charismatic leadership behaviors.

Above this, an AET perspective suggests that organizational context factors will

influence leaders' charismatic behaviors in two additional, indirect ways. Contextual

features have been argued, for instance, to shape employees' affective reactions by

rendering the occurrence of specific affective work events more or less likely (Weiss

& Cropanzano, 1996; see chapter 4.2.1). Thus, with leaders' positive feelings

influencing their charismatic leadership behaviors (see chapter 4.2.2.1), the

relationship between the organizational context and such leadership may – at least

partially – be mediated by these affective reactions.17 Extant research has rarely

investigated the affective consequences of specific contextual features. The evidence

available suggests, however, that aspects of the organizational context may indeed

trigger positive affective events to a greater or lesser extent. Such positive affective

events have been shown to include, among other things, the achievement of favorable

outcomes and goals, the receipt of recognition and positive feedback for task

accomplishments, and friendly, helpful, and supportive acts of colleagues (Basch &

17 Of course, this mediated relationship may be less pronounced for leaders high rather than low on emotional

intelligence, with emotional intelligence diminishing the positive affect – charismatic leadership linkage (see

chapter 4.2.2.2). To keep the discussion more clearly focused on the potential role of contextual factors,

however, I will not elaborate on this additional complicating factor here.


Fisher, 2000; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999b).

Interestingly, research suggests that the facets of organizational structure discussed in

Study 2 (i.e., organizational centralization, formalization, and size) may shape such

events, because they have been associated with employees' feedback from the job (e.g.,

Organ & Greene, 1981; Rousseau, 1978; Sutton & Rousseau, 1979), with their

organizational justice perceptions (e.g., Schminke et al., 2000; 2002), and with the

establishment of high-quality relations among employees (e.g., Gittel, 2003). Also,

other contextual features that have been shown to influence leaders' charismatic

behaviors may be directly relevant for the occurrence of such events, including, for

instance, work groups' and organizations' prior performance (cf. Agle et al., 2006;

Keller, 1992) and the leadership behaviors exhibited by leaders' own superiors and

peers (cf. Bass et al., 1987; Bommer et al., 2004). Thus, the linkages between such

context factors and charismatic leadership may at least partially result from contextual

impacts on the positive affective events leaders experience at work and, therefore, on

leaders' positive affective reactions. Of course, future research directly investigating

this assertion would be highly useful. Nevertheless, based on the above reasoning, it

seems possible to propose a mediating role of leaders' positive affect in the linkage

between the organizational context leaders face (and the affective events triggered by

such contextual features) and their performance of charismatic leadership behaviors.

And finally, AET also suggests organizational context factors to influence employees'

work attitudes by offering a basis for the cognitive comparison of actual work

environment features with employees' values, expectations, and needs (Weiss et al.,

1999a; see chapter 4.2.1). Thus, given the linkage between leaders' work attitudes and

charismatic leadership discussed in chapter 4.2.2.1, such attitudes may – at least

partially – explain the relationship between organizational context factors and leaders'

charismatic behaviors, supplementing the mediating role of leaders' positive affect

indicated above. Prior research has demonstrated various contextual features relevant

for charismatic leadership behavior emergence to strongly shape the attitudes

employees hold towards their work, their job, and their organization. Structural facets

such as those discussed in Study 2 have, for instance, been associated with employees'

organizational commitment and identification (e.g., Michaels et al., 1988; Organ &

Greene, 1981; Podsakoff et al., 1986). Similarly, to cite another example, employees'

hierarchical level has been shown to influence various types of work attitudes,


including, for instance, employees' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

organization-based self-esteem (e.g., Miles, Patrick, & King, 1996; Ragins et al.,

2000). Leaders' attitudes, therefore, seem likely to mediate the linkages between such

context factors and charismatic leadership, even though more research is certainly

required to directly examine this assertion.

In sum, I argue that organizational context features will influence the occurrence of

charismatic leadership behaviors both directly and indirectly. In Stewart's (1982)

terms, contextual aspects may, on the one hand, determine the demands and

constraints leaders face and, therefore, influence the feasibility of charismatic

leadership in a direct manner. On the other hand, contextual features may also shape

the extent to which leaders will engage in such behaviors within their areas of

discretionary choice by influencing leaders' positive affect (through their impacts on

the affective work events leaders experience) and by influencing their work attitudes.

Taken together, these considerations suggest a dual pattern of partial mediation (cf.

Baron & Kenny, 1986; Mathieu & Taylor, 2006), with both leaders' positive affect and

leaders' work attitudes partially, but not fully, accounting for the linkage between

organizational context features and charismatic leadership.

Proposition 1.3: (a) The organizational context features leaders face will

influence their charismatic leadership behaviors. (b) Leaders' positive affect

will partially mediate the relationship between organizational context features

and charismatic leadership, with contextual features triggering specific

affective work events. (c) Leaders' work attitudes will partially mediate the

relationship between organizational context features and charismatic

leadership.

4.2.2.4 Incorporating dispositional factors: The role of leaders' personality

Finally, prior research has frequently theorized and shown leaders' personality

dispositions to influence their performance of charismatic leadership behaviors (e.g.,

Bass & Riggio, 2006; House & Howell, 1992), with the broad Big Five personality

traits (i.e., extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and

neuroticism; John & Srivastava, 1999) offering a viable framework to cumulate the

diverse findings in this regard (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; see chapter 1.2.1.1). It seems

crucial, therefore, to incorporate the role of such stable leader characteristics in the


present model. Interestingly, AET explicitly acknowledges the relevance of

personality for individuals' behaviors, arguing that traits and dispositions may

indirectly shape behavioral outcomes by influencing the affective states individuals

experience (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; see chapter 4.2.1). In line with this notion, I

suggest leaders' personality characteristics and charismatic behaviors to be linked in an

indirect manner, through leaders' positive affect. The strength of this indirect linkage,

in turn, is suggested to depend on leaders' emotional intelligence.

A mediating role of leaders' positive affect in the personality – charismatic leadership

linkage seems likely insofar as specific personality characteristics influence leaders'

positive affective experiences, given that such positive feelings have been suggested to

promote leaders' charismatic behaviors (see chapter 4.2.2.1). And in fact, research has

typically found individuals' personality traits and feelings to be "intimately related"

(McCrae & Costa, 1991, p. 227). Most prominently, individuals' extraversion has been

shown to enhance their positive moods and emotions (e.g., Fisher, 2002; George,

1989; 1991; Weiss et al., 1999a). This finding has considerable theoretical appeal, with

individuals' dispositional tendency to experience positive affective states representing

a key feature of extraversion (Bono & Judge, 2004). In addition, McCrae and Costa

(1991) also demonstrated the other Big Five personality traits to significantly relate to

individuals' positive affect. Openness to experience (i.e., the tendency to be

emotionally responsive and intellectually curious; cf. Bono & Judge, 2004) has, for

example, been shown to promote individuals' positive feelings by amplifying affective

experiences in general. Also, conscientiousness (i.e., the tendency to work hard to

achieve goals) and agreeableness (i.e., the tendency to be warm, generous, and

sociable) have been found to enhance individuals' positive affect by fostering

achievements, improving social relationships, and contributing "to a life with more

daily uplifts and with fewer daily hassles" (McCrae & Costa, 1991, p. 231). And

finally, individuals' neuroticism (which includes the tendency to experience negative

affective states) has been shown to be inversely (albeit moderately) associated with

individuals' positive feelings (McCrae & Costa, 1991). In sum, these arguments

suggest that leaders' positive affect should be subject to various dispositional

influences. Thus, even though the relatively broad literature on the association

between personality and charismatic leadership has not investigated this notion to date,

leaders' positive affective states seem likely to mediate the respective linkage.


Importantly, prior research has typically shown individuals' psychological states (e.g.,

their momentary feelings) to fully account for the relationship between their

personality traits and behaviors (e.g., George, 1991; 1996b). As George (1992) argued,

for instance, traits and dispositions may generally be too broad to directly predict

specific types of actions, with individuals' personality characteristics, therefore,

"operating on behavior through their influence on internal states" (p. 193). Similarly,

AET does not assume a direct linkage between personality and behavior, but suggests

this relationship to be completely transmitted through individuals' affective reactions

(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; see Figure 4.1). Following this line of reasoning, I

suggest leaders' positive affective states to fully mediate the relationship between their

personality dispositions on the one hand and their charismatic leadership behaviors on

the other hand. In other words, once the role of leaders' positive feelings has been

taken into account, I do not expect any additional, direct connection between leaders'

personality and charismatic leadership (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986; Mathieu & Taylor,

2006).

Leaders' positive affect has, however, been argued before to more strongly influence

their charismatic behaviors for leaders low rather than high on emotional intelligence

(see chapter 4.2.2.2). Thus, I suggest the strength of the indirect linkage between

personality and charismatic leadership (as transferred by positive affect) to depend on

leaders' emotional intelligence. Particularly, emotionally intelligent leaders should be

able to perform charismatic behaviors even if they exhibit relatively unfavorable

personality profiles, while leaders low on emotional intelligence should find it difficult

to engage in such leadership in this case. Low levels of extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, and openness to experience and high levels of neuroticism, for

example, may diminish leaders' positive affect (cf. McCrae & Costa, 1991). Leaders

high on emotional intelligence, however, should have the ability to perform

charismatic behaviors even if they do not experience positive feelings by counteracting

unfavorable affective consequences on such leadership (e.g., George, 2000; see

chapter 2.2.3 for more details on this argument). Thus, leaders' personality should have

only limited relevance for charismatic leadership in this instance. With charismatic

behaviors depending on positive feelings to a greater extent for leaders low on

emotional intelligence, by contrast, personality dispositions should play a more

important role.


In sum, I suggest leaders' personality, positive affect, emotional intelligence, and

charismatic leadership to be connected in a pattern of moderated mediation (cf. Muller

et al., 2005; Preacher et al., in press). For leaders high on emotional intelligence, the

indirect relationship between personality and charismatic leadership (through leaders'

positive affect) should be less pronounced than for leaders low on emotional

intelligence, because the linkage between positive affect and charismatic leadership

should be weaker for the former than for the latter.18 In other words, personality

characteristics should be less relevant for the charismatic behaviors of leaders high

rather than low on emotional intelligence. Notably, the indirect nature of the

personality – charismatic leadership linkage, in combination with the moderating role

of emotional intelligence in this relationship, might offer an explanation for the

relatively moderate effect sizes obtained in Bono and Judge's (2004) meta-analysis on

this issue (see chapter 1.2.1.1).

Proposition 1.4: (a) Leaders' positive affect fully mediates the relationship

between leaders' personality (i.e., the Big Five personality traits) and their

charismatic leadership behaviors. (b) Leaders' emotional intelligence

moderates the indirect relationship between personality and charismatic

leadership, as transferred by leaders' positive affect. This indirect relationship

will be more pronounced for leaders low rather than high on emotional

intelligence.

Above this, AET also points to another mechanisms through which specific

personality characteristics may influence individuals' behaviors. As Weiss and

Cropanzano (1996) argued, employees' extraversion, in particular, may moderate the

relationship between affective work events and employees' positive feelings,

predisposing employees to experience greater positive affect in response to such

events and, therefore, shaping relevant behavioral outcomes. Building on this

argument, I propose leaders' extraversion to moderate their positive affective reactions

to workplace events, influencing the indirect linkage between such events on the one

18 This pattern of moderated mediation differs from the one described before (see chapter 4.2.2.2). In the present

case, the moderator is suggested to influence the relationship between the mediator and the outcome variable

rather than the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator. The overall effect of these

constellations is similar, however, with the moderator influencing the strength of the indirect relationship

between the independent and the dependent variables, as transferred by the mediator (Preacher et al., in press).


hand and charismatic leadership behaviors on the other hand, as transmitted through

leaders' positive feelings (see chapter 4.2.2.3).19

Various scholars have outlined the relevance of individuals' extraversion for their

positive affective reactions to external stimuli and have indicated specific mechanisms

to explain this moderation effect. Larsen and Ketelaar (1991), for instance, suggested

extraversion to encompass a strong dispositional "sensitivity to signals of reward" (p.

133). Individuals high on extraversion should, therefore, assign higher salience to

positive stimuli than individuals low on extraversion and, as a consequence, they

should exhibit stronger positive affective reactions if they are exposed to favorable

situations. Supporting this notion, various experimental studies have demonstrated

individuals' positive affective responses to external stimuli to be more pronounced for

people high rather than low on extraversion (e.g., Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989; 1991;

Zelenski & Larsen, 1999). The other Big Five personality dimensions, by contrast,

have typically been argued to be unrelated to individuals' positive affective reactivity.

Neuroticism, for instance, has been associated with stronger negative, but not positive

affective responses, because it entails heightened sensitivity towards negative rather

than positive stimuli (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989; 1991; Zelenski & Larsen, 1999). Also,

as McCrae and Costa (1991) argued, agreeableness and conscientiousness should not

impact individuals' positive affective reactivity to a large extent, because these traits

are unrelated to individuals' reward sensitivity and shape their feelings in a more

indirect manner (i.e., through the life situations that agreeable and conscientious

people create for themselves; see above). In sum, extant research suggests that

individuals' positive affective reactions to specific stimuli are influenced by their

extraversion, but not by the other Big Five personality traits.

In line with this reasoning, I suggest leaders' extraversion to moderate the relationship

between work events and leaders' subsequent positive feelings. Leaders high on this

personality trait should react more positively towards such events, contributing to their

positive affect (cf. Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989; 1991; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996;

Zelenski & Larsen, 1999). For leaders low on extraversion, by contrast, the positive

affective relevance of the work events they experience should remain limited. With

19 Adding further complexity to this relationship, leaders' emotional intelligence may also play a moderating role

in this regard, diminishing the strength of the linkage between positive affect and charismatic leadership (see

chapter 4.2.2.2). To more clearly outline the role of leaders' personality in charismatic leadership behavior

emergence, however, I chose to focus on the moderating role of extraversion in the following sections.


leaders' positive feelings contributing to their performance of charismatic leadership

behaviors (see chapter 4.2.2.1), I therefore suggest another pattern of moderated

mediation (cf. Muller et al., 2005; Preacher et al., in press). For leaders high on

extraversion, the indirect relationship between affective work events and charismatic

leadership (as transmitted by leaders' positive affect) should be more pronounced than

for leaders low on this personality trait, because the linkage between work events and

positive affect should be stronger for the former than for the latter. By conclusion, this

implies that leaders' extraversion may, at least partially, determine the relevance of

organizational context features and their associated affective events in charismatic


Proposition 1.4c: Leaders' extraversion moderates the indirect relationship

between work events and charismatic leadership, as transferred by leaders'

positive affect. This indirect relationship will be more pronounced for leaders

exhibiting high rather than low levels of extraversion.

4.2.3 Discussion

4.2.3.1 Summary and contributions

The goal of this part of the thesis was to develop a comprehensive theoretical

framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence, addressing research

question 3. In building this framework, I considered various different antecedent

constructs discussed both in prior research (see chapter 1.2) and in Studies 1 and 2 of

the dissertation itself, integrating both leader- and context-based perspectives on the

development of charismatic leadership behaviors into one common, overarching model

(see Figure 4.2). I drew on Weiss and Cropanzano's (1996) AET to guide the selection

of antecedent constructs to be considered here and to outline their potential

interrelationships. In brief, the resulting AET-based framework of charismatic

leadership behavior emergence suggests such leadership to be proximally influenced

by leaders' positive affect and work attitudes, with leaders' attitudes partially mediating

the impacts of their feelings (chapter 4.2.2.1). Further, leaders' emotional intelligence

is suggested to directly enhance their charismatic behaviors, but also to moderate both

the direct and the indirect role of leaders' positive affect. For leaders high on emotional

intelligence, in particular, affective influences are held to be of more limited relevance

in charismatic leadership behavior emergence than for their low emotional intelligence


counterparts (chapter 4.2.2.2). In addition, I argue organizational context factors to

shape the occurrence of charismatic leadership both directly (i.e., by influencing the

boundary conditions for such leadership) and indirectly (i.e., by shaping leaders'

positive affect through the affective events leaders experience and by influencing

leaders' work attitudes). In other words, leaders' positive affect and work attitudes are

both proposed to partially mediate contextual impacts (chapter 4.2.2.3). And finally,

leaders' personality is suggested to determine their charismatic leadership in two

different, indirect ways (chapter 4.2.2.4). First, the Big Five personality traits are held

to shape leaders' charismatic behaviors by influencing their positive affective states,

with this indirect relationship being less pronounced for high rather than low

emotional intelligence leaders. And second, leaders' extraversion is suggested to

enhance their positive affective reactions to the work events they experience,

strengthening the indirect linkage between such events and charismatic leadership (as

transferred by leaders' positive affect).

I assert this framework contributes to research on the antecedents of charismatic

leadership in various ways. First and foremost, it helps overcoming the piecemeal

approach that has characterized the respective literature to date by offering a broad,

encompassing conceptual model which incorporates affective, attitudinal, contextual,

and personality-based perspectives on charismatic leadership behavior emergence in a

comprehensive manner. As outlined in chapter 1.2, such constructs have typically been

discussed in isolation from each other in prior theoretical and empirical work. The

framework developed here, therefore, is among the first to address this fragmented

state of research. It builds greater knowledge on the relative importance of different

types of influencing factors, and it contributes to a better understanding of the complex

interrelationships between various antecedent constructs involved in the development

of charismatic leadership behaviors. Hence, the present considerations promote a more

complete and inclusive depiction of charismatic leadership behavior emergence, and

they may stimulate more coherent thinking on the antecedents of such leadership

among both scholars and practitioners.

4.2.3.2 Limitations and future research directions

The theoretical framework developed here has some limitations, and it points to

interesting directions future research might take to further investigate the development

of charismatic leadership behaviors in organizations. First of all, as indicated before, I


chose to utilize relatively broad labels for most of the antecedent constructs in the

present model (see chapter 4.2.2). This allowed for a comprehensive integration of

numerous specific antecedent variables discussed in the existing literature, and it

enabled a broad consideration of potential interrelationships between different classes

of influencing factors. On the other hand, however, this approach may have

contributed to a relatively abstract depiction of charismatic leadership behavior

emergence, and it may have overlooked important details and differences in the

functioning of more specific antecedents. Future scholars could address this limitation

in various ways. First, rather than adopting an encompassing, comprehensive

perspective (as in the present case), future theorizing could take a closer look at

selected aspects of the present framework and focus on the interplay of a smaller

number of antecedent constructs in more detail. Such theory could, for instance,

outline commonalities and differences in the relevance of specific contextual features

and work events, and it could describe how such distinct aspects are linked to leaders'

charismatic behaviors both directly and indirectly (i.e., through specific affective states

and work attitudes). Similarly, empirical research might contribute to a more fine-

grained depiction of the role of the antecedent constructs discussed here by employing

multiple operationalizations and investigating their relative impacts on charismatic

leadership. By simultaneously testing, for instance, the contribution of various

contextual facets to the variance explained in such leadership (like in Study 2 of the

present dissertation) and by examining the potential mediating role of leaders' positive

affect and work attitudes in these linkages, such research could advance a clearer

picture of the role of different contextual, affective, and attitudinal aspects in

charismatic leadership behavior emergence.

Above this, it should be noted that – in line with the general topic of this thesis – the

present framework explicitly concentrated on the antecedents of charismatic

leadership behaviors. It deliberately excluded the consequences of such leadership to

enable a more focused discussion. Future theorizing could, however, adopt an even

wider, more comprehensive approach by considering both the antecedent conditions

and the outcomes of leaders' charismatic behaviors. Also, such theory could

incorporate potential reciprocal relationships and feedback loops. As Pawar and

Eastman (1997) suggested, for instance, charismatic leadership may not only be

subject to contextual influences, but it may also shape the organizational context in


which such leadership takes place. By further extending the present model through the

inclusion of such additional, outcome-oriented constructs and linkages, scholars could,

therefore, contribute to the development of a more encompassing, dynamic perspective

on the functioning of charismatic leadership processes in organizations. This would

complement the more static theoretical approaches which dominate the charismatic

leadership literature to date, focusing either on the consequences (e.g., Shamir et al.,

1993) or – as in the present case – on the influencing factors of such leadership (see

also, e.g., Shamir & Howell, 1999).

