1.What are the advantages and disadvantages of 360 degree feedback systems? How should an organization decide whose feedback to seek?
2. Prepare a brief report on the latest developments in compensation practice.G
442 | Part 2
Implementation of Strategic Human Resource Management
evaluation is biased toward events and behaviors that happened immediately prior to the time the
evaluation is completed, with little or no consideration given to events occurring earlier in the evaluation period; central tendency error, in which the evaluator avoids the higher and lower ends of
performance assessment ratings in favor of placing all employees at or near the middle of the scales;
and leniency or strictness error, in which employees are generally all rated well above the standards
(making the supervisor look effective and/or attempting to appease employees) or well below the
standards (making the supervisor look demanding). Personal biases and organizational politics may
have a significant impact on the ratings employees receive from their supervisors.
There may also be a number of reasons why supervisors might intentionally inflate or deflate
employee ratings. For example, an empathetic supervisor might inflate the rating given to an
employee having difficulties with personal matters. Conversely, a supervisor who sees a subordinate as a threat to the supervisor’s job might intentionally deflate performance ratings. The perforG political in many organizations. In most instances,
mance management process can be inherently
when supervisors conduct performanceA
evaluations, they personally have job and career issues at
stake in the ratings they give to their employees.
T and subordinates may agree on levels of performance
In addition to these errors, supervisors
but disagree on the causes for such performance. Research has shown that supervisors are much
more likely to place the responsibility for poor performance with the employee, whereas the
employee is likely to cite organizationalSfactors outside his or her control for performance deficiencies.6 Employees are much more likely to attribute their own job success to their own beha, as easy job assignments or assistance from others.
viors rather than to external factors, such
For these reasons, organizations have been moving away from traditional means of performance feedback where only one assessment of an employee’s performance is conducted and completed by the immediate supervisor. InD
addition to supervisory input, performance feedback can
also be sought from peers, subordinates, customers, and/or the employee. Feedback from peers
can be useful for developmental purposes, but peer feedback systems must be administered with
care. They can be very political and self-serving
in organizations where employees compete with
each other either formally or informally. When a peer has personal gain or loss at stake in the
N hardly be expected to exercise objectivity. Competitive
assessment of a colleague, he or she can
organizational cultures could cause a peer
D evaluation system to raise havoc throughout the organization by escalating conflict. This could have detrimental effects on morale and teamwork. Peer
feedback systems can only be effective R
when political considerations and consequences are minimized (meaning that peers have nothingAat stake in their assessments of colleagues) and employees
have a sense of trust in the organization and its performance measurement system.
Peer Assessment at Coffee 1
& Power
Coffee & Power is a small San Francisco, California—based start-up where individuals can
“buy and sell” small jobs. As part of 2
its performance management and rewards process, each
of its 15 full- and part-time employees
3 is annually given 1,200 stock options to distribute to
their coworkers in whatever way they see fit. Options may be given entirely to one individual
T as an employee decides. The only restrictions are
or distributed to as many other coworkers
that employees cannot give shares to themselves or to the company founders.
The system is designed to reward employee contribution, which might not always be
recognized by management and also holds workers accountable for managing relationships
with coworkers, a critical success factor in small start-ups where employees work closely
together over long hours. Because the company is still privately held, the options only hold
paper value at the present time. However, individual employee cash bonuses are tied in to
this allocation system. Employees learn of the options and bonuses they receive but not
who rewarded them. The owners prepare a distribution curve of all bonus grants without
attaching individual names to allow employees see the highest and lowest bonuses as well as
where they fit individually within the company distribution.7
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
Performance Management and Feedback | 443
Performance feedback from subordinates can provide insights into the interpersonal and
managerial styles of employees and can assist the organization in addressing employee developmental needs, particularly for high-potential employees. Subordinate evaluations are also excellent
measures of an individual’s leadership capabilities. However, subordinate evaluations can suffer
from the same political problems as peer evaluations. They can also be used by either the supervisor or subordinates to retaliate against each other. However, in assessing an employee’s ability to
manage others, valuable performance data pertaining to behavior and skills can be uniquely provided from subordinates.
