scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

기독교 사역과 Leadership

01 May 1997-Vol. 15, Iss: 1, pp 245-288
TL;DR: Coaching & Communicating for Performance Coaching and communicating for Performance is a highly interactive program that will give supervisors and managers the opportunity to build skills that will enable them to share expectations and set objectives for employees, provide constructive feedback, more effectively engage in learning conversations, and coaching opportunities as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Building Leadership Effectiveness This program encourages leaders to develop practices that transform values into action, vision into realities, obstacles into innovations, and risks into rewards. Participants will be introduced to the five practices of exemplary leadership: modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart Coaching & Communicating for Performance Coaching & Communicating for Performance is a highly interactive program that will give supervisors and managers the opportunity to build skills that will enable them to share expectations and set objectives for employees, provide constructive feedback, more effectively engage in learning conversations, and coaching opportunities. Skillful Conflict Management for Leaders As a leader, it is important to understand conflict and be effective at conflict management because the way conflict is resolved becomes an integral component of our university’s culture. This series of conflict management sessions help leaders learn and put into practice effective strategies for managing conflict.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Theoretical development in this area also has undergone many refinements, and the current theory is far different from the early Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) work as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Research into Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory has been gaining momentum in recent years, with a multitude of studies investigating many aspects of LMX in organizations. Theoretical development in this area also has undergone many refinements, and the current theory is far different from the early Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) work. This article uses a levels perspective to trace the development of LMX through four evolutionary stages of theorizing and investigation up to the present. The article also uses a domains perspective to develop a new taxonomy of approaches to leadership, and LMX is discussed within this taxonomy as a relationship-based approach to leadership. Common questions and issues concerning LMX are addressed, and directions for future research are provided.

5,812 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The rapid growth of research on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) has resulted in some conceptual confusion about the nature of the construct, and made it difficult for all but the most avid readers to keep up with developments in this domain this paper.

5,183 citations


Cites background from "기독교 사역과 Leadership"

  • ...Perhaps this should not be surprising, since the heart of transformational leadership is the ability to get employees to perform above and beyond expectations (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Kouzes & Posner, 1987), and this extra effort may show up in the form of citizenship behavior....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership, revealing an overall validity of .44 for transformational leadership and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs.
Abstract: This study provided a comprehensive examination of the full range of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. Results (based on 626 correlations from 87 sources) revealed an overall validity of .44 for transformational leadership, and this validity generalized over longitudinal and multisource designs. Contingent reward (.39) and laissez-faire (-.37) leadership had the next highest overall relations; management by exception (active and passive) was inconsistently related to the criteria. Surprisingly, there were several criteria for which contingent reward leadership had stronger relations than did transformational leadership. Furthermore, transformational leadership was strongly correlated with contingent reward (.80) and laissez-faire (-.65) leadership. Transformational and contingent reward leadership generally predicted criteria controlling for the other leadership dimensions, although transformational leadership failed to predict leader job performance.

3,577 citations


Cites background from "기독교 사역과 Leadership"

  • ...Burns (1978) first introduced the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership in his treatment of political leadership....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, social learning theory is used as a theoretical basis for understanding ethical leadership and a constitutive definition of the ethical leadership construct is proposed. But, little empirical research focuses on an ethical dimension of leadership.

3,547 citations


Cites background from "기독교 사역과 Leadership"

  • ...The Wnal element of the deWnition related to “decisionmaking” reXects the fact that ethical leaders consider the ethical consequences of their decisions, and make principled and fair choices that can be observed and emulated by others (Bass & Avolio, 2000; Burns, 1978; Howell & Avolio, 1992)....

    [...]

  • ...ethical consequences of their decisions, and make principled and fair choices that can be observed and emulated by others (Bass & Avolio, 2000; Burns, 1978; Howell & Avolio, 1992)....

    [...]

  • ...Burns (1978) said that “transforming” leaders inspire followers by aligning their own and their followers’ value systems toward important moral principles....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A meta-analysis of the transformational leadership literature using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was conducted to compute an average effect for different leadership scales, and probe for certain moderators of the leadership style-effectiveness relationship as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: A meta-analysis of the transformational leadership literature using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was conducted to (a) integrate the diverse findings, (b) compute an average effect for different leadership scales, and (c) probe for certain moderators of the leadership style-effectiveness relationship. Transformational leadership scales of the MLQ were found to be reliable and significantly predicted work unit effectiveness across the set of studies examined. Moderator variables suggested by the literature, including level of the leader (high or low), organizational setting (public or private), and operationalization of the criterion measure (subordinate perceptions or organizational measures of effectiveness), were empirically tested and found to have differential impacts on correlations between leader style and effectiveness. The operationalization of the criterion variable emerged as a powerful moderator. Unanticipated findings for type of organization and level of the leader are explored regarding the frequency of transformational leader behavior and relationships with effectiveness.

2,836 citations


Cites background from "기독교 사역과 Leadership"

  • ...In developing the construct, Burns (1978) drew from the literature on traits, leadership styles, leader-member exchange research, as well as his own observations, and put forth the idea of a transformational and transactional leadership style....

    [...]

  • ...Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647. Cowen, S.S. (1990). A study of relationships between perceived leader behaviors of presidents at public fouryear institutions of higher education in the United States and the changes in FTE enrollment, perceptions...

    [...]

  • ...This transformational leader was posited as a contrast to the transactional leader who exchanges valent rewards contingent upon a display of desired behaviors (Burns, 1978; Waldman, Bass, & Einstein, 1987)....

    [...]

  • ...Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings....