And finally, given the conceptual nature of the above considerations, empirical

research is clearly needed to examine the viability of these assertions. Rather than

focusing on individual linkages or on single, selected propositions from the present

model, such work might benefit from examining larger parts of this overall framework.

Such integrative empirical research could substantially advance our knowledge about

the relative importance of the different antecedent constructs discussed here, and it

could demonstrate their complex interplay in influencing leaders' charismatic

behaviors. Obviously, testing the overall AET framework of charismatic leadership

behavior emergence (or significant parts thereof) poses considerable empirical

difficulties. Depending on the specific aspects to be investigated, this might, for

instance, require data on multiple organizations' contextual features, on specific

affective events within these organizations, and on multiple leaders' (from within these

organizations) personalities, attitudes, affective states, emotional intelligence, and

charismatic leadership behaviors. This data would likely have to span multiple levels

of analysis, giving rise to the various complexities associated with multilevel research

(Klein et al., 1994; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), let alone the difficulties associated with

gaining such far-reaching access to multiple organizations (cf. Easterby-Smith et al.,

2002). Also, in order to persuasively address the chains of causality implied in Figure

4.2, such research should be longitudinal (cf. Mathieu & Taylor, 2006), further

aggravating these difficulties. Nevertheless, future empirical work that succeeds in

meeting these challenges may substantially contribute to our understanding of

charismatic leadership behavior emergence, and it could further promote a more

comprehensive approach towards this issue.


4.2.3.3 Practical implications

From a practical perspective, the present framework may help organizations to more

effectively nurture charismatic behaviors in their leaders. Most importantly, by

contributing to a better understanding of the interplay of various different charismatic

leadership antecedents, it may enable organizational decision-makers to more

comprehensively design their leadership development efforts. Rather than focusing on

the adjustment of single variables through isolated initiatives, organizations may,

therefore, try to facilitate charismatic leadership behaviors in a more strategic,

encompassing manner. Such strategies should incorporate both organizational design

interventions and various aspects of leader selection and leadership training.

First of all, the present model suggests that contextual aspects may constitute

important boundary conditions for charismatic leadership, because they may shape the

occurrence of such behaviors both directly and indirectly (i.e., by influencing leaders'

positive affect and work attitudes). Organizational decision-makers should, therefore,

focus on the design of leaders' work context as a key starting point in fostering leaders'

charismatic behaviors. For example, as indicated in Study 2, structural factors like

decentralization and formalization may strengthen charismatic leadership in important

ways (see also Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996). Also, other scholars have, for instance,

pointed to the relevance of organizational culture in this respect, advocating open,

adaptive cultures characterized by a common sense of purpose and identity to facilitate

charismatic leadership (e.g., Bass and Avolio, 1993a; Pawar & Eastman, 1997). If such

organizational context features are appropriately designed, leaders in the organization

should be equipped with key prerequisites for the performance of charismatic

behaviors. In the absence of an organizational context supporting such leadership,

however, the respective behaviors are unlikely to occur (cf. Bommer et al., 2004).

Above this, utilizing appropriate criteria in leader selection and promotion decisions

seems to be crucial, based on the present considerations. On the one hand, applicants'

personality profiles in general and their extraversion in particular should be

considered, because such dispositional factors may contribute to charismatic

leadership by promoting leaders' positive feelings and by strengthening their positive

affective reactions to workplace events. On the other hand, however, applicants'

emotional intelligence should play an even more important role. After all, emotional

intelligence may not only strengthen charismatic leadership in a direct manner, but it


may also contribute to the consistency of such behaviors by decoupling them from

possible changes in leaders' affective states. Reiterating the recommendations put

forward in Study 1, organizational decision-makers, therefore, should utilize both

personality inventories (cf. Cascio, 2003) and emotional intelligence tests (e.g., the

MSCEIT; cf. Mayer et al., 2004) as important tools when selecting and promoting

individuals for leadership positions (see chapter 2.5.5). Giving preference to

candidates who exhibit high extraversion and who sore high on the respective

emotional intelligence tests, in particular, may contribute to occurrence of charismatic

leadership behaviors in organizations.

And finally, the present model suggests that leadership training programs may be used

to promote leaders' charismatic behaviors in various ways. Importantly, such programs

should aim at strengthening leaders' emotional intelligence to benefit from the positive

consequences associated with the respective abilities (cf. Caruso & Wolfe, 2004;

Mayer & Caruso, 2002; Watkin, 2000; see also chapter 2.5.5). Above this, however,

organizations' leadership training efforts should also address leaders' feelings and

attitudes at work. Such training could try to create positive affective events, for

instance, by enabling favorable interactions among colleagues and by providing

opportunities for positive feedback and recognition (cf. Basch & Fisher, 2000; Weiss

et al., 1999b). It may, therefore, evoke positive moods and emotions in participants

and, eventually, contribute to their charismatic leadership. Also, by deliberately

adjusting such trainings to participants' expectations and needs and by emphasizing

positive aspects of the organization in the respective programs, they may further

enhance participants' charismatic behaviors by improving their work attitudes.

It is crucial to reiterate that these different steps should form parts of an integrated

strategy for charismatic leadership development. As indicated above, for instance,

providing a viable context for such leadership may be critical. This is unlikely to be

sufficient, however, if leaders' emotional intelligence and personality are neglected in

hiring decisions. In this case, the organization would offer appropriate boundary

conditions for charismatic leadership behavior emergence, but leaders would be unable

to fully utilize these opportunities. Conversely, charismatic leadership training efforts

aimed at enhancing leaders' emotional intelligence or at promoting their positive affect

and work attitudes should have little effect if, at the same time, organizational context

factors prevent leaders from acting in a charismatic manner. In sum, the present model


demonstrates that organizational decision-makers should comprehensively consider a

broad range of potential levers when trying to facilitate the occurrence of charismatic

leadership behaviors. They should take into account the potential interrelationships

between such differing levers and combine different intervention opportunities (e.g.,

organizational design features, leader selection and promotion, and leadership training)

in a mutually reinforcing manner. Organizations may, then, be able to elevate the

effectiveness of their charismatic leadership development efforts far beyond what

would be possible by addressing single, isolated influencing factors.

4.3 Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behavior Emergence: A

Theoretical Extension

4.3.1 Theoretical background

As indicated in the introduction to this chapter, the following sections will develop a

theoretical core model of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence (see

chapter 4.1). In contrast to the broad, comprehensive perspective adopted with regard

to charismatic leadership, this model will employ a more fundamental, clearly defined

approach, owing to the earlier stage of development of prevention-oriented leadership

research. It will, therefore, build basic theory by focusing on leaders' threat perceptions

as proximal antecedent variables, extending Bruch and colleagues' initial notions about

the role of such influencing factors (e.g., Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2005).

Given the limited extant knowledge on the emergence of prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors, it seems important to build upon a solid conceptual fundament in

developing the present model, in order to arrive at a theoretically well-substantiated

description of the mechanisms linking the variables considered here. The following

notions will, therefore, draw on various established lines of inquiry, including theory

and research on the role of perceived threats in managerial decision-making and action

(e.g., Dutton, 1986; Staw et al., 1981), on occupational stress (e.g., Karasek, 1979;

Lazarus, 1993; Spector, 2002), and on individuals' regulatory focus orientation (e.g.,

Higgins, 1997).


4.3.1.1 The role of threat perceptions in managerial action

Following Staw and colleagues (1981, p. 502), the term threat is defined here as "an

environmental event that has impending negative consequences" for leaders'

organizations or work groups. Perceptions of such threats have been suggested to

critically influence individuals' behaviors by drawing their attention towards the

threatening stimulus, leading individuals to interrupt their current goals in order to

cope with the respective threat (e.g., Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-

Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007). In fact, individuals have been shown to pay

disproportionately large attention to threatening situations (Jackson & Dutton, 1988;

Wilson & MacLeod, 2003) and to exhibit strong behavioral reactions upon such

negative stimuli (Baumeister et al., 2001; Rozin & Royzman, 2001).

As indicated before, initial considerations by Bruch and colleagues have suggested

leaders' perceptions of such threats to constitute a key prerequisite for the emergence

of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (e.g., Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al.,

2005; 2007; see chapter 1.2.5). After all, if leaders are not aware of potential negative

developments in their environment, they seem unlikely to incorporate such threats into

their behaviors and into their communication with followers. Prevention-oriented

leadership should, therefore, remain limited. This notion is in line with Bar-Haim and

colleagues' (2007) cognitive model of threat processing. As these authors have argued,

in order for a negative stimulus to effectively draw individuals' attention and to

interrupt their goal pursuit, it needs to be consciously evaluated as possessing a

sufficiently high threat value. Otherwise, individuals are likely to ignore the stimulus

and to continue with the pursuit of prior goals.

Apart from these notions, however, leadership research has largely neglected the role

of leaders' threat perceptions. The literature on strategic management, by contrast, has

devoted considerable attention to the linkages between perceived threats and

managerial decision-making and action (e.g., Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Kiesler &

Sproull, 1982; Kovoor-Misra, 2002; Lang, Calantone, & Gudmundson, 1997; Thomas,

Clark, & Gioia, 1993). This line of inquiry has advanced different, conflicting

theoretical approaches (D'Aveni & MacMillan, 1990). From a threat-rigidity

perspective, for instance, managerial threat perceptions have been argued to trigger

psychological stress and anxiety and, therefore, they have been suggested to evoke

restrictions in information processing, to nurture managers' reliance on well-learned


courses of action, and to restrict managerial action-taking by evoking behavioral

inflexibility and passivity (Staw et al., 1981). Other scholars, by contrast, have argued

perceived threats to serve as "catalysts for action" (Dutton, 1986, p. 503), raising

issues' priority and motivating the investment of managerial and organizational

resources to resolve the respective threats. Interestingly, empirical research has

provided supportive evidence for both of these theoretical perspectives (for reviews,

see Barnett & Pratt, 2000; D'Aveni & McMillan, 1990; Lohrke, Bedeian, & Palmer,

2004).

Scholars have, accordingly, pointed to the need for further research to uncover the

mechanisms that may account for these differential impacts of managerial threat

perceptions (e.g., D'Aveni & McMillan, 1990; Lohrke et al., 2004). Such research may

also prove fruitful to further explicate the relationship between leaders' perceptions of

external threats on the one hand and their performance of prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors on the other hand. After all, based on the literature reviewed in

this section, threat perceptions might either diminish prevention-oriented leadership by

contributing to leaders' passivity, inflexibility, and cognitive rigidity (cf. Staw et al.,

1981), or they might contribute to such leadership by motivating leaders to proactively

resolve the respective threats (cf. Dutton, 1986) and enabling leaders to incorporate

such threats into their leadership behaviors in a prevention-oriented manner (Bruch &

Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2005; 2007).

4.3.1.2 The relevance of stress theory

The broad literature on occupational stress seems promising to provide further

clarifications on the role of leaders' threat perceptions, because perceived threats and

perceived stressors share important characteristics and exhibit substantial conceptual

overlap and may, therefore, have similar consequences for individuals' behaviors (cf.

Staw et al., 1981). Stressors have, for instance, been defined as events that "are

perceived and interpreted as somehow threatening to physical or psychological well-

being", and they have been suggested to "include anything that a person finds

threatening" (Spector, 2002, p. 134). In addition, both perceived threats and perceived

stressors can be further described along two similar dimensions. Perceived threats have

been characterized by their intensity (i.e., the perceived level of negativity and

subjective likelihood of loss) and by their controllability (i.e., the extent to which

individuals belief they can successfully deal with the threat; Chattopadhyay, Glick, &


Huber, 2001; Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Thomas et al., 1993). Similarly, theories of

occupational stress suggest that individuals' stress experience hinges both on their

perceived stress intensity and on their perceived control over the respective stressors

(e.g., Karasek, 1979; Lazarus, 1993; Spector, 1998; 2002).

Mirroring the literature on managerial decision-making and action (see chapter

4.3.1.1), research on occupational stress has reported inconsistent findings when

investigating the linkage between individuals' stress intensity perceptions and their

attitudes and behaviors. Some scholars have, for example, shown increasing

perceptions of stress intensity to negatively influence variables such as employee

satisfaction, performance, and health (e.g., Fuller, Stanton, Fisher, Spitzmüller, Russel,

& Smith, 2003; Le Fevre, Matheny, & Kolt, 2003). Others, by contrast, have reported

positive effects on similar variables, including, for instance, employees' job

satisfaction and personal initiative (Beehr, Glaser, Canali, & Wallwey, 2001; Fay &

Sonnentag, 2002). Further complicating extant findings, some researchers have argued

for curvilinear, inverted U-shaped relationships between stress intensity and important

outcome variables (such as job performance), even though empirical support for this

assertion has been limited (e.g., Fay & Sonnentag, 2002; Le Fevre et al., 2003).

To account for these diverse and sometimes contradictory findings, scholars have

argued that in investigating the consequences of individuals' stress experience, it is

necessary to simultaneously consider their perceptions of both stress intensity and

stress controllability, because these dimensions are likely to influence outcome

variables in a non-additive, interactive manner (Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005;

Karasek, 1979; Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987; Spector, 1998; 2002).

Building on this notion, it seems useful to jointly examine the relevance of leaders'

perceived threat intensity and perceived threat controllability for their performance of

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, and to account for potential interactive

relationships involving these constructs.

4.3.1.3 Incorporating the individual: Regulatory focus theory

Based on the theoretical background outlined above, one might assume that all

individuals' behaviors (and, potentially, all leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors) will

be similarly affected by specific combinations of perceived threat intensity and

controllability, irrespective of individual differences. Early-on, however, researchers


have argued that it may be important to also consider the role of individuals' personal

characteristics in determining their reactions to perceptions of external threats (e.g.,

Karasek, 1979; Sutton & Kahn, 1987). This may contribute to a more viable and more

realistic depiction of such reactions. As Higgins and colleagues have suggested,

individuals' regulatory focus orientation may be particularly relevant in this respect

(Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Brockner, Higgins, & Low, 2004; Higgins, 1997).

The concept of regulatory focus orientation derives from Higgins' (1997) regulatory

focus theory. The core tenet of this theory is the notion that individuals' motivation to

approach pleasure and to avoid pain manifests in two distinct self-regulatory systems,

labeled promotion-focus on the one hand and prevention-focus on the other hand

(Higgins, 1997). Individuals, therefore, can be meaningfully described by whether

their actions are mainly driven through either their promotion-focused or their

prevention-focused regulatory system. Predominantly promotion-focused people, on

the one hand, are motivated by growth and attainment needs and strive to bring

themselves into alignment with their aspirations and dreams, increasing the salience of

potential gains to be achieved (Brockner et al., 2004). Predominantly prevention-

focused people, on the other hand, are motivated by security and safety needs and

strive to bring themselves into alignment with their sense of duties and responsibilities,

increasing the salience of potential losses to be avoided (Higgins, 1997; Brockner et

al., 2004). Such differences in regulatory focus orientation have been demonstrated in

a series of experimental studies to have important implications for individuals'

decision-making and behavior (e.g., Förster, Grand, Idson, & Higgins, 2001; Higgins,

Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986; Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2004; Shah & Higgins,

1997; Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998).20

Leadership research has only recently started to recognize the potential relevance of

regulatory focus theory. Bruch and colleagues, for instance, have argued prevention-

oriented leadership to influence followers' motivation by addressing their prevention-

focused self-regulatory system (Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). Also, Kark and Van-Dijk

20 It should be noted that individuals' regulatory focus orientation may have both dispositional, trait-like aspects

and momentary, state-like characteristics (e.g., Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Idson & Higgins, 2000; Shah et al.,

1998). In other words, individuals may be predisposed by their personality to be either predominantly

prevention- or promotion-focused most of the time. In addition, however, specific situations may also influence

individuals' regulatory focus orientation, triggering either their state promotion- or their state prevention-focus.

Scholars have typically found the behavioral implications of individuals' dispositional and momentary regulatory

focus orientation to be equivalent (e.g., Kark & Van-Dijk, 2007; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004). The following

considerations, therefore, do not distinguish these aspects.


(2007) have outlined the potential role of leaders' own regulatory focus in determining

their motivation to lead and, eventually, their leadership behaviors. I hold, in

particular, that leaders' regulatory focus orientation may constitute an important

influencing factor in shaping their reactions to perceived threats and, therefore, their

propensity to engage in prevention-oriented leadership behaviors.

As proponents of regulatory focus theory have argued, individuals' behavioral

responses to threats of impending loss may hinge on their regulatory focus orientation

to an important degree (e.g., Higgins, 1997). Depending on whether they are

predominantly promotion- or prevention-focused, individuals seem likely to react

differently to both the intensity and the controllability of perceived threats (cf.

Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Brockner et al., 2004; Higgins, 1997; 2005; Shah &

Higgins, 1997). Leaders' regulatory focus orientation may, therefore, represent a

crucial component in clarifying the relationship between leaders' threat perceptions on

the one hand and their performance of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors on the

other hand. Accordingly, in addition to considering the interactive role of leaders'

perceived threat intensity and controllability as prevention-oriented leadership

antecedents, I will also discuss the potential impacts of leaders' regulatory focus in this

linkage.

4.3.2 A conceptual core model of prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence

In sum, the theoretical core model of prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence proposed here suggests that such leadership is jointly driven by three

factors, namely by leaders' perceived intensity of external threats, by their perceived

threat controllability, and by their regulatory focus orientation. These factors are

suggested to represent proximal antecedents of prevention-oriented leadership, and

they are held to combine in a complex, interactive manner to influence such behaviors,

as depicted in Figure 4.3.


Figure 4.3: A Core Model of Prevention-Oriented Leadership Behavior Emergence

Perceived threat

intensity

Perceived threat

controllability

Prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors

Leaders'

regulatory focus

Perceived threat

intensity

Perceived threat

controllability

Prevention-oriented


Leaders'

regulatory focus

In the following sections, I will consider these relationships in more detail. I will start

by focusing on the joint impacts of leaders' perceived threat intensity and

controllability, before incorporating the role of leaders' regulatory focus orientation.

4.3.2.1 The joint impacts of leaders' perceived threat intensity and

controllability

As indicated in chapter 4.3.1.2, it is possible to draw on theorizing and research on

occupational stress to outline the potential interactive relationship between leaders'

threat intensity and controllability perceptions on the one hand and their prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors on the other hand. Karasek (1979, p. 287) argued, for

instance, that individuals may initially feel more energized in situations of high rather

than low perceived stress intensity, experiencing a strong urge to resolve such

situations (see also Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Importantly, however,

the extent to which this energy can be translated into action should strongly depend on

the level of perceived stress controllability. If individuals believe they have sufficient

control (e.g. because they see themselves equipped with sufficient abilities, resources,

and decision-making authority; Bakker et al., 2005), increasing levels of perceived

stress intensity are suggested to trigger proactive reactions designed to cope with the

stressors at hand, as individuals should feel in a good position to successfully deal with

the respective conditions (Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Even high-

intensity stressors may appear less severe in such circumstances, and they may be

viewed with a "positive feeling of challenge rather than negative emotions and

distress", because individuals should feel able to "minimize the maximum damage or

danger that can occur" (Spector, 2002, p. 135). Under conditions of low perceived


controllability, by contrast, individuals should feel unable to effectively deal with

high-intensity stressors, and they seem unlikely, therefore, to proactively address such

situations. Thus, individuals' unreleased energy should manifest itself as mental strain

(Bakker et al., 2005; Karasek, 1979), and they should react in a more negative, passive

manner to rising perceptions of stress intensity, often trying to change the way they

interpret their stressful conditions rather than altering these seemingly uncontrollable

situations themselves (Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987; Spector, 1998;

2002).