Because our economy is becoming increasingly service oriented and because many organizations emphasize customer service as a key competitive and strategic issue, customers are increasingly being sought for feedback on employee performance. In most instances, customers can
provide the feedback that is most free from bias: They usually have little or nothing at stake in
their assessment of employees. G
Feedback from customers can be critical for facilitating employee
development and determining appropriate
rewards because it is most clearly related to the organiA
zation’s bottom line.
T to provide their own assessments and measures of their own
Self-evaluations allow employees
performance. Although it should be obvious that self-evaluation can be self-serving, allowing
employees to evaluate their own performance has at least two important benefits for organizations.
First, it can be motivating because
S it allows the employee to participate in a critical decision that
impacts his or her employment and career. Second, the employee can provide insights, examples,
and a more holistic assessment, of performance than that provided by supervisors or peers, who
generally spend a limited time observing and interacting with each employee. Individual employees are far more likely to remember significant examples of effective performance than their superD specific examples of behaviors and outcomes rather than the
visors, and they can often provide
generalities often cited by supervisors. Individual employees may also be able to provide perforE
mance information of which others may be unaware.
Performance management A
systems that solicit the input and advice of others besides the immediate supervisor are referred to as multirater systems or 360-degree feedback systems. These systems
can be beneficial because the organization
and employee gain multiple perspectives and insights into
the employee’s performance. Each
D of these sources of performance feedback can balance each other
relative to any inherent organizational politics that may be at play in the process. However, there is a
cost to such systems: They canRbe very time consuming and laborious to administer. Data from
numerous sources need to be analyzed,
A synthesized, and, occasionally, reconciled. There is inherently
a cost–benefit aspect to any type of multirater performance feedback system. The more performance
data collected, the greater the overall facilitation of the assessment and development of the employee.
At the same time, larger volumes of data are costly to collect and process. At some point, the collec1
tion of additional data will undoubtedly
provide diminishing returns.
Performance Management at Otis Elevator
Farmington, Connecticut–based Otis Elevator is the world’s largest manufacturer, installer,
T moving walkways, and other vertical and horizontal pasand servicer of elevators, escalators,
senger transportation systems. Otis’s products are offered in more than 200 countries worldS
wide, and the company employs more than 63,000 people. Among its many installations are
the human transport systems of the Eiffel Tower, Sydney Opera House, Vatican, ON Tower
(Toronto), and Hong Kong Convention Center.
For years, the company had an ineffective performance management system that was
excessively time consuming and inspired little confidence among employees or managers. In
revamping its performance management, Otis moved toward a system that provided performance feedback based on critical strategic competencies related to the company’s new focus
on project teams. For this realignment into project teams to be successful, managers were
required to demonstrate specific competencies in both team leadership and project management as well as remain accountable for the financial and operating results of projects.
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
Performance Management and Feedback | 445
The third basis for performance feedback is to assess outcomes or results. Results-based measures focus on specific accomplishments or direct outcomes of an employee’s work. These might
include measures of number of units sold, divisional profitability, cost reduction, efficiency, or
quality. Unlike traits and behaviors, results-based measures are often criteria that can be measured
objectively. More important, results are generally more meaningful to the organization due to their
more direct correlation with performance relating to the divisional or organizational strategy.
Although results may be a more significant measure of performance than traits or behaviors,
there are some imitations to the utilization of results-based feedback measures. First, it may be difficult to obtain results for certain job responsibilities. Any tasks that involve dealing with the future
(i.e., forecasting and planning relative to competition or assessing other dimensions of the external
environment) will not show immediate results nor will the quality or accuracy of the work be assessable until sometime in the future. Second, results are sometimes beyond an individual employee’s
G availability may be at the discretion of others, but they may
control. Budget cuts and resource
impact the employee’s ability toAgenerate specific performance objectives. Third, results—taken by
themselves—focus on the ends or outcomes while ignoring the means or processes by which the
T might achieve targeted goals but do so in an unproductive way
results were obtained. An employee
by incurring excessive costs, alienating coworkers, or damaging customer relations. Finally, results
are limiting in that they fail to tap into some critical areas—such as teamwork, initiative, and openness to change—of performanceSfor modern organizations. The need for organizations to remain
flexible and responsive to change in their environments requires them to have internal processes to
facilitate internal change. Results-based
measures would ignore these processes.
