Análisis de empresas competidoras

Leadership research often presents transformational leaders as ideal “types” for

CEOs. Sashkin (2004) asserted that transformational leadership stems from the TLT comprising three aspects of leadership: traits, behaviours and situations. Numerous scholars have investigated and debated the value of each aspect separately (Northouse, 2010). For example, the traits-based leadership has been criticised for producing endless and subjective lists of traits, ignoring the situational contexts and leadership outcomes, and being no use for leadership training and development. The behavioural leadership approach that often includes two instruments namely, the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (Hemphill and Coons, 1957) and the Managerial Leadership Grid (Blake and Mouton, 1964) to assess leadership style is hardly linked to performance outcome. Situational leadership has been investigated by a number of scholars (Fiedler. 1978;, Fiedler and Gracia, 1987; House, 1996), but has been criticised as having an ambiguous conceptualization (Northouse, 2010).

Pursuing Sashkin’s (2004) proposition and addressing the criticism of each leadership

approach, the thesis argues that the three aspects of transformational leadership can be addressed by studying leadership archetypes, that is, personifications of the leadership qualities in situational contexts. The leadership qualities represent a combination of leadership traits and behaviours that are often triggered by situational contexts.

A number of leadership scholars (e.g. Chen and Meindl; 1991; Amernic et al., 2007; Avelsson and colleagues, 2011; Fanelli and Grasselli, 2006; Kets De Vries, 2007; Rooke and Tobert, 2005) have examined leadership archetypes, but have made limited progress. These researchers have proposed various labels of leadership archetypes, and suggested that the identified archetypes can be contextualised according to situations. Some focus on leaders in organisations, whilst others focus on

leaders of organisations (strategic leadership). These studies appear to be descriptive and some of the studies (e.g. Chen and Meindl, 1991; Avelsson and colleagues, 2001; Rooke and Tobert, 2005) were not clearly linked to any specific leadership theory. Acknowledging these limitations, the thesis argues that leadership archetypes are manifestations of the contemporary leadership theory (TLT) and are activated in stakeholder minds though information processing (CM).

In theory development and advancement, most leadership scholars tend to focus heavily on theory related to leadership in organisation, instead of, leadership of organisation. For example, the most recent GLOBE studies by House et al. (2004) and Chhokar et al. (2007) presented the universally endorsed leadership dimensions perceived by members of organisations and societies across approximately 60 countries. Those leadership dimensions were approved by organisational members, and were validated through press media content analyses. The studies appear to advance the ILTs and charismatic/visionary leadership theory. However, since the identification of the leadership dimensions in press media was based on data gathered through surveys among organisational members, the dimensions appear valid only in the sense that they reflect the perceptions of those internal to organisations, not external stakeholders. In contrast, the current thesis advances the TLT and gathers external stakeholder perceptions of senior executives (CEOs) that are based on mass media representations. Therefore, the findings add to the understanding of how a

wider “distant” variety of stakeholders view leaders and the companies they represent.

Though most leadership approaches have not included leadership outcomes as part of leadership assessments, a number of scholars have attempted to include them. Chapter 2 have summarised some of the outcomes linked to leadership by these scholars such as financial performance of an organisation, engagement of employees and patronage of customers. As discussed in Chapter 2, attempts to link the hard measures of organisational performance (financial performance) to CEO leadership led to mixed conclusions, whilst linking soft measures (employees and customers’ engagement) tended to be positive. The mixed conclusions derived from previous studies prompted the current research to further investigate this link. Study 2 revealed that there was no significant effect of achievement on the stakeholders’ perception in evaluating CEO leadership to achieve organisational success. The results suggest that should

leadership outcomes be included in any instrument assessing leadership, they should be limited to the soft, instead of the hard measures.

Besides advancing the TLT, the thesis also investigates the theory of effectiveness introduced by Cameron et al.’s (2006) CVF for leadership. Hunt (2004) posited that the CVF for leadership is one the emergent theories deemed useful for strategic leadership (see Hunt, 2004). Through metaphor-based content analysis, the thesis has proven that mass media portrayals of CEO often personify CEO leadership qualities in situational contexts corresponding to the CVF quadrants create-, compete-, control- and collaborate. The CVF theorises that particular types of leaders are effective when dealing with relevant organisational issues. In other words, the concept suggests that specific types of leaders are effective in particular situational contexts, whilst others are not (Cameron et al., 2006). To date, a very limited number of studies have attempted to test whether the theory is applicable to how most individuals might predict CEO effectiveness in achieving organisational success. The thesis sought to do this where it tested the influence of leadership archetypes on stakeholders’ perceptions in predicting organisational success.

Though the CVF has been useful to classify mass media portrayals of CEOs in Study

1, contrary to Hart and Quinn’s (1993) findings, the results of Study 2 revealed that

the leader-match concept was not applicable to socially distant stakeholders (potential investors/shareholders, employees and customers). This suggests that such stakeholders do not consider the match is important in making prediction. In other words, the findings of Study 2 seem to limit the CVF theory of effectiveness to socially close stakeholders such as current organisational members or those stakeholders, who have close encounters with CEOS. Should the theory be tested among other levels of leadership (middle managers or first line managers), the same theory may be supported. Acknowledging this potential criticism, further exploration and testing to validate the CVF theory of effectiveness at different levels of analysis should be conducted in future research.

Nonetheless, the contradiction between the findings of Study 2 and the CVF theory of effectiveness can be explained through relating it to the ILTs. For example, the first two elements of the TLT (leaders’ trait and behaviours) are often subject to pre-

existing stakeholders’ knowledge (schemata). The leadership schemata, also known as

ILTs, represent a set of prototypical or universal leadership traits or characteristics and are often activated when observers process available information. Based on Fiske et al.’s (1999) Continuum Model of information processing, the socially distant stakeholders are likely to categorise featured CEOs along a continuum that stretches between a category-oriented approach and an attribute-oriented approach, not separate pathways. The category-based approach involves the activation of ILTs in the mind of the stakeholders, whilst the attribute-oriented approach requires stakeholders to process bits and pieces of information about CEOs before coming to conclusions about them. Since CEOs are leaders of organisations, the socially distant stakeholders are likely to automatically associate their ILTs to the CEOs. The visionary CEO appears to have more positive association in stakeholders’ minds compared to the commander CEO. Similarly, implicit theories may have been associated with the situational contexts of generating innovation and improving profitability. Generating innovation may have been perceived more favourably than improving profitability.

In short, the findings of the thesis make three important contributions to the theory underpinning leadership studies. First, leadership archetypes could be one of the manifestations of the TLT. Second, leadership outcomes should be limited to soft measures. Third, once leadership archetypes are in place, the leadership approaches related to the leader-context match such as the theory of effectiveness of Cameron et al.’s (2007) CVF for leadership appear redundant.