In other words, individuals' perceptions of stress controllability seem likely to

moderate the relationship between their stress intensity perceptions and their

behavioral reactions (Bakker et al., 2005; Karasek, 1979; Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus &

Folkman, 1987; Spector, 1998; 2002). Increasing stress intensity should evoke

positive, productive behaviors under conditions of high perceived controllability, with

individuals trying to proactively cope with the stressors they face and their

controllability perceptions buffering the potential negative implications of high-

intensity stressors. In low-controllability situations, however, individuals should act

more negatively and more passively in response to increasing stress intensity levels.

Empirical support for this assertion has been somewhat mixed (cf. Spector, 2002).

Nevertheless, both earlier (e.g., Karasek, 1979; Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987) and more

recent studies (e.g., Bakker et al., 2005; Fox, Dwyer, & Ganster, 1993; Ganster, Fox,

& Dwyer, 2001) have provided evidence for the proposed interactive effects of

individuals' perceived stress intensity and controllability.

I contend this logic also applies for the linkage between leaders' perceived threat

intensity and controllability and their performance of prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors. Threat controllability perceptions are, therefore, suggested to moderate the

relationship between threat intensity perceptions and prevention-oriented leadership.

Under conditions of high perceived controllability, rising threat intensity perceptions

may energize leaders to take action, because leaders should increasingly feel urged to

address the respective threat while, at the same time, they should feel they have the

resources, the abilities, and the authority required to successfully improve the

threatening situation (cf. Bakker et al., 2005; Karasek, 1979). Leaders should,

therefore, become more likely to emphasize threat-related information towards

followers, to motivate followers to overcome the respective threat through joint


efforts, and to develop actionable steps aimed at threat resolution. In other words,

leaders' perceived threat intensity seems likely to enhance their prevention-oriented

behaviors in high-controllability circumstances (cf. Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al.,

2005).

Under conditions of low perceived controllability, by contrast, an increase in perceived

threat intensity may evoke leaders' strain (cf. Karasek, 1979) and contribute to more

rigid, inflexible, and passive behaviors (cf. Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987;

Spector, 2002; Staw et al., 1981). The respective threat may increasingly appear

overwhelming and insurmountable, rendering it less likely that leaders will engage in

proactive, prevention-oriented behaviors to overcome the threatening situation,

because they should perceive little chances for success in this regard. In an effort to

compensate for their lack of perceived controllability, leaders may even chose to

deliberately ignore the respective threat as it becomes more intense and shift their

attention and efforts towards other, unrelated, more easily controllable issues (cf. Ford,

1985). Therefore, leaders' threat intensity perceptions may be inversely associated with

prevention-oriented leadership if perceptions of threat controllability are low.

Given the early developmental stage of prevention-oriented leadership research,

empirical studies have not directly investigated the above notions to date.

Nevertheless, some findings indirectly point to the viability of the suggested patterns

of relationships. Chattopadhyay and colleagues (2001), for instance, demonstrated

control-reducing threats to evoke a more rigid orientation in managers as they become

more intense, while threats of likely loss (which were not associated with control

reductions) were found to engender more flexible, problem-oriented reactions.

Similarly, top managers' crisis perceptions have been shown to be more strongly

related to threat-rigidity responses if the respective crises are attributed to external,

uncontrollable rather than internal, controllable factors (Ford, 1985; Lohrke et al.,

2004). In sum, based on these considerations, I suggest the following proposition:

Proposition 2.1: Leaders' perceptions of threat intensity and threat

controllability will interact to affect their prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors. Under conditions of high perceived threat controllability, perceived

threat intensity and prevention-oriented leadership will be positively related,

while under conditions of low perceived threat controllability, perceived threat

intensity and prevention-oriented leadership will be negatively related.


4.3.2.2 Leaders' regulatory focus and perceived threat intensity

As regulatory focus theory suggests, individuals can be distinguished by their

regulatory focus orientation, depending on whether they are predominantly promotion-

or prevention-focused (Higgins, 1997; see chapter 4.3.1.3). Thus, when considering

the role of leaders' regulatory focus in the relationship between their threat perceptions

and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, it may be interesting, in a first step, to

explore whether such leadership differs between predominantly prevention- versus

promotion-focused leaders.

In examining this question, the concept of regulatory fit (Higgins, 2005) may be

particularly relevant. As Idson et al. (2004) noted, regulatory fit "occurs when

individuals pursue goals in a manner that sustains their current regulatory state" (p.

927). Individuals will, therefore, experience higher regulatory fit the more a situation

matches their predominant regulatory focus orientation (Higgins, 2005; Idson et al,

2004). Further, regulatory focus theory suggests individuals to be particularly

motivated in situations of high regulatory fit, because they should feel that more is at

stake for them personally under such conditions (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins,

2005). With positive outcomes being highly salient for promotion-focused people, for

instance, such individuals should more strongly react to situations that offer the

potential for gains (Brockner et al., 2004). With negative outcomes being highly

salient for prevention-focused people, by contrast, such individuals should more

strongly react to situations of impending losses (Brockner et al., 2004). Empirical

research has generally supported these notions, demonstrating promotion-focused

individuals to exhibit heightened motivation and task performance when getting

positive feedback (Förster et al., 2001; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004), when imagining

positive, desirable events (Higgins et al., 1986; Idson et al., 2004), and when receiving

incentives framed in gain versus non-gain terms (Shah et al., 1998). In contrast, the

above studies found prevention-focused people to be more motivated and to exhibit

higher performance when getting negative feedback, when imagining negative,

undesirable events, and when receiving incentives framed in loss vs. non-loss terms.

Given these considerations and findings, I expect prevention-oriented leadership to be

more pronounced for leaders with a predominant prevention- rather than promotion-

focus under conditions of high perceived threat intensity, but not under conditions of

low perceived threat intensity. Leaders' threat intensity perceptions, by definition,


hinge on the level of perceived negativity and on the subjective likelihood of loss

associated with a specific situation (Chattopadhyay et al., 2001; Dutton & Jackson,

1987; Thomas et al., 1993; see chapter 4.3.1.2). High threat-intensity situations, in

particular, are strongly characterized by impending losses and by the need to avoid

negative outcomes. Regulatory fit, therefore, should be more pronounced for

prevention- rather than promotion-focused leaders in such situations (cf. Brockner et

al., 2004; Higgins, 2005). Thus, under high-intensity threat conditions, prevention-

focused leaders should feel that more is at stake than promotion-focused leaders, and

they should feel more strongly urged to proactively deal with the respective threat,

because the avoidance of negative outcomes is more salient for them (cf. Brockner &

Higgins, 2001; Brockner et al., 2004). As indicated before, prevention-oriented

leadership may constitute a possible means of overcoming impending threats, because

such leadership encourages followers to invest their joint efforts in threat resolution

(cf. Bruch et al., 2005; 2007). Leaders with a predominant prevention-focus may,

therefore, be more highly motivated than predominantly promotion-focused leaders to

exhibit such behaviors in situations of high perceived threat intensity.

Under conditions of low perceived threat intensity, by contrast, the perceived

negativity of the situation and the subjective likelihood of incurring losses is reduced

(e.g., Chattopadhyay et al., 2001; Thomas et al., 1993; see chapter 4.3.1.2). Thus,

prevention-focused leaders' motivational advantage, as compared to promotion-

focused leaders, is likely to be diminished, because they should experience less

regulatory fit than under conditions of high perceived threat intensity (cf. Brockner et

al., 2004; Higgins, 2005). With both types of leaders perceiving similar stakes in low

threat-intensity situations, I do not expect pronounced differences in prevention-

oriented leadership, therefore, between predominantly prevention- versus promotion-

focused leaders.

In other words, the above considerations suggest that the occurrence of prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors may indeed differ with leaders' regulatory focus

orientation (i.e., with their predominant promotion- vs. prevention-focus). This effect

should, however, be contingent on leaders' perceived threat intensity, with leaders'

regulatory focus orientation and threat intensity perceptions, therefore, influencing

their prevention-oriented behaviors in an interactive manner. Prevention-focused

leaders should engage in such leadership to a greater extent than their promotion-


focused counterparts under conditions of high perceived threat intensity. This

difference should be diminished, by contrast, under low threat-intensity conditions.

Proposition 2.2: Leaders' predominant regulatory focus orientation and their

threat intensity perceptions will interact to affect their prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors. Prevention-focused leaders will exhibit such leadership

behaviors to a greater extent than promotion-focused leaders under conditions

of high perceived threat intensity, but not under conditions of low perceived

threat intensity.

4.3.2.3 A three-way interaction of leaders' regulatory focus, perceived threat

intensity, and perceived threat controllability

While pointing towards potential differences in prevention-oriented leadership

between predominantly prevention- versus promotion-focused leaders, the above

considerations do not address how leaders' regulatory focus orientation may shape the

actual relationship between leaders' threat perceptions and the respective leadership

behaviors. As indicated before, leaders' perceived threat intensity and threat

controllability should influence their prevention-oriented leadership in an interactive

manner (see chapter 4.3.2.1). It might, therefore, be interesting to explore the extent to

which leaders' regulatory focus orientation impacts this interactive relationship. This

may contribute to a better understanding of how the role of leaders' threat perceptions

in prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence differs with leaders' individual

characteristics (in terms of regulatory focus orientation).

The potential interplay of individuals' regulatory focus orientation on the one hand and

their threat intensity and controllability perceptions on the other hand has not been

investigated to date. Scholars have, however, suggested individuals' regulatory focus

to influence the joint relevance of their outcome values and outcome expectancies for

their decision-making and behavior (e.g., Higgins, 1997; Shah & Higgins, 1997). This

line of inquiry seems applicable for the present purpose, because the respective

constructs share substantial conceptual overlap and may, therefore, have similar

motivational effects (cf. Chattopadyhay et al., 2001; Dutton & Jackson, 1987;

Steinmann & Schreyögg, 2000; Vroom, 1964). Outcome values, for instance, refer to

the subjective salience associated with specific goals, while threat intensity

perceptions refer to the subjective salience associated with specific threats. Similarly,


outcome expectancies represent individuals' perceived likelihood of goal attainment,

while threat controllability perceptions represent individuals' perceived likelihood that

they can succeed in overcoming threat situations. Perceived threat intensity and

controllability, therefore, seem to constitute special cases of outcome value and

expectancy, referring to the (negative) salience of threats and the goal of threat

resolution, in particular.

Classic value-expectancy models of motivation (e.g., Vroom, 1964) have argued

individuals' outcome expectancy to moderate the relationship between the value

individuals attach to a specific goal and their motivation to pursue this goal, with this

linkage being more positive for high rather than low levels of outcome expectancy.

Interestingly, this moderated relationship closely resembles the interaction between

leaders' perceived threat intensity and controllability in prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence proposed in chapter 4.3.2.1. As Shah and Higgins (1997) noted,

however, empirical research on the value-expectancy model has not been able to

consistently support this hypothesized moderation effect. These authors suggested,

therefore, that individuals' regulatory focus may work as an additional moderator, with

the strength and the direction of the value – expectancy interaction differing between

predominantly promotion-focused people on the one hand and predominantly

prevention-focused people on the other hand.

For promotion-focused individuals, this interaction should take its classical form (Shah

& Higgins, 1997). Due to their commitment to aspirations and their focus on gains to

be attained (cf. Brockner et al., 2004), promotion-focused people should preferably

pursue goals that are both highly valued and go along with high outcome expectancy.

Goals with limited outcome value or limited outcome expectancy, however, should

have little motivational relevance for such individuals, because the gains they offer are

either not salient or are unlikely to be achieved. In other words, the relationship

between goal value and promotion-focused individuals' motivation for goal pursuit

should be more positive under conditions of high rather than low outcome expectancy

(Shah & Higgins, 1997).

For prevention-focused people, by contrast, the value – expectancy interaction should

take a different shape. First of all, prevention-focused individuals should pursue high-

expectancy goals largely irrespective of the associated outcome value to satisfy their

security needs and their sense of obligation, because such goals can be achieved in a


relatively easy and safe manner even if their salience is limited (Higgins, 1997; Shah

& Higgins, 1997). In addition, however, such individuals should also pursue high-

value goals largely irrespective of the associated outcome expectancy to meet their

sense of responsibility and to avoid the potential losses associated with not achieving

highly salient goals (Shah & Higgins, 1997). To exemplify this latter relationship,

Higgins (1997) argued that high-value goals will often represent necessities for

prevention-focused individuals, "like […] the safety of one's child. When a goal

becomes a necessity, one must do whatever one can to attain it, regardless of the ease

or likelihood of goal attainment" (p. 1287). Either high outcome value or high outcome

expectancy, therefore, should be sufficient to trigger prevention-focused individuals'

motivation for goal pursuit. Goals with limited outcome value and limited outcome

expectancy, however, should have little motivational relevance for such individuals,

because they are unlikely to constitute necessities that trigger strong feelings of

responsibility for goal attainment, and because their achievement is insecure. In other

words, the relationship between goal value and motivation should be relatively flat for

predominantly prevention-focused individuals under conditions of high outcome

expectancy, but strongly positive under conditions of low outcome expectancy (Shah

& Higgins, 1997).

In sum, these notions suggest a three-way interaction effect (cf. Aiken & West, 1991)

of individuals' outcome value, outcome expectancy, and regulatory focus orientation in

influencing their motivation for goal pursuit and, subsequently, their behavioral

reactions. Empirical evidence for this complex relationship has been provided by Shah

and Higgins (1997) in four independent experimental studies. Given the conceptual

overlap between the associated constructs outlined above, I propose a similar three-

way interaction to apply for the joint effect of leaders' perceived threat intensity,

perceived threat controllability, and regulatory focus orientation on their performance

of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. This argument is outlined in more detail

below. Also, for better clarity, the proposed three-way interaction is graphically

depicted in Figure 4.4.


Figure 4.4: Proposed Three-Way Interaction of Perceived Threat Intensity, Perceived Threat

Controllability, and Regulatory Focus on Prevention-Oriented Leadership

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Low High

Perceived threat intensity

Prevention-oriented leadership

Predominant prevention-focus – high perceived threat controllability

Predominant prevention-focus – low perceived threat controllability

Predominant promotion-focus – high perceived threat controllability

Predominant promotion-focus – low perceived threat controllability

Low

Hig

h

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Low High

Perceived threat intensity

Prevention-oriented leadership









Low

Hig

h

First of all, for leaders with a predominant promotion-focus, I expect the relationship

between perceived threat intensity and prevention-oriented leadership to be moderately

positive under high-controllability conditions, but moderately negative under low-

controllability conditions, as indicated by the dashed lines in Figure 4.4. In situations

of high perceived threat controllability, increasing perceptions of threat intensity

should enhance such leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors, because the threat will

become more salient while, at the same time, leaders will find it easy to deal with the

respective situation and to obtain the potential gains associated with resolving the

threat (e.g., recognition through superiors). They may, therefore, be increasingly

motivated to act in a prevention-oriented manner to successfully overcome the threat at

hand, trying to stimulate their followers' efforts for threat resolution (cf. Bruch et al.,

2005; 2007). It should be noted, however, that given a lack of regulatory fit for

promotion-focused leaders in high-intensity threat situations (cf. Higgins, 2005; see


chapter 4.3.2.2), this motivational effect should remain relatively moderate. In

situations of low perceived threat controllability, by contrast, promotion-focused

leaders should presume little is to be gained by proactively turning towards external

threats, because the chances for effective threat resolution are low (cf. Shah &

Higgins, 1997). Largely independent of their threat intensity perceptions, such leaders,

therefore, seem unlikely to engage in prevention-oriented behaviors under such

circumstances. In fact, with rising threat intensity perceptions diminishing these

leaders' regulatory fit, their prevention-oriented leadership may even suffer from

increases in perceived threat intensity in low-controllability situations.

For predominantly prevention-focused leaders, on the other hand, I expect the

relationship between perceived threat intensity and prevention-oriented leadership to

be non-significant under high-controllability conditions, but strongly positive under

low-controllability conditions, as indicated by the solid lines in Figure 4.4.

Specifically, in situations of high perceived threat controllability, such leaders should

exhibit a high degree of prevention-oriented leadership, irrespective of their perceived

threat intensity. Leaders should find it easy, under these circumstances, to overcome

both low- and high-intensity threats and to avoid any possible losses with relative

assurance. In line with their security-orientation and their sense of obligation (cf.

Brockner et al., 2004; Shah & Higgins, 1997), prevention-focused leaders should,

therefore, strongly focus on threat resolution in their interactions with followers,

contributing to their performance of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors with

respect to both high- and low-intensity threats (cf. Bruch et al., 2005). Under low-

controllability conditions, by contrast, I expect the respective leadership behaviors to

strongly depend on prevention-focused leaders' threat intensity perceptions. Due to

their pronounced sense of responsibility (cf. Brockner et al., 2004), such leaders

should try to motivate their followers towards overcoming high-intensity threats in a

prevention-oriented manner (cf. Bruch et al., 2005; 2007) even if they perceive little

threat controllability. After all, the avoidance of the severe losses associated with

intensely threatening situations is likely to represent a necessity for prevention-focused

leaders, which they should feel urged to attempt regardless of the likelihood of success

(cf. Higgins, 1997; Shah & Higgins, 1997). Under low-controllability and low-

intensity threat conditions, however, prevention-oriented leadership should be

diminished even for such leaders. The small severity and likelihood of loss that


characterizes such situations, in combination with the insecurity involved in trying to

achieve a solution, is likely to reduce their motivation to deal with external threats by

performing prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. In sum, then, perceptions of

either high threat intensity or high threat controllability should suffice to trigger strong

prevention-oriented behaviors in leaders with a predominant prevention-focus.

Formally, these considerations can be summarized in the following proposition:

Proposition 2.3: Leaders' regulatory focus will moderate the joint impact of

leaders' perceived threat intensity and controllability on their prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors. For predominantly promotion-focused leaders,

the relationship between perceived threat intensity and prevention-oriented

leadership will be (a) moderately positive under conditions of high perceived

controllability and (b) moderately negative under conditions of low perceived

controllability. For predominantly prevention-focused leaders, the relationship

between perceived threat intensity and prevention-oriented leadership will be

(c) non-significant under conditions of high perceived controllability and (d)

strongly positive under conditions of low perceived controllability.

4.3.3 Discussion

4.3.3.1 Summary and contributions

The goal of the above sections was to develop a theoretical core model of prevention-

oriented leadership behavior emergence, addressing research question 4. Building on

Bruch and colleagues' initial notions (e.g., Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2005;

2007), I focused on leaders' threat perceptions on the one hand and on leaders'

regulatory focus orientation on the other hand as key, proximal antecedent variables. I

drew on prior theorizing and research on the role of threats in managerial decision-

making and action (e.g., Dutton, 1986; Staw et al., 1981), on occupational stress (e.g.,

Bakker et al., 2005; Karasek, 1979; Lazarus, 1993; Spector, 1998; 2002), and on

individuals' regulatory focus (e.g., Higgins, 1997; Shah & Higgins, 1997) to outline

the functioning of these influencing factors. In brief, the present model holds that

leaders' perceptions of threat intensity will enhance their prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors if the respective threat is perceived as being readily controllable.

This relationship is suggested to reverse, however, under low-controllability

conditions (chapter 4.3.2.1). Further, I argue that leaders with a predominantly


prevention-focused regulatory orientation are more likely to engage in prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors than leaders with a predominant promotion-focus under

conditions of high, but not under conditions of low perceived threat intensity (chapter

4.3.2.2). And finally, I contend that, if jointly considered, leaders' regulatory focus on

the one hand and their threat intensity and controllability perceptions on the other hand

will influence their performance of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors in a

complex, interactive manner (chapter 4.3.2.3). For promotion-focused leaders, the

relationship between perceived threat intensity and prevention-oriented leadership is

suggested to be moderately positive under conditions of high, but moderately negative

under conditions of low perceived threat controllability. Prevention-focused leaders,

by contrast, are suggested to exhibit high levels of prevention-oriented leadership in

high-controllability situations, independent of their perceived threat intensity. Their

respective behaviors are suggested to strongly increase with their threat intensity

perceptions, however, under low-controllability conditions.