As can be seen, all three types of performance measures have some limitations. However, the
strengths of one approach can offset the limitations of the others. Nothing prevents an organization
from utilizing any combinationDof traits, behaviors, and results-based measures in attempting to
develop a performance feedback system that is in sync with the organization’s strategic objectives.
In short, the decision of what to evaluate is contingent upon what the organization seeks to achieve.
In addition to traits, behaviors,
A and outcomes, one area that employers are beginning to measure is the job performance competencies the employee displays. Competencies can often be
closely tied to an organization’sN
strategic objectives and therefore provide a more critical measure
of performance—as well as more
Dvaluable feedback for employees in their careers. A competencybased performance management program can take a tremendous amount of time to establish,
must be communicated clearly R
to employees, and should also tie in with the organization’s reward
structure. A recent survey conducted
A by the Society for Human Resource Management found that
69 percent of employers utilize organization-wide competency models and 61 percent have developed organization-wide competency models, which allow variation in competencies by job level.10
Core competencies should be limited in number to those most central to the organization’s suc1
cess, and corresponding opportunities should be established by which employees can obtain and
build on these competencies. Exhibit
1 10.5 presents a sample competency model for managers that
cuts across organization size and industry.
Competency-Based Performance
and Development at Capital One
Capital One, one of the world’s fastest growing consumer credit companies, utilizes a
competency-based performance management system, known as the Success Profile, which is
designed to support the organization’s strategy and long-term growth objectives. The Success
Profile is designed to provide specific measurable performance feedback as well as to allow
employees to plan their own professional development activities. The Success Profile contains
23 competencies that are seen as critical to the mission and objectives of Capital One. These
competencies are grouped together into five access factors, as illustrated in Exhibit 10.6. Each
competency is measured on a behavioral-based rating scale containing up to four stages.
Employees receive detailed performance feedback and work with their managers to develop
a personal development plan for the future.
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
458 | Part 2
Implementation of Strategic Human Resource Management
behavior items for a questionnaire is usually influenced by
preconceptions about effective leadership or the desire to
develop a measure of key behaviors in a leadership theory.
The sample of respondents is seldom systematic, and the
accuracy of most behavior questionnaires is seriously reduced
by respondent biases and attributions. Finally, the basic
assumptions of factor analysis (high correlation among
examples from the same category) do not apply very well
when a behavior category includes several alternative ways
to achieve the same objective and a leader needs to use only
one or two of them. The limitations of this method may help
to explain the substantial differences among leader behavior
Another common method for identifying distinct
behavior categories is to have subject matter experts sort
behavior descriptions into categories based on similarity of
purpose and content, but this method also has limitations.
The selection of categories may be biased by prior assumptions and implicit leadership theories, and disagreements
among subject matter experts are not easily resolved. A
behavior taxonomy is more likely to be useful if it is based
on multiple methods and is supported by research on the
antecedents and outcomes of the behaviors.
From 1950 to 1980 most of the research on leadership
behavior was focused on explaining how leaders influence the
attitudes and performance of individual subordinates. In the
early survey research, factor analysis of leadership behavior
questionnaires found support for two broadly defined behavior categories involving task-oriented and relations-oriented
behaviors. Different labels were used for these metacategories, including initiating structure and consideration
(Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957), productioncentered and employee-centered leadership (Likert, 1961),
instrumental and supportive leadership (House, 1971), and
performance and maintenance behavior (Misumi & Peterson,
1985). The specific behaviors defining the two metacategories varied somewhat from one taxonomy to another,
and some relevant behaviors were not adequately represented
in any of these taxonomies. Finding the two meta-categories
was a good start, but researchers failed to conduct systematic
follow-up research to build on the initial discoveries.
Leadership behaviors directly concerned with encouraging and facilitating change did not get much attention in the
early leadership research. Change behaviors are more relevant for executives than for the low-level leaders studied in
much of the early research, and they are more important for
the dynamic, uncertain environments that have become so
common for organizations in recent decades. In the 1980s
one or two specific change-oriented behaviors were included
in questionnaires used to measure charismatic and transformational leadership, but leading change was still not explicitly recognized as a distinct meta-category. Researchers in
Sweden and the United States (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991;
Yukl, 1999; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002) eventually found
evidence for the construct validity of a leading-change metacategory. The classification of change-oriented behavior as a
distinct and meaningful meta-category provided important
new insights about effective leadership.