    [...]

  • ...Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors offer a framework that encompasses many of the complexities of the empirical literature on the leadership styles of women and men and present new data concerning the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles.
Abstract: As women increasingly enter leadership roles that traditionally have been occupied mainly by men, the possibility that the leadership styles of women and men differ continues to attract attention. The focus of these debates on sameness versus difference can obscure the array of causal factors that can produce differences or similarities. Adopting the perspective of social role theory, we offer a framework that encompasses many of the complexities of the empirical literature on the leadership styles of women and men. Supplementing Eagly and Johnson's (1990) review of the interpersonally oriented, task-oriented, autocratic, and democratic styles of women and men, we present new data concerning the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles.

1,195 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study provided a meta-analysis of the relationship of the Ohio State leadership behaviors--Consideration and Initiating Structure--with leadership, and results provide important support for the validity of Initiating structure and Consideration in leadership research.
Abstract: This study provided a meta-analysis of the relationship of the Ohio State leadership behaviors— Consideration and Initiating Structure—with leadership. Overall, 163 independent correlations for Consideration and 159 correlations for Initiating Structure were analyzed. Results revealed that both Consideration (.48) and Initiating Structure (.29) have moderately strong, nonzero relations with leadership outcomes. Consideration was more strongly related to follower satisfaction (leader satisfaction, job satisfaction), motivation, and leader effectiveness, and Initiating Structure was slightly more strongly related to leader job performance and group– organization performance. Validities did vary by leadership measure, but in most cases validities generalized regardless of the measure used. Overall, the results provide important support for the validity of Initiating Structure and Consideration in leadership research.

1,123 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, an integrative model where leader behaviors mediate the relationship between leader traits and effectiveness is proposed, and the results indicate that leader behaviors tend to explain more variance in leadership effectiveness than leader traits.
Abstract: The leadership literature suffers from a lack of theoretical integration (Avolio, 2007, American Psychologist, 62, 25–33). This article addresses that lack of integration by developing an integrative trait-behavioral model of leadership effectiveness and then examining the relative validity of leader traits (gender, intelligence, personality) and behaviors (transformational-transactional, initiating structure-consideration) across 4 leadership effectiveness criteria (leader effectiveness, group performance, follower job satisfaction, satisfaction with leader). Combined, leader traits and behaviors explain a minimum of 31% of the variance in leadership effectiveness criteria. Leader behaviors tend to explain more variance in leadership effectiveness than leader traits, but results indicate that an integrative model where leader behaviors mediate the relationship between leader traits and effectiveness is warranted.

1,113 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors posit that the primary difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader, and the extent to which the leader is able to shift the primary focus of leadership from the organization to the follower is the distinguishing factor in classifying leaders as either transformational or servant leaders.
Abstract: This article examines transformational leadership and servant leadership to determine what similarities and differences exist between the two leadership concepts. The authors posit that the primary difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader. The transformational leader's focus is directed toward the organization, and his or her behavior builds follower commitment toward organizational objectives, while the servant leader's focus is on the followers, and the achievement of organizational objectives is a subordinate outcome. The extent to which the leader is able to shift the primary focus of leadership from the organization to the follower is the distinguishing factor in classifying leaders as either transformational or servant leaders. This article also looks at the next stage of developmental issues in servant leadership, such as the challenges facing empirical investigation and measurement, and the changes that are occurring in current thinking about the servant leadership approach. Ultimately, the case is made that although different, both transformational leadership and servant leadership offer the conceptual framework for dynamic leadership.

1,110 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the role of shared and vertical leadership in team effectiveness and found that shared leadership is more useful than vertical leadership for high-autonomy change management teams.
Abstract: This study investigated vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of 71 change management teams. Vertical leadership stems from an appointed or formal leader of a team, whereas shared leadership (C. L. Pearce, 1997; C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger, in press; C. L. Pearce & H. P. Sims, 2000) is a group process in which leadership is distributed among, and stems from, team members. Team effectiveness was measured approximately 6 months after the assessment of leadership and was also measured from the viewpoints of managers, internal customers, and team members. Using multiple regression, the authors found both vertical and shared leadership to be significantly related to team effectiveness ( p .05), although shared leadership appears to be a more useful predictor of team effectiveness than vertical leadership. The increasing use of empowered teams and concomitant flattening of organizational structures (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995) brings into question the more traditional models of leadership. What kind of leadership is more appropriate for this new team-based environment? Pearce (1997), Yukl (1998), Pearce and Sims (2000), and Pearce and Conger (in press) have suggested that shared leadership—leadership that emanates from the members of teams, and not simply from the appointed team leader— may provide the answer to this question. Thus, we investigated this issue within the context of change management teams (CMTs). The CMTs in this study are teams that, while not fully self-managing, have a very high degree of decision-making latitude for improving the operations in their respective areas of responsibility. Thus, our results are most applicable to highautonomy teams that engage in complex tasks, and they may not generalize to traditional work groups. The teams in this study are also all drawn from one organization, which helps to control for situational variables that might influence team effectiveness (e.g., organizational culture) but may limit the generalizability to alternate organizational contexts. More specifically, we explored how the behavior of the appointed team leaders (vertical leadership) versus distributed influence from within the team (shared leadership) accounted for the effectiveness of the CMTs. In this article, we briefly review the behavioral model of leadership that forms the basis of this study and then review literature related to the shared leadership process. We offer several hypotheses regarding the potential role of team leadership in team effectiveness. Subsequently, we describe our methods, present our results, and offer a discussion and conclusion.

1,091 citations