I assert this model contributes to the nascent literature on the antecedents of

prevention-oriented leadership in various ways. Particularly, this study is the first to

explicitly address the development of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors from a

theoretical perspective (beyond the theorizing offered in Studies 1 and 2 of this

dissertation). By pointing to the joint impacts of leaders' threat intensity and

controllability perceptions and regulatory focus orientation, the present model builds

on prior, more informal notions (e.g., Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2005) and

puts such considerations on a more solid conceptual fundament. Thus, it extends prior

work, taking important steps towards a theoretically more well-founded understanding

of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. The model outlined here

depicts potential core mechanisms in this regard, and it builds thorough and

differentiated conceptual knowledge on the functioning of these mechanisms. Also, it

accounts for potential complexities in the development of prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors and highlights possible boundary conditions involved in this

process.


4.3.3.2 Limitations and future research directions

The model developed here is subject to some limitations, and it indicates several

interesting directions future research might take in examining the emergence of

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. First of all, like the framework for

charismatic leadership behavior emergence developed in chapter 4.2, the present

model concentrated on the antecedents of prevention-oriented leadership. In line with

the general research problem investigated in this dissertation, it deliberately excluded

the consequences of such leadership to enable a focused, antecedent-oriented

perspective. It might be interesting for future theorizing, however, to extend this model

by also incorporating outcome variables and by considering potential feedback loops

and reciprocal relationships. As Bruch and colleagues (2005; 2007) noted, for instance,

prevention-oriented leadership may constitute an important means of overcoming

external threats in the organizational environment. It may, therefore, diminish the

actual severity of such threats and, eventually, influence leaders' threat intensity

perceptions. Thus, leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors may depend on perceived

threats (as outlined before), but they may also shape such perceptions in turn. By

including such additional linkages, future theory could move beyond the present,

antecedent-oriented perspective on prevention-oriented leadership, and it could

advance a more dynamic, comprehensive depiction of the functioning of prevention-

oriented leadership processes in general, incorporating both the influencing factors and

the consequences of such behaviors.

Above this, as indicated in chapter 1.2.5, the present model aimed at building basic

theory on prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence by considering the

potential impacts of a clearly defined set of proximal antecedent variables and by

outlining the mechanisms responsible for the functioning of these variables in a

detailed manner. Beyond the core aspects discussed here, however, this model offers

various opportunities for theoretical and/or empirical extensions through the

investigation of more distal antecedents, which may indirectly shape leaders'

prevention-oriented behaviors by influencing their threat perceptions and regulatory

focus orientation, respectively. As numerous authors have argued, for instance, the

way people notice, perceive, and interpret threats may depend both on the

characteristics of the threatening situation itself and on the personal characteristics of

the respective individuals (e.g., Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Kovoor-Misra, 2002). On the


one hand, leaders' threat intensity and controllability perceptions might, therefore, be

influenced by the actual severity and controllability of the threats they face (Anderson,

Hellriegel, & Slocum, 1977; Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Gladstein & Reilly, 1985; Jick

& Murray, 1982) and by the resources available to deal with such threats (Bakker et

al., 2005; Chattopadyhay et al., 2001). On the other hand, however, individual

difference variables such as leaders' functional expertise (Beyer et al., 1997), prior

experiences (Kovoor-Misra, 2002), cognitive complexity (Lohrke et al., 2004), and

locus of control (Anderson & Schneier, 1978; Chiu, Chien, Lin, & Hsiao, 2005;

Howell & Avolio, 1993; Miller, Kets de Vries, & Toulouse, 1982; Spector, 1982;

Spector & O'Connell, 1994) may also shape the extent to which leaders perceive

specific situations as more or less intensely threatening and controllable and might,

therefore, impact their prevention-oriented behaviors in an indirect manner. Also, as

indicated before, individuals' regulatory focus has both stable, trait-like facets and

more malleable, state-like characteristics (e.g., Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Idson &

Higgins, 2000; Shah et al., 1998). While the antecedents of individuals' state

regulatory focus have received relatively little research attention to date, Brockner and

Higgins (2001) have pointed to the potential role of several influencing factors in this

respect, including organizational authorities' role-modeling, task instructions, and

feedback, organizational reward and incentive systems, and organizational culture.

Possibly, such factors might shape leaders' predominant regulatory focus to a

considerable extent, influencing their reactions to perceived threats and, eventually,

their prevention-oriented leadership behaviors.

And finally, given that none of the relationships proposed in the present model have

been directly empirically tested to date, such research might prove highly valuable in

supporting or disconfirming the present assertions. Notably, empirical work in this

regard would have to overcome considerable difficulties. The proposed model

suggests a complex pattern of relationships, including a three-way interaction effect

(cf. Aiken & West, 1991) of leaders' threat intensity perceptions, threat controllability

perceptions, and regulatory focus orientation in influencing their prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors. As McClelland and Judd (1993) noted, detecting such higher-

order interactions in field studies is quite problematic from a statistical perspective.

Thus, if utilizing field study designs, researchers should thoroughly consider issues of

statistical power, sampling, and measurement. Alternatively, experimental designs


may provide scholars with a better opportunity to detect the suggested patterns of

interaction, while at the same time allowing for more valid conclusions about causality

(Cook & Campbell, 1979; McClelland & Judd, 1993; Shadish et al., 2002). Whether

field- or experiment-based, such empirical work might contribute important steps

towards further extending, corroborating, and refining existing knowledge on

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence.

4.3.3.3 Practical implications

From a practical perspective, the present model suggests several important

implications for organizations trying to facilitate prevention-oriented behaviors in their

leaders. In line with prior considerations (e.g., Bruch & Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al.,

2005), for example, this model points to the crucial role of leaders' threat perceptions.

Importantly, however, it also alerts organizational decision-makers to the complexities

and risks involved in trying to strengthen prevention-oriented leadership by enhancing

leaders' perceptions of threat intensity (e.g., by explicitly pointing towards threatening

issues in the organizational environment). Such a strategy may prove beneficial in

some instances. For threats which are easily controllable or for leaders with a

predominant prevention-focus, increasing threat intensity perceptions may contribute

to the occurrence of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. In other instances,

however, organizations may need to adopt more complex strategies to nurture such

leadership. For predominantly promotion-focused leaders, in particular, strong

perceptions of threat intensity may only be effective if they are accompanied by

perceptions of threat controllability. Thus, pointing to the intensity of external threats

may be insufficient to evoke prevention-oriented behaviors in such leaders. In this

case, organizations should strengthen both leaders' threat intensity and leaders' threat

controllability perceptions. They may achieve this, for example, by emphasizing the

severity of threatening situations while simultaneously offering sufficient resources to

deal with the respective threats. Thus, in utilizing leaders' threat perceptions as levers

for prevention-oriented leadership, organizations need to carefully consider both the

respective threats' perceived intensity and controllability and the respective leaders'

regulatory focus, and they need to adjust their strategies and actions accordingly.

Above this, organizations may try to nurture the occurrence of prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors by influencing leaders' predominant regulatory focus orientation.

With prevention-focused leaders leaning towards such behaviors to a greater extent


than promotion-focused leaders in many situations, it might seem reasonable, for

instance, to prefer applicants with a predominant dispositional prevention-focus when

selecting individuals for leadership positions. This strategy may be problematic,

however, for various reasons. As Brockner et al. (2004) noted, adequate combinations

of both promotion- and prevention-foci are necessary for business success in most

companies, because these aspects may prove beneficial for different types of tasks.

Individuals with a predominant promotion-focus, for example, have been suggested to

be more effective in generating new, innovative ideas, while individuals with a

predominant prevention-focus may be more effective in implementing such ideas

(Brockner et al., 2004). Thus, by overemphasizing leaders' dispositional prevention-

focus in selection decisions, organizations may forgo the benefits of having an

appropriate combination of predominant regulatory foci in their leaders. In addition,

prevention-focused leaders' tendency towards prevention-oriented leadership behaviors

may not be effective under all circumstances. Given high levels of threat

controllability, for instance, such leaders are likely to emphasize even low-intensity

threats towards followers. It should be difficult, however, to credibly convey the

importance of such threats (cf. Bruch & Vogel, 2005), rendering the motivational

value of these efforts doubtful. Similarly, given high levels of perceived threat

intensity, prevention-focused leaders may strongly engage in prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors even in low-controllability situations. Such leaders may tend to

continuously invest valuable resources in trying to overcome threats which they are

objectively unable to resolve, potentially becoming trapped in spirals of escalating

commitment to a lost course of action (cf. Staw, 1976) and, therefore, harming

organizational effectiveness.

Thus, rather than relying on leaders' dispositional prevention-focus in selection

decisions, it seems more effective for organizations to focus on influencing leaders'

momentary regulatory focus orientation (i.e., their state promotion- or prevention

focus; cf. Kark & Van-Dijk, 2007). As indicated before, organizations might, for

instance, contribute to a predominant momentary prevention-focus in leaders through

top managerial role-modeling, through the appropriate use of language and symbols,

and through the design of performance feedback systems (Brockner & Higgins, 2001).

Also, they may achieve this by deliberately framing issues in loss vs. non-loss terms

and by appealing to leaders' sense of responsibility on various occasions, including, for


instance, formal leadership training programs (cf. Higgins & Friedman, 1998; Higgins

et al., 1986; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004). By flexibly utilizing such levers, organizations

may be able to facilitate prevention-oriented leadership behaviors where appropriate

while deemphasizing such behaviors in other, less favorable situations, and they may

be able to maintain the benefits of an appropriate combination of different regulatory

foci among their leaders.

4.4 Overall Conclusions from Study 3

In the present chapter, I investigated the emergence of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors from different theoretical perspectives. First, addressing

research question 3, I developed a comprehensive conceptual framework of

charismatic leadership behavior emergence, considering numerous antecedent

variables discussed in prior research and incorporating both leader- and context-based

approaches towards this issue into one common, overarching model. This framework

has taken important steps towards overcoming the relative fragmentation which

characterizes the antecedent-oriented charismatic leadership literature to date (cf.

Bommer et al., 2004). Thus, it contributes to a better, more complete understanding of

charismatic leadership behavior emergence, and it may enable more coherent thinking

and stimulate future, more integrative research in this regard.

Second, addressing research question 4, I built a theoretical core model of prevention-

oriented leadership behavior emergence, focusing on the role of leaders' threat

perceptions and regulatory focus orientation and outlining the complex, interactive

relationships between these antecedent variables. This model extends prior, initial

notions on the development of prevention-oriented leadership (e.g., Bruch & Vogel,

2005; Bruch et al., 2005; 2007), and it addresses the current lack of theory in this area

of inquiry. Thus, it contributes to a better, more theory-driven understanding of crucial

influencing factors of prevention-oriented leadership, and it outlines the functioning of

potential key mechanisms in this respect. The present considerations, therefore, may

promote future theoretical and empirical investigations in the nascent area of research

on the antecedents of prevention-oriented leadership.

In sum, this chapter may enable a more theoretically sound understanding of both

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. Also, it may


stimulate further research efforts on the antecedents of these leadership styles, with

such work potentially testing, refining, and extending the conceptual models outlined

here. And finally, I hope for the present notions to offer important suggestions for

practitioners trying to nurture charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors in their organizations, allowing organizational decision-makers to put their

strategies for facilitating such leadership on a more solid theoretical fundament.

172 Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions

5 Overall Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions

This final chapter adopts an integrative perspective on the diverse aspects of

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence covered in the

present thesis. It reiterates the dissertation's central research problem and specific

research questions, and it summarizes its key findings. Also, this chapter outlines the

major contributions to the literature, the crucial limitations, and the most important

implications and directions for future research and practice. Hence, I hope to allow for

a comprehensive overview of the overall results and conclusions which can be drawn

from the present work.

5.1 Overview of the Research Problem and Key Research Questions

Effective leadership has been suggested to be among the key success factors for

organizations in today's business environment (e.g., Northouse, 1997; Yukl, 2002).

Scholars have, in particular, pointed to the relevance of charismatic (cf. Conger &

Kanungo, 1987; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Shamir et al., 1993) and prevention-oriented

leadership (cf. Bruch & Vogel, 2006; Bruch et al., 2005; 2007) in this regard, arguing

and demonstrating that these leadership behaviors may be highly functional in driving

both follower motivation and organizational performance. Interestingly, however, past

research has generally neglected the antecedent conditions of such leadership (Brown

& Moshavi, 2005; Bruch et al., 2006; Conger, 1999; Yukl, 1999). In spite of some

noteworthy efforts, the literature on the development of charismatic leadership

behaviors has remained fragmented and incomplete (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bommer et

al., 2004), and scholars have only started to cursorily touch upon the antecedents of

prevention-oriented leadership (Bruch et al., 2006; see also chapter 1.2). Knowledge

on the emergence of these effective types of leadership behaviors, therefore, is rather

limited and exhibits substantial gaps. Also, organizations striving to nurture

charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors in their leaders are left with limited

support from leadership research.

Hence, the present dissertation investigates the antecedents of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership. It aims at complementing the nomological nets around

these constructs, advancing greater knowledge about the origins of effective leadership

behaviors in organizations. Specifically, I hope to promote a more clear-cut depiction

Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions 173

of key influencing factors in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence, enabling scholars to better understand the mechanisms driving such

leadership and potentially contributing to greater effectiveness in organizations' efforts

to facilitate the respective behaviors. I chose to employ three separate studies in the

present thesis, focusing on differing, specific research areas that seem to be

particularly relevant in explaining the development of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership.

First, in Study 1, I examine leaders' mood and emotional intelligence as charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership antecedents (see chapter 2). Prior theorizing has

pointed to the potential relevance of such aspects (e.g., Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; Bruch

& Vogel, 2005; Bruch et al., 2005; George, 2000). As outlined in chapter 1.2.2,

however, empirical work has been more limited and has typically remained in early

stages of development. Hence, extant conceptual knowledge on the role of affective

factors in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence lacks

empirical backing. The present dissertation, therefore, develops research hypotheses

on the linkages between leaders' mood and emotional intelligence on the one hand and

their charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors on the other hand, and

it tests these hypotheses in a sample of 34 leaders and 165 of their direct followers. It

thereby aims at promoting a better, empirically well-informed understanding of

affective influences on such leadership.

Second, in Study 2, the dissertation focuses on the role of organizational structure in

shaping the occurrence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors

(see chapter 3). Again, prior theorizing (in the case of charismatic leadership) and

prior intuitive notions (in the case of prevention-oriented leadership) have pointed to

the potential relevance of structural aspects in this regard (e.g., Pawar & Eastman,

1997; Porter & McLaughlin, 2006; Shamir & Howell, 1999); however, as outlined in

chapter 1.2.3, empirical research on this issue has been scarce. Knowledge on the

linkage between organizational structure on the one hand and charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership on the other hand has, therefore, remained under-

developed. The present thesis addresses this research gap by empirically investigating

the relationship between specific structural facets (i.e., organizational centralization,

formalization, and size) and organizations' charismatic and prevention-oriented

leadership climates. It develops research hypotheses on these associations and tests


them in a sample of 16'144 employees from 125 organizations. Therefore, I aim at

contributing to the explanation of differences in such leadership not only between

individual leaders, but also between organizations.

Third, in the first part of Study 3, the thesis develops a comprehensive theoretical

framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence (see chapter 4.2). When

considering earlier, antecedent-oriented research on such leadership, it is clear that this

literature has proceeded in a rather fragmented manner (see chapter 1.2.4). Such work

has, for instance, tended to consider either leader-based or context-based antecedent

variables, while broader theorizing and research, integrating such different approaches,

has not been advanced to date. The present dissertation builds such theory. By

adopting a comprehensive conceptual perspective on the emergence of charismatic

leadership behaviors and incorporating multiple antecedent constructs discussed in

prior research in an integrative manner, I aim at contributing to a better understanding

of the interrelationships between different classes of influencing factors and at

promoting theoretically well-founded knowledge in this regard.

And finally, in the second part of Study 3, the dissertation develops a theoretical core

model of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence (see chapter 4.3). The

existing, rather limited literature on the antecedents of such leadership has been

characterized by a lack of theory, as outlined in chapter 1.2.5. Apart from the

considerations put forward in Studies 1 and 2, systematic conceptual knowledge on the

development of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors has not been advanced to

date, severely limiting our understanding of this phenomenon. To address this issue, I

extend more informal notions voiced in previous research by theoretically

investigating both leaders' threat perceptions and leaders' regulatory focus orientation

as proximal antecedents of such leadership. The resulting conceptual model is intended

to outline key mechanisms driving the respective leadership behaviors, taking

important steps towards a more solid theoretical depiction of prevention-oriented


In the following sections, I will review the key results obtained from addressing these

issue areas. In order to allow for an integrative perspective on the overall dissertation

findings, I will first summarize the most important outcomes for charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, respectively, as derived across all


parts of the thesis. Then, I will focus on the conclusions that can be drawn with regard

to the differences and commonalities in the development of these leadership styles.

5.2 Summary of Dissertation Findings

5.2.1 The emergence of charismatic leadership behaviors

The present dissertation offers several important findings for charismatic leadership

behavior emergence. Study 1 results, for instance, empirically demonstrated both

leaders' positive mood and emotional intelligence to function as antecedent variables

in this regard (see chapter 2.4.3). Both of these constructs were positively associated

with leaders' charismatic behaviors, with emotional intelligence contributing to such

leadership over and above the effects of positive mood. Further, leaders' emotional

intelligence moderated the relationship between positive mood and charismatic

leadership. For leaders high on emotional intelligence, this linkage was significantly

less pronounced than for those low on emotional intelligence. High emotional

intelligence leaders, in particular, exhibited charismatic leadership to a great extent,

irrespective of their mood states, while low emotional intelligence leaders were

dependent on positive mood for the performance of such behaviors. In other words, I

found charismatic leadership to require either high levels of positive mood or high

levels of emotional intelligence, with these affective constructs substituting for each

other in their antecedent roles. Notably, leaders' mood, emotional intelligence, and the

respective interaction terms together contributed about thirty percent to the variance

explained in leaders' charismatic behaviors.21 Given that measures for mood and

emotional intelligence on the one hand and charismatic leadership on the other hand

were obtained from different sources, these results are quite encouraging, because they

are not inflated by common source variance (cf. Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Further, organizational structure was found to shape the emergence of charismatic

leadership (see chapter 3.5.3). Study 2 results empirically demonstrated organizational

centralization, formalization, and size to significantly relate to organizations'

charismatic leadership climate, with centralization and organization size, in particular,

21 It should be noted that both leaders' negative mood and the multiplicative interaction term of negative mood

and emotional intelligence were also included in this equation. The variance explained did not differ

substantially, however, when these variables were omitted.


diminishing the occurrence of such leadership behaviors in the respective

organizations. By contrast, there was a positive effect for organizational formalization.

Together, these structural facets accounted for about one third of the variance in

charismatic leadership climate. Again, these results are encouraging, because data on

organizational structure on the one hand and charismatic leadership climate on the

other hand were collected from different sources. Thus, following Podsakoff and

colleagues (2003), the respective findings seem unlikely to be inflated by common

source variance.