In most of the early research on leadership behavior the
focus was on describing how leaders influence subordinates
and internal activities in the work unit. Leader behavior
descriptions were usually obtained from subordinates who
had little opportunity to observe their leaders interacting
with people outside the work unit. Thus, it is not surprising
that few leadership studies examined external (“boundaryspanning”) behavior, and only a few leader behavior taxoG included any external behaviors (e.g., Stogdill,
A & Day, 1962). However, in the late 1970s and early
1980s, descriptive research on managers found that it is
to influence bosses, peers, and outsiders as well
as subordinates (Kaplan, 1984; Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg,
1973), and later research on teams found that boundaryspanning
behavior is important for effective team perforS
mance (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Joshi, Pandey, &
, 2009; Marrone, 2010). The importance and uniqueness
of external leadership behavior provides justification for classifying it as a separate meta-category.
Behavior Taxonomy
The hierarchical taxonomy proposed in this article describes
behaviors used to influence the performance of a
D work unit, or organization. The four meta-categories
and their component behaviors are shown in Table 1. Each
has a different primary objective, but the
determinants of performance. For
task-oriented behavior the primary objective is to accomplish
work in an efficient and reliable way. For relations-oriented
behavior the primary objective is to increase the quality of
human resources and relations, which is sometimes called
1 capital.” For change-oriented behavior the primary
objectives are to increase innovation, collective learning, and
to the external environment. For external leadership
the primary objectives are to acquire necessary
information and resources, and to promote and defend the
T of the team or organization. In addition to these
differences in primary objectives, each meta-category
includes unique specific behaviors for achieving the objectives. The relevance of each component behavior depends
on aspects of the situation, and the effect is not always positive for the primary objective or for other outcomes.
The proposed taxonomy builds on the extensive factor
analysis research by Yukl and colleagues (2002), and it also
reflects findings in other taxonomic research linking specific
behaviors to the performance of a team or organization. The
three meta-categories in the Yukl and colleagues (2002)
taxonomy were retained, but another component on
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
460 | Part 2

Implementation of Strategic Human Resource Management
effective leadership is cited. The research includes studies on
dyadic, group, and organizational leadership. Most studies
examined effects of behavior by individual leaders and
included an independent source of information about leadership effectiveness, such as ratings by superiors or objective
performance measures.
Task-Oriented Behaviors
As noted earlier, the primary purpose of task-oriented behaviors is to ensure that people, equipment, and other resources
are used in an efficient way to accomplish the mission of a
group or organization. Specific component behaviors include
planning and organizing work-unit activities, clarifying roles
and objectives, monitoring work-unit operations, and resolving work-related problems.
This broadly defined behavior includes making
decisions about objectives and priorities, organizing work,
assigning responsibilities, scheduling activities, and allocating
resources among different activities. More specifically, activity planning involves scheduling activities and assigning tasks
in a way that will accomplish task objectives and avoid
delays, duplication of effort, and wasted resources. Project
planning includes identifying essential action steps; determining an appropriate sequence and schedule for them;
deciding who should do each action step; and determining
what supplies, equipment, and other resources are necessary.
The planning often requires information provided by other
people such as subordinates, peers, bosses, and outsiders.
Negative forms of this behavior include making plans that
are superficial or unrealistic. Several types of research provide
evidence that planning can enhance a leader’s effectiveness,
including survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper,
1991; Shipper & Dillard, 2000; Shipper & Wilson, 1992;
Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990), incident and diary studies
(e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Morse & Wagner, 1978;
Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), and multiple-case studies (e.g., Kotter,
1982; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986).
Clarifying Leaders use clarifying to ensure that people
understand what to do, how to do it, and the expected results.
Clarifying includes explaining work responsibilities; assigning
tasks; communicating objectives, priorities, and deadlines;
setting performance standards; and explaining any relevant
rules, policies, and standard procedures. Setting clear, specific, and challenging but realistic goals usually improves performance by a group (Locke & Latham, 1990). Negative
forms of clarifying include failing to provide clear assignments, setting vague or easy goals, providing inconsistent
instructions that create role ambiguity, and giving excessively
detailed directions (micromanaging). Evidence that clarifying
can enhance leadership effectiveness is provided by survey
studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper, 1991; Shipper &
Dillard, 2000; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl & Kanuk,
1979; Yukl et al., 1990), incident and diary studies (e.g.,
Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Yukl & Van
Fleet, 1982), comparative case studies (e.g., Van Fleet &
Yukl, 1986), an executive team simulation study (Zalatan,
2005), a laboratory experiment (Kirkpatrick & Locke,
1996), and field experiments (Latham & Baldes, 1975;
Latham & Yukl, 1976).
Monitoring Leaders use monitoring to assess whether people
are carrying out their assigned tasks, the work is progressing
as planned, and tasks are being performed adequately. Information gathered from monitoring is used to identify proG and opportunities and to determine if changes are
A in plans and procedures. Information from monitoring can also be used to guide the use of relations-oriented
such as praise or coaching. There are many different ways to monitor operations, including directly observing
activities, examining recorded activities or communications,
S information systems, examining required reports, and
holding performance review sessions. Negative examples
types of monitoring that are intrusive, excessive,
superficial, or irrelevant. Evidence that monitoring can
improve leadership effectiveness is provided by survey studies
D Kim & Yukl, 1995; Wang, Tsui, & Xin, 2011; Yukl et al.,
1990), studies using direct observation or diaries (e.g., Amabile
et al , 2004; Brewer, Wilson, & Beck, 1994; Komaki, 1986),
case studies (e.g., Peters & Austin, 1975; Van
Fleet & Yukl, 1986), and a laboratory experiment (Larson &
N 1990).
Leaders use problem solving to deal with
of normal operations and member behavior that
is A
illegal, destructive, or unsafe. Serious disruptions of the
work usually require leadership intervention, and other
Problem Solving
terms for problem solving include “crisis management” and
“disturbance handling.” Effective leaders try to quickly iden1
tify the cause of the problem, and they provide firm, confident
1 direction to their team or work unit as they cope with
the problem. It is important to recognize the difference
2 operational problems that can be resolved quickly
3 complex problems likely to require change-oriented
behaviors and involvement by other leaders. Problem solving
T includes disciplinary actions in response to destructive,
dangerous, or illegal behavior by members of the work unit
(e.g., theft, sabotage, violation of safety regulations, falsification of records). Problem solving can be proactive as well as
reactive, and effective leaders take the initiative to identify
likely problems and determine how to avoid them or minimize their adverse effects. Many things can be done to prepare the work unit or organization to respond effectively to
predictable types of disruptions such as accidents, equipment
failures, natural disasters, health emergencies, supply
shortages, computer hacking, and terrorist attacks. Negative
forms of problem solving include ignoring signs of a serious
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
problem, making a hasty response before identifying the
cause of the problem, discouraging useful input from subordinates, and reacting in ways that create more serious problems. Evidence that problem solving is related to leadership
effectiveness is provided by survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl,
1995; Morgeson, 2005; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982; Yukl et al.,
1990), studies using critical incidents or diaries (e.g., Amabile
et al., 2004; Boyatzis, 1982; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), and
comparative case studies (e.g., Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986).
Relations-Oriented Behaviors
Leaders use relations-oriented behaviors to enhance member
skills, the leader–member relationship, identification with the
work unit or organization, and commitment to the mission.
Specific component behaviors include supporting, developT
ing, recognizing, and empowering.