And finally, the theoretical framework developed in the first part of Study 3

comprehensively integrated both the above findings and various other approaches

towards charismatic leadership behavior emergence advanced in the literature (see

chapter 4.2.2). Building on Weiss and Cropanzano's (1996) Affective Events Theory,

this model (see Figure 4.2) suggests leaders' positive affect and work attitudes to

enhance their charismatic leadership behaviors, with work attitudes partially mediating

the consequences of leaders' affect. Above this, leaders' emotional intelligence is

proposed to directly strengthen their charismatic behaviors, but also to moderate both

the direct and the indirect association between positive affect and such leadership. I

further argue that organizational context factors will shape the occurrence of

charismatic leadership behaviors by defining the demands, constraints, and job

characteristics leaders face, but also by influencing leaders' positive feelings (through

the work events leaders experience) and work attitudes. In addition, leaders'

personality (i.e., the Big Five personality traits) is suggested to indirectly relate to the

respective behaviors by influencing leaders' tendency to experience positive affective

states, with emotional intelligence moderating this linkage. And finally, leaders'

extraversion, in particular, is held to moderate the indirect relationship between the

work events leaders experience and charismatic leadership, as transferred by positive

affect.

In sum, this thesis empirically demonstrated both affective factors (i.e., leaders'

positive mood and emotional intelligence) and structural aspects (i.e., organizational

centralization, formalization, and size) to be relevant for the occurrence of charismatic

leadership behaviors in organizations. In addition, it developed a comprehensive

theoretical framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence, incorporating

various antecedent variables discussed in prior research (i.e., leaders' positive affect,


work attitudes, emotional intelligence, and personality characteristics as well as

organizational context factors) into one common, encompassing conceptual model.

5.2.2 The emergence of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors

The dissertation also offers several interesting insights for prevention-oriented

leadership behavior emergence. Contrary to the theorizing put forward in Study 1, for

instance, empirical results demonstrated affective factors to be of little relevance in

this regard (see chapter 2.4.4). Both leaders' negative mood and leaders' emotional

intelligence were unrelated to their performance of prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors. Similarly, no support was found for the hypothesized interactive impacts of

negative mood and emotional intelligence. And finally, there were no significant

effects for leaders' positive mood or for the potential positive mood – emotional

intelligence interaction. Unexpectedly, therefore, the present results suggest that

leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors do not hinge on their affective states or on their

ability to effectively utilize and manage both their own and their followers' feelings to

a significant extent.

Further, Study 2 results showed that some facets of the organizational structure may

influence the occurrence of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors (see chapter

3.5.4). Organizational formalization, in particular, was found to enhance organizations'

prevention-oriented leadership climate. Also, the effect for organization size was in the

expected, negative direction, even though it was marginally significant. Contrary to

my expectations, however, organizational centralization and prevention-oriented

leadership climate were unrelated. Together, the facets of organizational structure

captured in this dissertation accounted for about nine percent of the variance in

organizations' prevention-oriented leadership climate. Given that data for

organizational structure and prevention-oriented leadership were collected from

different sources (thus alleviating common source variance concerns; cf. Podsakoff et

al., 2003), these findings indicate with some confidence that organizational

formalization may be a relevant factor in prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence. Also, it may be worthwhile to further consider the potential role of

organization size in this respect.

And finally, I drew on theories of managerial decision-making and action (e.g.,

Dutton, 1986; Staw et al., 1981), occupational stress (e.g., Bakker et al., 2005;


Karasek, 1979; Lazarus, 1993; Spector; 2002), and individuals' regulatory focus (e.g.,

Higgins, 1997; Shah & Higgins, 1997) to develop a theoretical core model of

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence in the second part of Study 3 (see

chapter 4.3.2), considering leaders' threat perceptions and regulatory focus orientation

as proximal antecedent variables. This model (see Figure 4.3) suggests leaders'

perceived threat intensity to enhance their prevention-oriented leadership behaviors

under conditions of high perceived threat controllability, but to diminish such

leadership in low-controllability situations. Further, I argue that leaders with a

predominant prevention-focus are more likely to exhibit prevention-oriented behaviors

than promotion-focused leaders under conditions of high, but not under conditions of

low perceived threat intensity. And finally, leaders' predominant regulatory focus

orientation is proposed to moderate the joint impact of their perceived threat intensity

and controllability on prevention-oriented leadership, giving rise to a three-way

interaction relationship between these constructs (see Figure 4.4). For prevention-

focused leaders, the association between perceived threat intensity and prevention-

oriented leadership should be non-significant under conditions of high controllability,

but strongly positive in low-controllability situations. For promotion-focused leaders,

by contrast, this relationship should be moderately positive under conditions of high

controllability, but moderately negative in low-controllability situations.

In sum, the present thesis empirically demonstrated affective factors (i.e., leaders'

mood and emotional intelligence) to have no significant impacts on the occurrence of

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. Structural aspects (i.e., organizational

formalization and, to a more limited extent, organization size), on the other hand, were

shown to influence the development of such leadership. In addition, the dissertation

advanced a theoretical core model of prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence, outlining the complex interplay of leaders' threat intensity and

controllability perceptions and regulatory focus orientation as proximal antecedent

variables.


5.2.3 Comparing the emergence of charismatic and prevention-oriented


Charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership have been argued to constitute

fundamentally different, yet complementary leadership styles, supplementing each

other in strengthening followers' motivation and performance (Bruch et al., 2005;

2006; 2007). Discerning commonalities and differences in the development of such

leadership, therefore, may be highly interesting. As outlined in chapter 1.1.2, this may

point towards specific antecedent mechanisms that do not only contribute to the

emergence of either charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership, but that enhance

both types of behaviors and, therefore, strongly promote the development of effective

leadership in organizations.

The dissertation's empirical studies (i.e., Studies 1 and 2) may be particularly relevant

in this regard, because they investigated the same antecedent variables for both

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership. In Study 1, for instance, leaders' mood

and emotional intelligence were considered as influencing factors of either type of

leadership behavior. Importantly, however, the respective results differed substantially.

Charismatic leadership was found to hinge on such affective factors, with leaders'

positive mood and emotional intelligence contributing to the respective behaviors. In

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, by contrast, affective influences

did not play a significant role. Such leadership seems to be independent from leaders'

mood and emotional intelligence.

Further, Study 2 revealed similarities and differences in the relevance of structural

aspects (i.e., organizational centralization, formalization, and size) for charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, respectively. Organizations'

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climates both were positively

influenced by the degree of formalization. Centralization, however, diminished

organizations' charismatic leadership climate, while it was unrelated to prevention-

oriented leadership. And finally, the results for organization size were somewhat

ambiguous. I found charismatic leadership to occur less frequently in large rather than

small organizations. For prevention-oriented leadership, the respective effect was in

the same direction, but it only reached marginal levels of statistical significance. Thus,

organization size might hamper the development of both charismatic and prevention-


oriented leadership behaviors. More research seems required, however, to be able to

draw this conclusion with greater certainty.

In sum, these results outline interesting differences and commonalities in charismatic

and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence. On the one hand, even though

both of these leadership styles have been associated with important affective

consequences (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005; McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002; Pirola-

Merlo et al., 2002), leaders' own mood states and emotional intelligence seem to be

more relevant for their charismatic than for their prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors. On the other hand, specific structural facets (such as organizational

formalization and, potentially, organization size) may similarly influence both types of

leadership. Organizations may, therefore, have the opportunity to simultaneously

nurture the occurrence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors by

providing an appropriate structural setup for their leaders.

5.3 Main Contributions to the Literature

I contend the present findings contribute to the leadership literature in various ways.

First, the dissertation extends prior, outcome-oriented research on the complementary

nature of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005;

2007) by investigating similar antecedents for both of these leadership styles in Studies

1 and 2. As outlined above, it shows that while there may be important differences in

the emergence of such leadership (e.g., with regard to the relevance of affective

factors), the respective antecedent mechanisms may also exhibit substantial overlap in

some areas (e.g., with regard to the relevance of structural aspects). It seems

worthwhile, therefore, to not only consider the joint consequences of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership in future research, but also to further investigate the

influencing factors these leadership behaviors share.

In addition, the thesis also offers important contributions to the specific literatures on

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership, respectively. It broadens extant

knowledge on the development of both types of leadership behaviors, and it offers new

insights for both lines of inquiry. In the following, I will outline and summarize these

specific contributions.


5.3.1 Contributions to the charismatic leadership literature

The dissertation's Study 1 corroborates earlier theorizing by offering initial evidence

for the relevance of leaders' positive mood in charismatic leadership behavior

emergence. It therefore puts prior, conceptual notions on a more solid empirical

fundament. Also, it constructively replicates (cf. Eden, 2002) previous empirical work

on the role of leaders' emotional intelligence, contributing to greater confidence in the

viability of the emotional intelligence – charismatic leadership linkage. And above

this, the present investigation is the first to demonstrate an interactive effect of leaders'

positive mood and emotional intelligence in influencing their charismatic leadership

behaviors. Thus, it promotes a better understanding of the interplay of these constructs.

With positive mood and emotional intelligence substituting for each other's impacts,

considering both of these aspects in explaining the development of charismatic

leadership seems crucial. In sum, Study 1 results support prior theory and research on

the role of affective factors in charismatic leadership behavior emergence and further

extend such work towards new, important areas.

Further, Study 2 corroborates and extends previous theory and research on the role of

organizations' structural setup in charismatic leadership behavior emergence. It

addresses many of the shortcomings that have characterized the literature on this issue.

Prior work has, for instance, typically focused on lower levels of analysis (e.g., on the

department, work group, or individual level), and it has usually considered the broad

distinction between organic versus mechanistic structures rather than examining more

specific structural elements. The present study, therefore, is among the first to

empirically demonstrate the relevance of organizational structure for charismatic

leadership. Potentially, current and prior findings may collectively indicate that the

structure – charismatic leadership linkage is generalizable across different levels of

analysis, emphasizing the importance of structural factors in the development of such

leadership behaviors. Also, by outlining the role of specific facets of organizational

structure (i.e., organizational centralization, formalization, and size), Study 2 promotes

more detailed and more differentiated knowledge on the association between structural

aspects on the one hand and charismatic leadership on the other hand, and it

contributes to a better understanding of the specific mechanisms potentially underlying

these relationships.


And finally, Study 3 advances charismatic leadership theory by building a

comprehensive conceptual framework for the emergence of such leadership behaviors.

The respective model contributes to overcoming the piecemeal approach that has

characterized the antecedent-oriented charismatic leadership literature to date. It

illustrates the relative importance and the complex interplay of various potential

influencing factors, and it enables scholars to consider the diverse perspectives put

forward in this regard within a common, encompassing framework. Hence, the

theoretical model developed here may promote more coherent thinking and more

inclusive conceptual knowledge, and it may allow for a more complete understanding

of charismatic leadership behavior emergence. Also, it may provide a solid foundation

for further theory development and future empirical research.

In sum, this thesis advances the charismatic leadership literature by empirically

supporting and extending prior research on the affective and structural antecedents of

such leadership behaviors. It may, therefore, contribute to a better explanation of

differences in charismatic leadership both between individual leaders and between

organizations. Above this, the dissertation builds further theory on the development of

charismatic leadership behaviors and promotes a more comprehensive perspective on

this issue. This may enable a more inclusive understanding of the complexities of

charismatic leadership behavior emergence, and it may illustrate viable pathways for

future research in this regard.

5.3.2 Contributions to the prevention-oriented leadership literature

As indicated before, research on the antecedents of prevention-oriented leadership is in

an early stage of development (Bruch et al., 2006). Study 1 contributes to this nascent

literature by putting prior, more intuitive notions on the role of affective factors on a

stronger theoretical fundament and by empirically testing such relationships.

Importantly, however, empirical findings refuted the respective hypotheses, with

leaders' mood and emotional intelligence being unrelated to their prevention-oriented

behaviors. It should be noted that this study is the first to empirically scrutinize these

associations. Definitely ruling out the respective linkages based on the present results

might, therefore, be premature. Nevertheless, these findings indicate that scholars

should regard these potential relationships with considerable skepticism in the absence

of further, supportive evidence for the relevance of affective factors in the emergence

of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors.


Further, Study 2 constitutes the first research to develop and empirically test

hypotheses on the role of organizational structure in prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence. By demonstrating the relevance of organizational formalization

(and, to a more limited extent, organization size), this study contributes to the

prevention-oriented leadership literature by offering initial evidence for the effects of a

specific type of antecedent variables. It advances this area of inquiry by pointing

towards the viability of considering structural facets from the organizational level of

analysis to account for the development of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors.

The present findings, therefore, promote an empirically more substantiated

understanding of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, and they enable

a better explanation of systematic differences in the occurrence of such leadership

between distinct organizations.

And finally, Study 3 extends prevention-oriented leadership theory by developing a

conceptual core model of the emergence of such leadership. It builds on prior, more

informal notions to link leaders' threat perceptions and regulatory focus to their

performance of prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, contributing to a more solid

theoretical basis for such considerations and explicating key psychological

mechanisms that may be relevant in this regard. The interactive relationships proposed

in this model promote a better understanding of the complexities of prevention-

oriented leadership behavior emergence, and they outline important boundary

conditions involved in this process. Hence, the dissertation builds fundamental

conceptual knowledge on the development of prevention-oriented leadership

behaviors. It may advance more theory-driven thinking in this area of inquiry, and it

may stimulate future theory development and empirical work.

In sum, the present thesis contributes to the literature on prevention-oriented

leadership by building and empirically investigating research hypotheses on the

affective and structural antecedents of leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors. These

findings are the first to offer concrete empirical evidence on the relevance of specific

influencing factors and, therefore, they promote extant knowledge on the development

of such leadership in important ways. And finally, the dissertation advances basic

theory on prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence, contributing to a better

conceptual understanding of potential core mechanisms driving such leadership and

offering interesting starting points for further research on this issue.


5.4 Overall Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The present thesis has several limitations which should be considered when

interpreting its results and contributions. Also, these limitations point towards

important research directions, illustrating pathways future scholars might take in

further investigating the dissertation's central research problem.

On the most general level, the thesis is limited by the range of outcome variables it

considered. The present work is concerned with the development of effective

leadership. More specifically I decided to focus on the emergence of leaders'

charismatic and prevention-oriented behaviors, in particular, because both of these

leadership styles have been shown to strongly enhance follower motivation and to

promote both work group and organizational performance (e.g., Bruch et al., 2005;

Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996). Obviously, however, other types of

leadership behavior may also be highly effective. Leaders' transactional behaviors (i.e.,

providing contingent rewards and punishments) have, for instance, been associated

with a variety of similar, beneficial consequences (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004;

Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Also, scholars have

demonstrated the favorable impacts of leadership styles such as authentic leadership

(e.g., Avolio et al., 2004; Luthans & Avolio, 2003), servant leadership (e.g., Greenleaf,

1977), or ethical leadership (e.g., Brown & Treviño, 2006). Thus, in further examining

the development of effective leadership, it would be interesting for future theoretical

and empirical research to also focus on such behaviors, supplementing the specific

results obtained in this dissertation for charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership.

Also, future work could consider the emergence of less effective or even

counterproductive types of leadership behavior, including, for instance, management

by exception or laissez-faire (cf. Bass, 1985; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Such research

may contribute to uncovering important antecedent variables that do not only drive

charismatic or prevention-oriented leadership behaviors, but that influence the

development of both effective and ineffective leadership in a more general sense.

Above this, the dissertation has several more specific limitations that refer to its

empirical parts on the one hand (i.e., Studies 1 and 2) and to its theoretical parts on the

other hand (i.e., Study 3). Again, these limitations indicate important directions for


future research. In the following, I will outline and summarize these specific

limitations and research directions.22

5.4.1 Empirical limitations and research directions

First, the empirical studies employed in this thesis necessarily focused on a limited

number of potential antecedent variables. As indicated in chapter 1.2, I chose to

examine the role of affective and structural aspects, because these constructs seem

particularly relevant for both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence and seem to offer the potential for important contributions to the respective

literatures. Empirically investigating other influencing factors, however, might also

have been interesting. In charismatic leadership research, for instance, prior theorizing

and initial empirical work pointed to the role of crisis situations and of leaders'

attitudes, values and cognitions. The respective empirical results could, however, be

further extended and corroborated, because they have remained limited and somewhat

inconclusive (see chapter 1.2.1). Also, the prevention-oriented leadership literature

would have offered a wide array of additional empirical research areas, given the early

stage of development of this line of inquiry. Besides examining the role of leaders'

threat perceptions and regulatory focus orientation (as suggested in Study 3), it might

have been interesting to focus, for example, on leaders' personality, attitudes, values,

and cognitions in this regard (see chapter 1.2.1). Obviously, it was not possible to

address all of these issue areas within the framework of the present dissertation. Future

research empirically investigating such relationships might, therefore, take important

steps towards building further knowledge on the development of charismatic and


Second, it should be noted that the generalizability of the empirical findings is limited.

In Study 1, for instance, all survey respondents were employed by the same

organization (i.e., a multinational company that specializes in the manufacturing of

automotive component supplies), and the team-level sample size was relatively small.

It is not possible, therefore, to determine the extent to which the results for the role of

affective factors in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence

are transferable to other organizations and industries. Similarly, all participant

22 More detailed depictions of these issues can be found in the discussion sections of the individual studies (see

chapters 2.5, 3.6, 4.2.3, and 4.3.3).


organizations in Study 2 were located in Germany. Hence, the cross-cultural

transferability of the relationships obtained between organizational structure and

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership climate is questionable. Scholars could

address these issues and contribute to greater confidence in the generalizability of the

present results by constructively replicating these findings in larger, more diverse

samples, covering multiple organizations from various industries and cultural

backgrounds.

Third, the empirical results cannot be utilized to unambiguously infer causality

between the respective study variables, because hypotheses testing was based on cross-

sectional, non-experimental survey data in both Studies 1 and 2. For instance, even

though the theorizing advanced in these studies suggests affective and structural

factors to function as antecedent variables, the reverse direction of causality cannot be

excluded based on the present findings, and even spurious patterns of covariation

remain possible (cf. Campbell, 1979; Shadish et al., 2002). These issues could be

addressed in future research by utilizing longitudinal, experimental, or quasi-

experimental study designs. Such work might be able to more conclusively

demonstrate the presence of causal relationships between the focal study variables, and

it could indicate with greater assurance whether the flow of causality actually

corresponds to the patterns hypothesized in Studies 1 and 2.

Fourth, data for all study variables were collected using survey methods. Leaders'

mood and emotional intelligence, for instance, were captured through self-reports,

while data on organizational structure (with the exception of organization size) and on

charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership were gauged through employees'

assessments. These procedures reflect common practice in organizational research

(e.g., Bruch et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 1990; 1996; Schminke et al., 2000; 2002;

Van Katwyk et al., 2000; Wong & Law, 2002), and they seem appropriate because all

study measures have been successfully employed in prior investigations and have

exhibited acceptable psychometric properties in the present case (see chapters 2.3.2

and 3.4.2). Also, I could largely avoid issues of common source variance (cf.

Podsakoff et al., 2003) by collecting data from various different respondents in both

Studies 1 and 2. Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile for future research to utilize other

measurement techniques. Emotional intelligence, for instance, could be captured


through actual tests rather than self-report scales (cf. Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005).23

Also, researchers could employ less common (but potentially more direct) means of

assessing organizational structure (e.g., through archival data or key-informant

interviews; cf. Pugh et al., 1968) or charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

(e.g., through observational or diary methods; cf. Van der Weide & Wilderom, 2004;

Yukl, 1999). By constructively replicating the present results utilizing such alternative

measures, scholars could provide greater certainty with regard to the role of affective

and structural factors in charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence.

And finally, the empirical research presented here (like any empirical study) is

confined by its underlying paradigm. As outlined in the introduction to this thesis, I

adopted a positivist approach (cf. Easterby-Smith et al., 2002), building the study

hypotheses in a deductive manner and testing them with quantitative research methods

(see chapter 1.4.2). This is in line with a large part of the charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership literature (e.g., Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bruch et al., 2005; Judge &

Piccolo, 2004). Also, it allows for quite general, abstract descriptions and conclusions,

and it enables systematic hypotheses testing that can relatively easily be replicated

(King et al., 1994; Stier, 1999). Such quantitative research has, however, been

criticized for being "rather inflexible and artificial", rendering it difficult to engage in

theory development and to capture the significance and the meaning people attach to

situations and actions (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002, p. 42). Future research might,

therefore, further contribute to our understanding of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behavior emergence by supplementing the present findings through

the use of additional, qualitative research methods. These inductive, interpretive

techniques (cf. Creswell, 1998; Easterby-Smith et al., 2002) may be able to better

account for the social processes underlying the development of such leadership

behaviors and to capture the meaning individuals attach to these processes (cf. Rynes

& Gephart, 2004). Also, such work might be particularly useful to build further theory

in the nascent area of prevention-oriented leadership through inductive reasoning (cf.

Eisenhardt, 1989). The results from future research employing such qualitative

methods, in conjunction with the findings obtained from quantitative studies like in the

23 Notably, the most widely accepted emotional intelligence test (i.e., the MSCEIT; cf. Mayer et al., 2004)

contains more than 140 items (Bracket & Geher, 2006). It was not feasible, therefore, to include this measure in

the Study 1 surveys.


present thesis, may promote a richer and more detailed understanding of the

mechanisms and processes that drive the development of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors in organizations.

5.4.2 Theoretical limitations and research directions

In line with the dissertation's general research interest, the theoretical models presented

in Study 3 explicitly concentrated on the antecedents of charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors. They did not incorporate the consequences of such

leadership or consider potential reciprocal relationships and feedback loops to enable a

focused discussion of their respective research questions. Future research could,

therefore, extend the models developed here by integrating such outcome variables and

additional linkages. Such theorizing could promote more dynamic, encompassing

perspectives on both the emergence and the consequences of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership, and it could contribute to a more complete, holistic

understanding of the respective leadership processes, moving beyond more static,

exclusively antecedent- or outcome-focused approaches such as those employed in

Study 3 and in most prior research.

Above this, future theorizing might benefit from further specifying and extending the

antecedents considered in the present models. In developing a theoretical framework

of charismatic leadership behavior emergence, for example, I utilized relatively broad

labels for most of the antecedent constructs to enable a comprehensive integration of

the diverse literature and to depict the complex interrelationships between different

classes of influencing factors. Future scholars could focus on selected aspects of this

framework in more detail (rather than adopting an integrative perspective) and explore

the consequences of specifying and conceptualizing the respective constructs in

different ways. Such theory might contribute to a more fine-grained, differentiated

depiction of the mechanisms driving the emergence of charismatic leadership

behaviors in organizations. Further, in developing a conceptual model for prevention-

oriented leadership behavior emergence, I aimed at creating basic theory by focusing

on a clearly defined set of proximal antecedent variables (i.e., leaders' threat intensity

and controllability perceptions and regulatory focus orientation) and outlining the

functioning and the interplay of these factors in a detailed manner. Future theorizing

could build on this core model by considering additional, more distal antecedents

which may indirectly shape such leadership through their impacts on the proximal


influencing factors discussed here. This may contribute to a broader, more inclusive

understanding of prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence.

And finally, given the theoretical nature of the respective considerations, empirical

research is clearly required to scrutinize the validity of the relationships proposed in

Study 3. In the case of charismatic leadership, for instance, it would be interesting for

such research to examine the viability of the overall framework developed here (or

significant parts thereof). Such work might help overcoming the fragmented approach

that characterizes the empirical literature on this issue, and it may contribute to greater

confidence in the interrelationships proposed in the present framework. In the case of

prevention-oriented leadership, none of the purported relationships have been directly

tested to date. Such research, therefore, is urgently needed to examine the empirical

feasibility of the conceptual model put forward in the second part of Study 3. Such

investigations could further strengthen the present considerations in important ways,

and they could improve our understanding of prevention-oriented leadership behavior

emergence by contributing to the limited empirical knowledge base on this issue. In

sum, empirically examining the conceptual models of both charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence developed in this thesis may

constitute a critical next step in research on these issues, putting the present assertions

on a more solid fundament and enabling future theorists to further refine the respective

considerations.

5.5 Key Practical Implications

From a practical perspective, this dissertation provides several interesting

recommendations for organizations trying to strengthen charismatic and prevention-

oriented behaviors in their leaders. It may enable organizational decision-makers to

draw on a more solid theoretical and empirical fundament in facilitating such

leadership and, therefore, it may contribute to the effectiveness of these efforts.

Specifically, the present thesis offers important practical implications with regard to

leader selection and promotion, leadership training, and the design of leaders'

contextual working conditions. Also, it points to the relevance of considering such

different interventions in an integrated, strategic manner.


5.5.1 Implications for leader selection and promotion

First of all, to strengthen the occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors in

organizations, leaders' personality and emotional intelligence should play a key role in

selection and promotion decisions for leadership positions, because affective factors

(i.e., leaders' positive mood and emotional intelligence) were shown to facilitate such

leadership (see Study 1). Organizations should, therefore, utilize personality

inventories as important tools in leader selection and promotion (cf. Cascio, 2003), and

they should give preference to individuals who exhibit traits associated with the

frequent experience of positive affect. Extraversion may be particularly relevant in this

respect (see also Bono & Judge, 2004), because it entails a dispositional tendency for

positive moods and emotions and makes individuals prone to respond more positively

towards features of their organizational environment (see Study 3). Above this,

emotional intelligence tests (such as the MSCEIT; cf. Bracket & Geher, 2006; Mayer

et al., 2004) should also be included in selecting and promoting individuals for

leadership positions, giving preference to candidates who score high on such test

instruments.

Importantly, leaders' prevention-oriented behaviors were found to be largely unrelated

to their mood and emotional intelligence (see Study 1). Other criteria for leader

selection and promotion, therefore, seem more promising in this respect. Individuals

with a predominant dispositional prevention-focus (i.e., those mainly motivated by the

need to avoid losses and driven by a sense of responsibility; Higgins, 1997), for

instance, may tend to exhibit prevention-oriented leadership behaviors more frequently

than others in many situations (see Study 3). Thus, by preferentially selecting such

individuals for leadership positions, the occurrence of prevention-oriented leadership

may be strengthened. This strategy should be employed with caution, however,

because appropriate combinations of different regulatory foci among employees have

been argued to be critical for business success (Brockner et al., 2004). Organizations

may, therefore, require both prevention- and promotion-focused leaders to be effective

in the long-run. Hence, while selecting leaders with a predominant prevention-focus

may be beneficial in some instances (e.g., when the organization needs to overcome

specific, imminent threats), organizational decision-makers should be careful to avoid

over-emphasizing this approach.


5.5.2 Implications for leadership training

Further, systematic training programs may facilitate charismatic leadership (cf. Bass &

Avolio, 1990; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Based on the present findings, such programs

should, for instance, aim at contributing to participants' emotional intelligence (see

Study 1). Organizations may, therefore, use emotional intelligence tests to identify

their incumbent leaders' strengths and weaknesses in this regard, and they may try to

systematically promote these strengths and improve upon these weaknesses in their

leadership trainings (cf. Caruso & Wolfe, 2004; Mayer & Caruso, 2002; Watkin,

2000). In addition, these training programs should also address other key drivers of

charismatic leadership, such as leaders' positive affect and work attitudes (see Studies

1 and 3). Leaders' positive moods and emotions, for instance, may be strengthened by

deliberately promoting positive work events (e.g., by stimulating favorable interactions

with colleagues and by providing opportunities for positive feedback and recognition;

cf. Basch & Fisher, 2000; Weiss et al., 1999b). Also, training programs may enhance

participants' positive work attitudes by meeting their needs and expectations and by

emphasizing positive aspects of their jobs and their organization (cf. Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996). In other words, organizations may be particularly effective in their

charismatic leadership training efforts if they do not only focus on knowledge transfer,

but if they also address leaders on an affective and attitudinal basis (cf. Steel, Lewis, &

Brügger, 2006).

To facilitate prevention-oriented leadership through systematic training, the present

results and considerations suggest that several other issues should be addressed,

including leaders' threat perceptions and regulatory focus orientation (see Study 3).

Formal training sessions may, for example, offer a good opportunity to simultaneously

enhance leaders' perceptions of both threat intensity and threat controllability, pointing

to specific threats the organization faces but also outlining the resources available and

teaching the skills necessary to deal with these threats. With high-intensity/high-

controllability threat perceptions generally strengthening prevention-oriented

leadership, such efforts may prove highly beneficial. Above this, training programs

may contribute to leaders' predominant prevention-focus and, therefore, promote their

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors in many instances, by deliberately framing

issues in loss versus non-loss terms and by addressing leaders' sense of responsibility

(cf. Higgins & Friedman, 1998; Higgins et al., 1986; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004).


Importantly, this strategy does not go along with the disadvantages of focusing on

individuals' prevention-focus in leader selection and promotion, because it addresses

participants' momentary (as opposed to dispositional) regulatory focus orientation.

Leadership training programs may, therefore, nurture leaders' predominant prevention-

focus only with regard to specific areas (e.g., the threats outlined in the respective

trainings), while allowing for different predominant regulatory foci in other situations

(cf. Brockner et al., 2004).

5.5.3 Implications for the design of leaders' organizational context

In addition, the present results suggest that leaders' contextual working conditions may

provide important levers for charismatic leadership, with facets of the organizational

structure being particularly relevant in this respect (see Studies 2 and 3). Decision-

makers should, therefore, consider organizational design interventions to be crucial in

facilitating such leadership. They may, for instance, be able to promote the occurrence

of charismatic leadership behaviors by providing a decentralized structural setup, i.e.,

by delegating authority towards leaders throughout the hierarchy and by allowing for

leaders' autonomy and independence in decision-making about daily work tasks (see

also Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996). Also, organizations may strengthen such leadership by

offering appropriate levels of formalization, i.e., by providing leaders with clear-cut

rules, guidelines, and regulations and with reliable policies. Such design interventions

should be particularly important in large organizations, because organizations' size has

been show to diminish their charismatic leadership climate. Organizational decision-

makers in such settings, therefore, should carefully monitor leaders' charismatic

behaviors, and they should try to compensate for negative size effects by providing

decentralized and formalized structures.

Interestingly, organizations' efforts to nurture prevention-oriented leadership may also

benefit from considering such structural facets (see Study 2). Organizational

formalization, in particular, has been shown to not only enhance their charismatic, but

also their prevention-oriented leadership climates. By providing appropriate rules,

guidelines, regulations, and policies, organizational decision-makers should, therefore,

be able to simultaneously promote both types of leadership considered here, strongly

contributing to the occurrence of effective leadership behaviors in their organizations.

Similarly, organization size has been shown to diminish both the charismatic and

(albeit marginally significantly) the prevention-oriented climate in the respective


organizations. As indicated above, large organizations should, therefore, put special

emphasis on offering appropriate levels of formalization for their leaders,

counteracting potential negative size effects for the occurrence of both charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. Importantly, however, decentralization does

not seem to influence prevention-oriented leadership in relevant ways. Hence, while

organizations may be able to stimulate charismatic behaviors by delegating authority

and fostering leaders' autonomy and independence in decision-making, such design

interventions should not be suitable to nurture the occurrence of prevention-oriented

leadership behaviors.

5.5.4 Strategic development of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

Finally, the steps recommended in the above sections should be combined to form

integrative, encompassing strategies for facilitating charismatic and prevention-

oriented leadership behaviors, respectively. With regard to charismatic leadership, this

may become particularly clear by considering the theoretical framework outlined in

Study 3 (see Figure 4.2). As indicated in this model, numerous different antecedents

may collectively influence such leadership behaviors. Organizations' charismatic

leadership development strategies, therefore, should try to account for these complex

interrelationships by simultaneously addressing various levers. Organizational design

interventions intended to enhance charismatic leadership (e.g., providing appropriately

decentralized and formalized structures), for instance, should be more effective if

selection criteria include leaders' extraversion, because extraverted individuals may

tend to respond more positively to favorable aspects of their environment. Similarly,

both selection and training interventions may more successfully strengthen charismatic

leadership if the organizational context is supportive in this regard. After all, even

emotionally intelligent, extraverted leaders who exhibit high levels of positive affect

and positive work attitudes may find it difficult to engage in charismatic leadership if

contextual factors impose severe constraints on such behaviors. And finally, leadership

training efforts designed to enhance leaders' emotional intelligence may be more

effective if combined with selection procedures that also emphasize this aspect,

because leaders, then, may bring more favorable prerequisites into such trainings. In

sum, while each of the intervention opportunities outlined above may contribute to the

occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors to some extent, organizational


decision-makers may be able to strongly enhance the effectiveness of such efforts by

combining these elements in a comprehensive, strategically integrated manner.

Similarly, the findings and recommendations outlined here suggest that, as in the case

of charismatic leadership, organizations may be able to more successfully nurture

prevention-oriented behaviors in their leaders by taking an integrative perspective in

this regard. Organizational formalization, for instance, has been argued to enhance

leaders' ability to engage in prevention-oriented behaviors, because leaders may find it

easier to scan the environment for external threats and to comprehend specific threat

situations (see Study 2). If, however, leaders exhibit a pronounced promotion-focus at

the same time, or if they do not perceive the respective threats to be relevant or readily

controllable, these beneficial impacts of formalization should remain limited (see

Study 3). Organizational decision-makers may, therefore, find it useful to combine the

different types of interventions outlined above in the areas of leader selection and

promotion, leadership training, and the design of leaders' work context in a strategic

manner to enhance the effectiveness of their efforts to facilitate the occurrence of


5.6 Overall Conclusions and Outlook

Prior research has generally focused on the consequences of charismatic and

prevention-oriented leadership to a greater extent than on the antecedents of such

effective leadership behaviors. The nomological nets around these constructs,

therefore, have remained incomplete, and our knowledge in these areas has remained

limited. Also, practitioners have been left with little research guidance on how to

strengthen such leadership in their organizations.

The present thesis, therefore, tried to advance extant knowledge on these issues,

investigating the emergence of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership from

various theoretical and empirical perspectives. First of all, it demonstrated affective

factors (i.e., leaders' mood and emotional intelligence) to influence leaders' charismatic

behaviors, while prevention-oriented leadership, by contrast, was shown to be largely

independent from such aspects. In addition, the dissertation pointed to the relevance of

the organizational structure in both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership

behavior emergence. Organizational centralization, formalization, and size, in


particular, were found to shape the occurrence of charismatic leadership behaviors,

while prevention-oriented leadership was found to mainly hinge on the degree of

formalization and, to a more limited extent, on organization size. Incorporating both

these findings and prior research results, the thesis crafted a comprehensive theoretical

framework of charismatic leadership behavior emergence, depicting the relative

importance and the interplay of various leader- and context-based antecedents and,

therefore, promoting a more integrative perspective on the development of such

leadership. And finally, the dissertation extended prior, more informal notions on

prevention-oriented leadership behavior emergence by advancing a theoretical core

model in this regard, outlining the complex, interactive effects of leaders' threat

perceptions and regulatory focus orientation.

In sum, I assert this thesis has taken important steps towards a better understanding of

the emergence of both charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership behaviors. It

provided empirical evidence for the functioning of key antecedent variables, and it

created new theory to further advance these lines of inquiry. Also, it offered

recommendations for organizational decision-makers on how to facilitate such

leadership. The present work, therefore, contributes to greater knowledge on the

development of effective leadership in organizations, enabling more confident answers

to questions regarding the origins and the antecedent conditions of leaders' charismatic

and prevention-oriented behaviors.

Obviously, while providing some answers to these issues, the thesis also opened up

new questions and illustrated additional, important research directions. I hope that by

building on the current studies, future scholars will be able to deepen and extend our

understanding of charismatic and prevention-oriented leadership, further improving

our knowledge on the emergence of such behaviors and, eventually, contributing to the

quality of leadership in organizations.

196 References

References

Agarwal, N. C. 1979. On the interchangeability of size measures. Academy of

Management Journal, 22: 404-409.

Agle, B. R., Nagarajan, N. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Srinivasan, D. 2006. Does CEO

charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationships among

organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and top management

perceptions of CEO charisma. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 161-174.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. 2005. Affect and

creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 367-403.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. 2003. Organization structure as a moderator of the

relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived

organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,

88: 295-305.

Anderson, C. R., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. 1977. Managerial response to

environmentally induced stress. Academy of Management Journal, 20: 260-

272.

Anderson, C. R., & Schneier, C. E. 1978. Locus of control, leader behavior and leader

performance among management students. Academy of Management Journal,

21: 690-698.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 2003. Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14: 261-295.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.

Human Relations, 48: 97-125.

Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. Studies of cognition and emotion in organisations:

Attribution, affective events, emotional intelligence and perception of emotion.

Australian Journal of Management, 27: 11-20.

References 197

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. 2002. Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge

for managers. Academy of Management Executive, 16: 76-86.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. 2002. Diversity and emotion: The

new frontiers in organizational behavior research. Journal of Management, 28:

307-338.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. 2000. Transformational leadership as management of

emotion: A conceptual review. In: N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J.

Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace. Research, theory, and practice, 221-

235. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2005. What lies beneath? A process

analysis of affective events theory. In: N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E.

J. Härtel (Eds.), Research on emotions in organizations, Vol. 1, 23-46.

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Aspinwall, L. G. 1998. Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation.

Motivation and Emotion, 22: 1-32.

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. 1993. Personal attributes as predictors of superiors'

and subordinates' perceptions of military academy leadership. Human

Relations, 46: 645-668.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. 1988. Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond.

In: J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.),

Emerging leadership vistas, 29-49. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. 2004.

Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact

follower attitudes and performance. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 801-823.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. 1999. Perceptions of leader charisma and

effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational

performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 345-373.

Bagozzi, R. P. 2003. Positive and negative emotions in organizations. In: K. S.

Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational

198 References

scholarship. foundations of a new discipline, 176-193. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. 2005. Job resources buffer the impact

of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10:

170-180.

Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. 2006. The emotional intelligence of transformational

leaders: A field study of elected officials. Journal of Social Psychology, 146:

51-64.

Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van

IJzendoorn, M. H. 2007. Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and

nonanxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133: 1-

24.

Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. 2000. Transformational leadership and

emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 21: 157-161.

Barnett, C. K., & Pratt, M. G. 2000. From threat-rigidity to flexibility: Toward a

learning model of autogenic crisis in organizations. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 13: 74-88.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986: The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.

Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. 2000. Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of

work events and associated emotions. In: N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, &

W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace. Research, theory, and practice,

36-48. Westport, CT: Quorum.

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:

Free Press.

Bass, B. M. 1988. Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In: J. A. Conger,

& R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership. The elusive factor in

organizational effectiveness, 40-77. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

References 199

Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership. 3rd edition. New York:

Free Press.

Bass, B. M. 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8: 9-

32.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1990. Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and

beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14: 21-27.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993a. Transformational leadership and organizational

culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17: 112-121.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993b. Transformational leadership: A response to

critiques. In: M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and

research. Perspectives and directions, 49-80. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 2000. Manual for the multifactor leadership

questionnaire (Form 5X). Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. 2006. Transformational leadership, 2nd edition. Mahaw,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. 1987. Transformational

leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organization Studies,

12: 73-87.

Baumeister, R. F., Braslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. 2001. Bad is stronger

than good. Review of General Psychology, 5: 323-370.

Beatty, B. R. 2000. The emotions of educational leadership: Breaking the silence.

International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3: 331-357.

Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in

organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations.

Organizational Research Methods, 8: 274-289.

Beehr, T. A., Glaser, K. M., Canali, K. G., & Wallwey, D. A. 2001. Back to basics:

Re-examination of demand-control theory of occupational stress. Work &

Stress, 15: 115-130.

200 References

Berger, C. J., & Cummings, L. L. 1979. Organizational structure, attitudes, and

behaviors. In: B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 1,

169-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Berkowitz, L., Jaffee, S., Jo, E., & Troccoli, B. T. 2000. On the correction of feeling-

induced judgmental bias. In: J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking. The role

of affect in social cognition, 131-152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, D. S., & Hansen, J. S. 1996. Positive affect, negative affect, and social

interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 796-809.

Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. 2001. The relationship between

vision strength, leadership style, and context. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 53-73.

Beyer, J. M., Chattopadhyay, P., George, E., Lick, W. H., obilvie, dt, & Pugliese, D.

1997. The selective perception of managers revisited. Academy of


Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. 2000. Challenge and threat appraisals. The role of

affective cues. In: J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking. The role of affect

in social cognition, 59-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bless, H. 2000. The interplay of affect and cognition. The mediating role of general

knowledge structures. In: J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking. The role of

affect in social cognition, 201-222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability.

Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: K. J. Klein, & S. W. J.

Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations.

Foundations, extensions, and new directions, 349-381. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Bliese, P. D. 2005. Multilevel modeling in R. Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army

Institute of Research.

Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. 1998. Group consensus and psychological well-

being: A large field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 563-580.

References 201

Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. 2002. Using random group resampling in multilevel

research: An example of the buffering effects of leadership climate. Leadership

Quarterly, 13: 53-68.

Bliese, P. D., Halverson, R. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. 2002. Benchmarking multilevel

methods in leadership. The articles, the model, and the data set. Leadership


Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. 2004a. Charisma under crisis: Presidential

leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th

terrorist attacks. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 211-239.

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. 2004b. Where there's smoke, is there fire?

Crisis and charisma in the California recall election. Academy of Management

Best Paper Proceedings.

Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. 1988. Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological and

structural approach. In: J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A.

Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas, 13-28. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.

Bobko, P. 1995. Correlation and regression. Principles and applications for

industrial/organizational psychology and management. New York et al.:

McGraw-Hill.

Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. 1994. Negative affect and

social judgment: The differential impacts of anger and sadness. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 24: 45-62.

Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. 2005. Changing attitudes about change:

Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism

about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 733-753.

Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. 2004. Setting the stage for effective

leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership

Quarterly, 15: 195-210.

Bono, J. E., & Anderson, M. H. 2005. The advice and influence networks of

transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1306-1314.

202 References

Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions, and mood contagion.

Leadership Quarterly, 17: 317-334.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 901-910.

Bortz, J. 1999. Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler. Heidelberg: Springer.

Bracket, M. A., & Geher, G. 2006. Measuring emotional intelligence: Paradigmatic

diversity and common ground. In: J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer

(Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life, 27-50. New York: Psychology

Press.

Brass, D. J. 1981. Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction

and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 331-348.

Brass, D. J. 1984. Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence

in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 518-539.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. 2002. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace.

Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 279-307.

Brockner, J., & Higgins, T. E. 2001. Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the

study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 86: 35-66.

Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Low, M. B. 2004. Regulatory focus theory and the

entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 203-220.

Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. 2005. Elaborating the construct of transformational

leadership: The role of affect. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 245-272.

Brown, F. W., Bryant, S. E., & Reilly, M. D. 2006. Does emotional intelligence - as

measured by the EQI - influence transformational leadership and/or desirable

outcomes? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 5: 330-351.

Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. 2005. Transformational leadership and emotional

intelligence: A potential pathway for an increased understanding of

interpersonal influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 867-871.

References 203

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future

directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 595-616.

Brown, S. P., Westbrook, R. A., & Challagalla, G. 2005. Good cope, bad cope:

Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies following a critical negative work

event. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 792-798.

Bruch, H., & Ghoshal, S. 2003. Unleashing organizational energy. Sloan Management

Review, 45(1) : 45-51.

Bruch, H., & Ghoshal, S. 2004. A bias for action. How effective managers harness

their willpower, achieve results, and stop wasting time. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Bruch, H., Shamir, B., & Cole, M. S. 2005. Promotion-oriented leadership and

prevention-oriented leadership: Two ways of influencing follower motivation.

Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Honolulu, HI.

Bruch, H., Shamir, B., & Eilam-Shamir, G. 2007. Managing meanings in times of

crisis and recovery: CEO prevention-oriented leadership. In: R. Hooijberg, J. G.

Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. Boal, & N. Lane (Eds), Being there even when you are

not: Leading through strategy structures, and systems, 131-158. Amsterdam:

Elsevier.

Bruch H., & Vogel, B. 2005. Organisationale Energie. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.

Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. 2006. Organisationale Energie: Wie Führungskräfte das

Potenzial ihres Unternehmens ausschöpfen können. In: H. Bruch, S.

Krummaker, & B. Vogel (Eds.), Leadership - Best Practices und Trends, 181-

191. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.

Bruch, H., Vogel, B., & Krummaker, S. 2006. Leadership - Trends in Praxis und

Forschung. In: H. Bruch, S. Krummaker, & B. Vogel (Eds.), Leadership - Best

Practices und Trends, 301-308. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.

Bruch, H., & Walter, F. in press. Leadership in context: Investigating hierarchical

impacts on transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal.

204 References

Bryman, A. 1996. Leadership in organizations. In: S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Frost

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies, 276-293. London: Sage.

Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1994. The management of innovation (3rd edition).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. 1988. Positive mood and helping behavior: A

test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 211-

229.

Carlson, M., & Miller, N. 1987. Explanation of the relation between negative mood

and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 102: 91-108.

Caruso, D. R., & Wolfe, C. J. 2004. Emotional intelligence and leadership

development. In: D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader

development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow,

237-263. Mahaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1990. Origins and functions of positive and negative

affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97: 19-35.

Cascio, W. F. 2003. Managing human resources (6th edition). Boston, MA: McGraw-

Hill.

Castro, S. L. 2002. Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions. A

comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients, rwg(j), hierarchical linear

modeling, within- and between-analysis, and random group resampling.


Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at

different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83: 234-246.

Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. 2001. Organizational actions in

response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44:

937-955.

References 205

Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. 2002. The role of different levels of leadership in predicting

self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87: 549-556.

Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. 2004. A framework for conducting multi-

level construct validation. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 3: 273-303.

Chiu, C.-K., Chien, C.-S., Link, C.-P., & Hsiao, C. Y. 2005. Understanding hospital

employee job stress and turnover intention in a practical setting: The

moderating role of locus of control. Journal of Management Development, 24:

837-855.

Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, Y. C., & Caputi, P. 2000. A critical evaluation of the emotional

intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28: 539-561.

Clore, G. L., Gasper, K., & Garvin, E. 2001. Affect as information. In: J. P. Forgas

(Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition, 121-144. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the

behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. 2006. Emotions as mediators of the relations

between perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee

cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 463-484.

Conger, J. A. 1990. The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19: 44-55.

Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An

insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership

Quarterly, 10: 145-169.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic

leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12:

637-647.

206 References

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1994. Charismatic leadership in organizations:

Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 15: 439-452.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. 2000. Charismatic leadership and

follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 747-767.

Conner, D. S. 2006. Human-resource professionals' perceptions of organizational

politics as a function of experience, organizational size, and perceived

independence. Journal of Social Psychology, 146: 717-732.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis

issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. 2000. Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The

impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 63-

75.

Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, R., Baker, W., & Parker, A. 2003. What creates energy in organizations? Sloan

Management Review, 44(4): 51-56.

Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. Emotion and attribution of

intentionality in leader-member relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 615-

634.

Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2005. The case for the ability-based model of

emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26: 453-466.

D'Aveni, R. A., & MacMillan, I. C. 1990. Crisis and the content of managerial

communications: A study of the focus of attention of top managers in surviving

and failing firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 634-657.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. 2005b. Linking the Big

Five-factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership;

perceived dynamic work environment as moderator. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26: 839-865.

References 207

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., Thierry, H., Van den Berg,

P. T., Van der Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. 2005a. Leader motives,

charismatic leadership, and subordinates' work attitude in the profit and

voluntary sector. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 17-38.

Deluga, R. J. 1998. American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and

rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 9: 265-291.

Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. 2006. Systematic variation in

organizationally-shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadership based on

organizational form. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 487-505.

Domagalski, T. A., & Steelman, L. A. 2005. The impact of work events and

disposition on the experience and expression of employee anger.

Organizational Analysis, 13: 31-52.

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. 2002. A meta-analysis of

transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and

satisfaction: An update and extension. In: B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino

(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, 35-66.

Oxford: Elsevier.

Dutton, J. E. 1986. The processing of crisis and non-crisis strategic issues. Journal of

Management Studies, 23: 501-517.

Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. 1987. Categorizing strategic issues: Links to

organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12: 76-90.

Dvir, G., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational

leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.

Academy of Management Journal, 45: 4735-744.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Smith, M. C., & Engen, M. L. 2003. Transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing

women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 569-591.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. 2002. Management research. An

introduction. London: Sage.

208 References

Eden, D. 2002. Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ's publication

policy. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 841-846.

Eich, E., & Macaulay, D. 2000. Fundamental factors in mood-dependent memory. In:

J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking. The role of affect in social cognition,

109-130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of

Management Review, 14: 532-550.

Elfenbein, H. A. 2007. Emotion in organizations: A review in stages. Annals of the

Academy of Management, forthcoming.

Elsbach, K. D., & Barr, P. S. 1999. The effects of mood on individuals' use of

structured decision protocols. Organization Science, 10: 181-198.

Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. 2006. Justice and leader-member

exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of


Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. 2002. Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal

study on personal initiative. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7:

221-234.

Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Galang, M. C., Zhou, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Howard, J. L.

1996. Perceptions of organizational politics: Prediction, stress-related

implications, and outcomes. Human Relations, 49: 233-266.

Fiedler, K. 2000. Toward an integrative account of affect and cognition phenomena

using the BIAS computer algorithm. In: J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and

thinking. The role of affect in social cognition, 223-252. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, C. D. 2000. Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job

satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 185-202.

Fisher, C. D. 2002. Antecedents and consequences of real-time affective reactions at

work. Motivation and Emotion, 26: 3-30.

References 209

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. 2000. Positive affect and the other side of coping.

American Psychologist, 55: 647-654.

Ford, J. D. 1985. The effects of causal attributions on decision makers' responses to

performance downturns. Academy of Management Review, 10: 770-786.

Forgas, J. P. 1995. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).

Psychological Bulletin, 117: 39-66.

Forgas, J. P. 1998. On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator

cognition and bargaining strategies. Journal of Personality and Social


Forgas, J. P. 2000a. Introduction. The role of affect in social cognition. In: J. P. Forgas

(Ed.), Feeling and thinking. The role of affect in social cognition, 1-28.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Forgas, J. P. 2000b. Managing moods: Toward a dual-process theory of spontaneous

mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11: 172-177.

Forgas, J. P. 2002. Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior.

Psychological Inquiry, 13: 1-28.

Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. 1987. Mood effects on person-perception judgments.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 53-60.

Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H., & Moylan, S. J. 1990. Praise or blame? Affective

influences on attributions for achievement. Journal of Personality and Social


Forgas, J. P., & Ciarrochi, J. V. 2002. On managing moods: Evidence for the role of

homeostatic cognitive strategies in affect regulation. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 28: 336-345.

Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. 2001. Affective influences on judgments and behavior

in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 3-34.

210 References

Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. 2001. Success/failure feedback,

expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus

moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37: 253-260.

Fox, M. L., Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. 1993. Effects of stressful job demands and

control on physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy

of Management Journal, 36: 289-318.

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. 2000. Relations of emotional intelligence, practical

intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes:

It's not all just 'G'. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 203-220.

Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General


Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. 2005. Positive affect and the complex dynamics

of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60: 678-686.

Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. 2003. What good

are positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions

following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001.


Frost, P. J. 2003. Toxic emotions at work. How compassionate managers handle pain

and conflict. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Fuller, J. B., & Patterson, C. E. P. 1996. A quantitative review of research on

charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78: 271-287.

Fuller, J. B., Stanton, J. M., Fisher, G. G., Spitzmüller, C., Russel, S. S., & Smith, P.

C. 2003. A lengthy look at the daily grind: Time series analysis of events,

mood, stress, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 1019-1033.

Ganster, D. C., Fox, M. L., & Dwyer, D. J. 2001. Explaining employees' health care

costs: A prospective examination of stressful job demands, personal control,

and physiological reactivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 954-964.

Gardner, W. L. & Avolio, B. J. 1998. The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23: 32-58.

References 211

Gardner, L., & Stough, C. 2002. Examining the relationship between leadership and

emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 23: 68-78.

Gavin, M. B., & Hofmann, D. A. 2002. Using hierarchical linear modeling to

investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate. Leadership


George, J. M. 1989. Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 317-324.

George, J. M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied


George, J. M. 1991. State or trait: effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at

work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 299-307.

George, J. M. 1992. The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence.

Journal of Management, 18: 185-213.

George, J. M. 1996a. Group affective tone. In: M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work

group psychology, 77-94. Chichester et al.: John Wiley.

George, J. M. 1996b. Trait and state affect. In: K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual

differences and behavior in organizations, 145-171. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

George, J. M. 2000. Emotions and leadership. The role of emotional intelligence.

Human Relations, 53: 1027-1055.

George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales

performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 75: 698-709.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. 1992. Feeling good - doing good: A conceptual analysis

of the mood at work - organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological

Bulletin, 112: 310-329.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. 1996. Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects

of feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. In: B. M. Staw, & L. L.

212 References

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 18, 75-109.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and

good ones don't: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied


Ghobodian, A., & Gallear, D. 1997. TQM and organization size. International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17: 121-163.

Gillen, D. J., & Carroll, S. J. 1985. Relationship of managerial ability to unit

effectiveness in more organic versus more mechanistic organizations. Journal

of Management Studies, 22: 668-676.

Gittel, J. H. 2003. A theory of relational coordination. In: K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton,

R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. Foundations of a

new discipline, 279-295. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Gladstein, D. L., & Reilly, N. P. 1985. Group decision making under threat: The

tycoon game. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 613-627.

Gohm, C. L. 2003. Mood regulation and emotional intelligence: Individual

differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 594-607.

Goleman, D. 1998. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. 2000. Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2): 78-

90.

Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Boyd, N. G. 2000. A laboratory experiment testing

the antecedents of leader cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21:

769-788.

Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. 1996. Demographic and organizational

influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66: 203-214.

Greenleaf, R. K. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. New York: Paulist.

Grove, A. 1996. Only the paranoid survive. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

References 213

Groves, K. S. 2005. Linking leader skills, follower attitudes, and contextual variables

via an integrated model of charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 31:

255-277.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. 1967. Relationship of centralization to other structural

properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 72-92.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. 1969. Routine technology, social structure, and organization

goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 366-376.

Hammer, T. H., & Turk, J. M. 1987. Organizational determinants of leader behavior

and authority. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 674-682.

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. 1988. Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions

of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied


Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. 1992. Primitive emotional contagion. In:

M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion and social behavior, 151-177. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. 1997. The work of leadership. Harvard Business

Review, 75(1): 124-134.

Hesse, F. W., & Spies, K. 1996. Effects of negative mood on performance: Reduced

capacity or changed processing strategy? European Journal of Social


Hetherington, R. W. 1991. The effects of formalization on departments of a multi-

hospital system. Journal of Management Studies, 28: 103-141.

Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52: 1280-

1300.

Higgins, E. T. 2005. Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 14: 209-213.

Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. 1986. Self-discrepancies and

emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy

influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 5-15.

214 References

Hochschild, A. R. 1979. Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American

Journal of Sociology, 85: 551-575.

Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. 2005. Leadership, collective personality, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 509-522.

Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. 1996. A cross-level investigation of factors influencing

unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49: 307-339.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultures consequences. Comparing values, behaviors,

institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In: J. G. Hunt, & L. L.

Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge, 189-207. Carbondale, IL:

Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R. J. 1991. The distribution and exercise of power in complex organizations: A

meso theory. Leadership Quarterly, 2: 23-58.

House, R. J. 1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated

theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 323-352.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo

vadis? Journal of Management, 23: 409-473.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture,

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. 1992. Personality and charismatic leadership.


House, R. J., & Shamir, B. 1993. Toward the integration of transformational,

charismatic, and visionary theories. In: M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.),

Leadership theory and research. Perspectives and directions, 81-107. San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. 1991. Personality and charisma in the

U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 36: 364-396.

References 215

Howell, J. M. 1997. Organization contexts, charismatic and exchange leadership.

Kellogg Leadership Studies Project (Academy of Leadership Press). Retrieved

Oct. 10, 2006, from http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/

howell.html.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional

leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of

consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78:

891-902.

Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. 1986. Moderator variables in leadership

research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 88-102.

Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership.


Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. 1990. Champions of technological innovation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 317-341.

Huber, F., Beckmann, S. C., & Herrmann, A. 2004. Means-end analysis: Does the

affective state influence information processing style? Psychology &

Marketing, 21: 715-737.

Humphrey, R. H. 2002. The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 13: 493-504.

Hunt, J. G. 1999. Transformational/charismatic leadership's transformation of the

field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 129-144.

Huy, Q. N. 2002. Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change:

The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47:

31-69.

Iaquinto, A. L., & Fredrickson, J. W. 1997. Top management team agreement about

the strategic decision process: A test of some of its determinants and

consequences. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 63-75.

Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. 2000. How current feedback and chronic effectiveness

influence motivation: Everything go gain versus everything to lose. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 30: 583-592.

216 References

Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. 2004. Imagining how you'd feel: The role

of motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social


Isen, A. M. 1999. On the relationship between affect and creative problem solving. In:

S. Russ (Ed.), Affect, creative experience and psychological adjustment, 3-17.

Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.

Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. 1991. Positive affect as a factor in organizational

behavior. In: B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior, Vol. 13, 1-53. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. 1987. Positive affect facilitates

creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52:

1122-1131.

Isen, A. M., & Shalker, T. E. 1982. The effect of feeling state on evaluation of

positive, neutral, and negative stimuli: When you "accentuate the positive," do

you "eliminate the negative"? Social Psychology Quarterly, 45: 58-63.

Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1988. Discerning threats and opportunities.


James, R. J., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater

reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69:

85-98.

James, R. J., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. rwg: An assessment of within-group

interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309.

James, R. J., & Jones, A. P. 1976. Organizational structure: A review of structural

dimensions and their conceptual relationships with individual attitudes and

behaviors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 74-113.

Jansen, K. J. 2004. From persistence to pursuit: A longitudinal examination of

momentum during the early stages of strategic change. Organization Science,

15: 276-294.

Javidan, M., & Dastmalchian, A. 1993. Assessing senior executives: The impact of

context on their roles. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29: 328-342.

References 217

Jick, T. D., & Murray, V. V. 1982. The management of hard times: Budget cutbacks in

public sector organizations. Organization studies, 3: 141-169.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,

measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: E. Pervin, & O. John (Eds.),

Handbook of personality, 102-138. New York: Guilford.

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. 1998. The experience and evolution of trust:

Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review,

23: 531-546.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Härtel, C. E. J. 2002. Emotional intelligence as a

moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of

Management Review, 27: 361-372.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and

transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751-765.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. 2002. Personality and

leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied


Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. 2004. Intelligence and leadership: A

quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied


Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. 2004. Is positiveness in organizations always desirable?

Academy of Management Executive, 18: 151-155.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A

meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89:

755-768.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. 2006. Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace

deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 126-

138.

Kanter, R. M. 1979. Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review,

57(4): 65-75.

218 References

Karasek, R. A., Jr. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:

Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 285-308.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership:

Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 246-255.

Kark, R., & Van-Dijk, D. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of

the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management

Review, 32: 595-621.

Keller, R. T. 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and

development groups. Journal of Management, 18: 489-501.

Kellet, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. 2006. Empathy and the emergence of

task and relation leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 146-162.

Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. 2001. Mood and emotions in small groups and work

teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 99-130.

Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. 1985. Separating individual and group effects. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 339-348.

Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. 1982. Managerial response to changing environments:

Perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 27: 548-570.

King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific

inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. 1994. Levels issues in theory development,

data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19: 195-229.

Klenke, K. 2005. Corporate values as multi-level, multi-domain antecedents of leader

behaviors. International Journal of Manpower, 26: 50-66.

Kotter, J. P. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business

Review, 73(2): 59-67.

Kovoor-Misra, S. 2002. Boxed-in: Top managers' propensities during crisis issue

diagnosis. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 69: 803-817.

References 219

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research

in organizations. Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: K. J. Klein,

& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in

organizations. Foundations, extensions, and new directions, 3-90. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kramer, M. W., & Hess, J. A. 2002. Communication rules for the display of emotions

in organizational settings. Management Communications Quarterly, 16: 66-

80.

Kraut, A. I., Pedigo, P. R., McKenna, D. D., & Dunnette, M. D. 1989. The role of the

manager: What's really important in different management jobs. Academy of

Management Executive, 3: 286-293.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. 1987. Transactional and transformational leadership: A

constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12:

648-657.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Allen, R. I. 2006. Correlates of correctional officer

job stress: The impact of organizational structure. American Journal of

Criminal Justice, 30: 227-244.

Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. 2006. The sources of four commonly

reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research

Methods, 9: 202-220.

Lang, J. R., Calantone, R. J., & Gudmundson, D. 1997. Small firm information

seeking as a response to environmental threats and opportunities. Journal of

Small Business Management, 35: 11-23.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. 1989. Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility to

positive and negative mood induction procedures. Personality and Individual

Differences, 10: 1221-1228.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. 1991. Personality and susceptibility to positive and

negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61:

132-140.

220 References

Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., & Song, L. J. 2004. The construct and criterion validity of

emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal


Lawler, E. E., III. 2003. Treat people right. How organizations and individuals can

propel each other into a virtuous spiral of success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Lazarus, R. S. 1993. From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing

outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 1-21.

Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. 1987. Transactional theory and research on emotions

and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1: 141-169.

Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. 2004. Linking emotional intelligence abilities and

transformational leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 25: 554-564.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace

deviance: The role of affect and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:

131-142.

Le Fevre, M., Matheny, J., & Kolt, G. S. 2003. Eustress, distress, and interpretation in

occupational stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17: 726-744.

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. 2001. Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 81: 146-159.

Lewis, K. M. 2000. When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative

emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 21: 221-234.

Lim, B.-C., & Ployhart, R. E. 2004. Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-

factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal


Lohrke, F. T., Bedeian, A. G., & Palmer, T. B. 2004. The role of top management

teams in formulating and implementing turnaround strategies: A review and

research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6: 63-90.

References 221

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, G. K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the

MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385-425.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. 2003. Authentic leadership development. In: K. S.

Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational

scholarship. Foundations of a new discipline, 241-258. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Macus, M. 2002. Towards a comprehensive theory of boards - Conceptual

development and empirical exploration. St Gallen, Switzerland: Unpublished

Dissertation at the University of St. Gallen.

Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. 2003. Relationship between emotional intelligence and

transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 17: 387-404.

Marino, K. E., & White, S. E. 1985. Departmental structure, locus of control, and job

stress: The effect of a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 782-784.

Markham, S. E., & Halverson, R. R. 2002. Within- and between-entity analyses in

multilevel research: A leadership example using single level analyses and

boundary conditions (MRA). Leadership Quarterly, 13: 35-52.

Martin, L. L. 2000. Moods do not convey information. Moods in context do. In: J. P.

Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking. The role of affect in social cognition, 153-

177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. 2006. Clarifying conditions and decision points for

mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27: 1031-1056.

Mayer, J. D. 2001. Emotion, intelligence, and emotional intelligence. In: J. P. Forgas

(Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition, 410-431. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mayer, J. D., & Caruso, D. 2002. The effective leader: Understanding and applying

emotional intelligence. Ivey Business Journal, 67(2): 1-5.

222 References

Mayer, J. D., Gaschke, Y. N., Braverman, D. L., & Evans, T. W. 1992. Mood-

congruent judgment is a general effect. Journal of Personality and Social


Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. 2004. Emotional intelligence: Theory,

findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15: 197-215.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. 1993. Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions

and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114: 376-390.

McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. 2002. Impact of leadership style and

emotions on subordinate performance. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 545-559.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-

factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17:

227-232.

McIntyre, C. W., Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Cross, S. A. 1991. The effect of induced

social interaction on positive and negative affect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic

Society, 29: 67-70.

Michaels, R. E., Cron, W. L., Dubinsky, A. J., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. 1988. Influence

of formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of

salespeople and industrial buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 25: 376-

383.

Middleton, K. L. 2005. The service-learning project as a supportive context for

charismatic leadership emergence in nascent leaders. Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 4: 295-308.

Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C., Jr. 1996. Job level as a systemic variable

in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job

satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69:

277-292.

Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Toulouse, J.-M. 1982. Top executive locus of

control and its relationship to strategy-making, structure, and environment.


References 223

Mittal, V., & Ross, W. J., Jr. 1998. The impact of positive and negative affect and

issue framing on issue interpretation and risk taking. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 76: 298-324.

Montanari, J. R., & Freedman, S. M. 1981. Organization structure and administrative

control: A question of dimensionality. Journal of Management, 7: 17-31.

Morgeson, F. P., Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure and function of collective

constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development.

Academy of Management Review, 24: 249-265.

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. 2005. When moderation is mediated and

mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89:

852-863.

Nasurdin, A. M., Ramayah, T., & Beng, Y. C. 2006. Organizational structure and

organizational climate as potential predictors of job stress: Evidence from

Malaysia. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 16: 116-129.

Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear

statistical models (4th edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Nienhüser, W. 1993. Probleme der Entwicklung organisationstheoretisch begründeter

Gestaltungsvorschläge. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 53: 235-252.

Northouse, P. G. (Ed.) 1997. Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. 1981. Relationships between organizational

structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks.


Organ, D. W., & Greene, C. N. 1981. The effects of formalization on professional

involvement: A compensatory process approach. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 26: 237-252.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 157-

164.

224 References

Osborn, R. N., & Hunt, J. G. 1975. An adaptive-reactive theory of leadership: The role

of macro variables in leadership research. In: J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.),

Leadership frontiers, 27-44. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. 2002. Toward a contextual theory of

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 797-837.

Ostroff, C. 1992. The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An

organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 963-974.

Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. 2000. Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and

organizational effectiveness. In: K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.),

Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,

extensions, and new directions, 211-266. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. 2002. Leadership self-efficacy and managers' motivation

for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 215-235.

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgees, Z., & Stough, C. 2001. Emotional intelligence and

effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22: 5-

10.

Parrott, W. G., & Sabini, J. 1990. Mood and memory under natural conditions:

Evidence for mood incongruent recall. Journal of Personality and Social


Pavett, C. M., & Lau, A. W. 1983. Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical

level and functional specialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 170-177.

Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. 1997. The nature and implications of contextual

influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy

of Management Review, 22: 80-109.

Payne, R. L., & Mansfield, R. 1973. Relationships of perceptions of organizational

climate to organizational structure, context, and hierarchical position.


Perlitz, M., & Löbler, H. 1985. Brauchen Unternehmen zum Innovieren Krisen?

Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 55: 424-450.

References 225

Pescosolido, A. T. 2002. Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. Leadership

Quarterly, 13: 583-599.

Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J. F. 1999. Putting people first for organizational success.

Academy of Management Executive, 13: 37-48.

Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. 1991. The effect of a crisis on the emergence of charismatic

leadership: A laboratory study. Academy of Management Best Paper

Proceedings.

Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. 1998. Context and charisma: A "meso" level examination of

the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic

leadership. Journal of Management, 24: 643-671.

Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. 2002. How leaders influence the

impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams.


Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B.-C., & Chan, K.-Y. 2001. Exploring relations between typical

and maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality.

Personnel Psychology, 54: 809-843.

Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006.

Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate

attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and

new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99:

113-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996. Transformational leader

behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee

satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors.


Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common

method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 873-903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990.

Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader,

226 References

satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1:

107-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., Williams, L. J., & Todor, W. D. 1986. Effects of organizational

formalization on alienation among professionals and nonprofessionals.


Porter, L. W., & McLaughlin, G. B. 2006. Leadership and the organizational context:

Like the weather? Leadership Quarterly, 17: 559-576

Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. 2003.

Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes.

International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11: 21-40.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. in press. Addressing moderated

mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate

Behavioral Research.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hingins, C. R., & Turner, C. 1968. Dimensions of

organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13: 65-105.

Putnam, L. L., & Mumby, D. K. 1993. Organizations, emotion and the myth of

rationality. In: S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations, 36-57. London,

UK: Sage.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1987. Expression of emotion as part of the work role.

Academy of Management Review, 12: 23-37.

Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. 2000. Marginal mentoring: The effects of

type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career

attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1177-1194.

Rainey, H. G., & Watson, S. A. 1996. Transformational leadership and middle

management: Towards a role for mere mortals. International Journal of Public

Administration, 19: 763-800.

R Development Core Team 2004. R: A language and environment for statistical

computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

References 227

Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2005. Integrating managerial perceptions and

transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee

involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 561-589.

Roberts, L. M. 2006. Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of

positive scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 31: 292-305.

Robie, C., Ryan, A. M., Schmieder, R. A., Parra, L. F., & Smith, P. C. 1998. The

relation between job level and job satisfaction. Group & Organization

Management, 23: 470-495.

Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. 1997. Transformational leaders: Measurement of

personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social


Rousseau, D. M. 1978. Characteristics of departments, positions, and individuals:

Contexts for attitudes and behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 521-

540.

Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and

cross-level perspectives. In: L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior, Vol. 7, 1-37. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

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

contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5: 296-320.

Rubin, R. S., Munz, D., & Bommer, W. H. 2005. Leading from within: The effects of

emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior.


Russel, R. D., & Russel, C. J. 1992. An examination of the effects of organizational

norms, organizational structure, and environmental uncertainty on

entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of Management, 18: 639-656.

Rynes, S., & Gephart, R. P., Jr. 2004. Qualitative research and the Academy of

Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 454-462.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job

attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-253.

228 References

Sarros, J. C., Tanewski, G. A., Winter, R. P., Santora, J. C., & Densten, I. L. 2002.

Work alienation and organizational leadership. British Journal of

Management, 13: 285-304.

Sashkin, M. 1988. The visionary leader. In: J. A. Conger, & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.),

Charismatic leadership. The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness,

122-160. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. 2003. A review of cross-cultural methodologies for

organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research

Methods, 6: 169-215.

Schein, E. H. 1990. Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45: 109-119.

Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. 2000. The effect of

organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 85: 294-304.

Schminke, M., Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. 2002. Organization structure and

fairness perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level.


Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.

Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. 1983. On the etiology of climates. Personnel


Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X., & DeChurch, L. A. 2006. An investigation

of path-goal and transformational leadership theory predictions at the individual

level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 21-38.

Schyns, B., & Mohr, G. 2004. Nonverbal elements of leadership behaviour. Zeitschrift

für Personalforschung, 18: 289-305.

Schyns, B., & Sanders, K. 2003. Mood and the evaluation of leaders. Current

Research in Social Psychology, 9: 50-59.

Seebacher, U. G., & Klaus, G. (Eds.) 2004. Handbuch Führungskräfte-Entwicklung.

Theorie, Praxis und Fallstudien. Oberhaching, Germany: USP.

References 229

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. 1990. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and

consideration. Journal of Management, 16: 693-703.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and quasi-

experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. 1997. Expectancy x value effects: Regulatory focus as

determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social


Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. 1998. Performance incentives and means:

How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74: 285-293.

Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. 1999. Organizational and contextual influences on the

emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly,

10: 257-283.

Shamir, B., Goldberg-Weill, N., Breinin, E., Zakay, E., & Popper, M. 2000.

Differences in company leadership between infantry and armor units in the

Israel Defense Force. Military Psychology, 12: 51-72.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational effects of

charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4:

577-594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic

leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics,

and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 41: 387-409.

Sinclair, M., Ashkanasy, N. M., Chattopadhyay, P., & Boyle, M. V. 2002.

Determinants of intuitive decision making in management: The moderating role

of affect. In: N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Managing

emotions in the workplace, 143-163. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. 1997. Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the

significance of context. Journal of Management, 23: 189-209.

230 References

Sosik, J. J. 2005. The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate

managers: A model and preliminary field study. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 221-

244.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. 2002. Beneath the mask: Examining the

relationship of self-presentation attributes and impression management to

charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 217-242.

Sosik, J. J., & Dworakivsky, A. C. 1998. Self-concept based aspects of the charismatic

leader: More than meets the eye. Leadership Quarterly, 9: 503-526.

Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. 1999. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and

performance. Group & Organization Management, 24: 367-390.

Spector, P. E. 1982. Behavior in organizations as a function of employees' locus of

control. Psychological Bulletin, 91: 482-497.

Spector, P. E. 1998. A control model of the job stress process. In: C. L. Cooper (Ed.),

Theories of organizational stress, 153-169. London: Oxford University Press.

Spector, P. E. 2002. Employee control and occupational stress. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 11: 133-136.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2002. An emotion-centered model of voluntary work

behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and

organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review,

12: 269-292.

Spector, P. E., & O'Connell, B. J. 1994. The contribution of personality traits, negative

affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent reports of job

stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational


Spörrle, M., & Welpe, I. M. 2006. How to feel rationally: Linking rational emotive

behavior therapy with components of emotional intelligence. In: W. J. Zerbe, N.

M. Ashkanasy, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Research on emotions in

organizations, Vol. 2, 291-322. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

References 231

Spreitzer, G. M., de Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. 1999. Empowered to lead: The role

of psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 20: 511-526.

Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. 1996. Empowering middle managers to be

transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 237-261.

Staw, B. M. 1976. Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to

a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

16: 27-44.

Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat-rigidity effects in

organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 26: 501-524.

Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. 1994. Employee positive emotion and

favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5: 51-71.

Steel, G., Lewis, P., & Brügger, E. 2006. Firmenspezifische Führungsphilosophie und

deren konsequente Umsetzung. Das Beispiel der ABB. In: H. Bruch, S.

Krummaker, & B. Vogel (Eds.), Leadership - Best Practices und Trends, 193-

207. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.

Stein, M. 1997. Envy and leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational


Stein, M. 2005. The Othello conundrum: The inner contagion of leadership.

Organization Studies, 26: 1405-1419.

Steinmann, H., & Schreyögg, G. 2000. Management (5th edition). Wiesbaden,

Germany: Gabler.

Stewart, R. 1976. Contrast in management. Maidenhead, UK: MacGraw-Hill.

Stewart, R. 1982. Choices for managers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Stier, W. 1999. Empirische Forschungsmethoden. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Sutton, R. I., & Kahn, R. L. 1987. Prediction, understanding, and control as antidotes

to organizational stress. In: Lorsch, J. W. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational

behavior, 272-285. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

232 References

Sutton, R. I., & Rousseau, D. M. 1979. Structure, technology, and dependence on a

parent organization: Organizational and environmental correlates of individual

responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 675-687.

Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's

mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group

processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 295-305.

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Dupuree-Bruno, L. M. 1994. The relationship between

organizational and environmental factors and the use of innovative human

resource practices. Group & Organization Management, 19: 171-202.

Tetrick, L. E., & LaRocco, J. M. 1987. Understanding, prediction, and control as

moderators of the relationships between perceived stress, satisfaction, and

psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 538-543.

Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. 1993. Strategic sensemaking and

organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action,

and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 239-270.

Tichy, N. M., & Ulrich, D. O. 1984. The leadership challenge - A call for the

transformational leader. MIT Sloan Management Review, 26(1): 59-68.

Tosi, H. L. 1991. The organization as a context for leadership theory: A multilevel

approach. Leadership Quarterly, 2: 205-228.

Totterdell, P. 2000. Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective

performance in professional sport teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85:

848-859.

Tsui, A. S., & Ohlott, P. 1988. Multiple assessment of managerial effectiveness:

Interrater agreement and consensus in effectiveness models. Personnel


Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. 2002.

Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied


Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational evolution: Interactions between

external and emergent processes and strategic choice. In: B. M. Staw, & L. L.

References 233

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 8, 171-122.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ulrich, H. 1984. Management. Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.

Valle, M., & Perrewe, P. L. 2000. Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors?

Tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model. Human Relations, 53:

359-386.

Van der Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. 2004. Deromancing leadership: What are

the behaviours of highly effective middle managers? International Journal of

Management Practice, 1: 3-20.

Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation.

Management Science, 32: 590-607.

Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. 2004. Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it

moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology: An International Review,

53: 113-135.

Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. 2000. Using the job-

related affective well-being scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to

work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 219-230.

Vosburg, S. K. 1998. The effects of positive and negative mood on divergent-thinking

performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11: 165-172.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. 2004. Charismatic leadership at the

strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. Leadership

Quarterly, 15: 355-380.

Waldman, D. A., Ramírez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadership

matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of

environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 134-143.

Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. 1999. CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-

management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review,

24: 266-285.

234 References

Wally, S. & Baum, J. R. 1994. Personal and structural determinants of the pace of

strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 932-956.

Wasiliewski, P. L. 1985. The emotional basis of charisma. Symbolic Interaction, 8:

207-222.

Watkin, C. 2000. Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 8: 89-92.

Watson, D. 1988. Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative

affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities.


Watson, D., Clark, L. A., McIntyre, C. W., & Hamaker, S. 1992. Affect, personality,

and social activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63: 1011-

1025.

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. 1985. Toward a consensual structure of mood.

Psychological Bulletin, 98: 219-235.

Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. 2006. A test of

basic assumptions of affective events theory (AET) in call centre work. British


Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. 2005. Reflections on affective events theory. In: N. M.

Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Research on emotions in

organizations, Vol. 1, 1-21. Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical

discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at

work. In: B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior, Vol. 19, 1-74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. 1999a. An examination of the joint effects

of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in

affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 78: 1-24.

Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. 1999b. Effects of justice conditions on

discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 786-794.

References 235

Wilson, E., & MacLeod, C. 2003. Contrasting two accounts of anxiety-linked

attentional bias: Selective attention to varying levels of stimulus threat intensity.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112: 121-128.

Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. 1994. A cognitive interpretation of transactional and

transformational leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 5: 161-186.

Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. 1998. A field study of a cognitive

approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership.


Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. U. 2002. Emotional intelligence as the

basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. Leadership Quarterly,

13: 505-522.

Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. 2002. The effects of leader and follower emotional

intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership

Quarterly, 13: 243-274.

Yukl, G. 1999. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and

charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 285-106.

Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. J. 2001. Leadership, vision, and organizational

effectiveness. In: S. J. Zaccaro, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of

organizational leadership, 181-218. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. 2004. Emotional intelligence in the

workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

53: 371-399.

Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. 1999. Susceptibility to affect: A comparison of three

personality taxonomies. Journal of Personality, 67: 761-791.

236 Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae

Frank Walter, born May 7, 1978 in Aalen, Germany

EDUCATION

2004 – 2007 University of St. Gallen, Switzerland

Doctoral studies in Business Administration

2003 – 2004 San Francisco State University, USA

Visiting student as part of a Fulbright scholarship

1998 – 2003 University of Konstanz, Germany

M.A. in Public Policy and Management (Dipl. Verw.-wiss.)

1988 – 1997 Ostalbgymnasium Bopfingen, Germany

German Abitur (equivalent to high school diploma)

WORK EXPERIENCE

since 2008 University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics and Business

2004 – 2007 University of St. Gallen, Switzerland

Research Associate, Institute for Leadership and HR Management

2003 – 2004 San Francisco State University, USA

Research Assistant, College of Business

2001 – 2002 University of Konstanz, Germany

Research Assistant, Department of Public Administration

2000 – 2001 IBM GmbH, Germany

Trainee, Department of Strategic Outsourcing – HR

the development of effective leadership: investigating the ...file/dis3415.pdf · the development...

Documents