Supporting Leaders use supporting to show positive regard,
build cooperative relationships, and help people cope with
stressful situations. Examples include showing concern for
the needs and feelings of individual team members, listening
carefully when a member is worried or upset, providing supD
port and encouragement when there is a difficult or stressful
task, and expressing confidence that someone can perform a
difficult task. Supporting also includes encouraging cooperation and mutual trust and mediating conflicts among suborA
dinates. A significant relationship between supporting and
leadership effectiveness was found in survey studies (e.g.,
Dorfman, Howell, Cotton, & Tate, 1992; Kim & Yukl, 1995;
McDonough & Barczak, 1991; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982; Yukl
et al., 1990), in studies using incidents or diaries (e.g., Amabile
et al., 2004; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Yukl & Van Fleet,
1982), and in a laboratory experiment (Gilmore, Beehr, &
Richter, 1979). Negative forms of supporting include hostile,
abusive behavior. Research on abusive supervision finds that
it reduces trust, elicits resentment, and invites retaliation
(Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000).
Leaders use developing to increase the skills
and confidence of work-unit members and to facilitate
their career advancement. Examples of developing include
providing helpful career advice, informing people about relevant training opportunities, making assignments that allow
learning from experience, providing developmental coaching when it is needed, asking a group member to provide
instruction to a new member, arranging practice sessions or
simulations to help members improve their skills, and providing opportunities to apply new skills on the job. Developing is mostly done with a subordinate or team, but some
aspects may be used with a colleague or an inexperienced
new boss. A positive relationship between developing subordinate skills and indicators of leadership effectiveness was
found in survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Yukl et al.,
Performance Management and Feedback | 461
1990), in research using critical incidents and interviews
(e.g., Morse & Wagner, 1978), in comparative case studies
(e.g., Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Edmondson, 2003b; Peters &
Austin, 1985), and in an experiment (Tannenbaum, SmithJentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 1998).
Leaders use praise and other forms of recognition to show appreciation to others for effective performance,
significant achievements, and important contributions to the
team or organization. Recognizing may involve an award presented in a ceremony, or the leader’s recommendation for a
tangible reward such as a pay increase or bonus. Effective
leaders are proactive in looking for things that deserve recognition, and they provide recognition that is sincere, specific,
and timely. Negative examples include providing excessive
recognition for trivial achievements, failing to recognize an
important contribution, and taking credit for another person’s ideas or achievements. Evidence for the positive effects
of praise and recognition on subordinate performance is provided by survey research (e.g., Kim & Yukl, 1995; Shipper,
1991; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl & Kanuk, 1979),
research with incidents or diaries (e.g., Amabile et al., 2004;
Atwater, Dionne, Avolio, Camobreco, & Lau, 1996), and
descriptive case studies (e.g., Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Peters
& Waterman, 1982). A field experiment found that increased
use of praise by supervisors improved performance by
employees (Wikoff, Anderson, & Crowell, 1983).
Leaders can empower subordinates by giving
them more autonomy and influence over decisions about
the work. One empowering decision procedure called consultation includes asking other people for ideas and suggestions
and taking them into consideration when making a decision.
An even stronger empowering decision procedure called delegation involves giving an individual or group the authority
to make decisions formerly made by the leader. When used
in appropriate ways, empowerment can increase decision
quality, decision acceptance, job satisfaction, and skill development (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Yukl, in press). Ineffective
forms of the behavior include using the supposedly empowering decision procedures in a way that allows no real influence, and giving too much autonomy or influence to people
who are unable or unwilling to make good decisions.
The term “participative leadership” is sometimes used
to describe extensive use of empowering decision procedures, and many studies have assessed the effects on subordinate attitudes and performance. Meta-analyses of this
research found a weak positive relationship with leadership
effectiveness (e.g., Miller & Monge, 1986; Spector, 1986;
Wagner & Gooding, 1987). Stronger evidence that specific
empowering decision procedures are related to leadership
effectiveness has been provided by survey studies that measured a leader’s use of consultation and delegation (e.g., Kim &
Yukl, 1995; Shipper & Wilson, 1992; Yukl et al., 1990), by
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
462 | Part 2
Implementation of Strategic Human Resource Management
research with critical incidents and diaries (e.g., Amabile
and colleagues, 2004; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), by comparative case studies (e.g., Bradford & Cohen, 1984;
Edmondson, 2003b; Kanter, 1983; Leana, 1986), and by
field experiments (Bragg & Andrews, 1973; Coch & French,
1948; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995).
Change-Oriented Behaviors
Leaders use change-oriented behaviors to increase innovation, collective learning, and adaptation to external changes.
Specific component behaviors include advocating change,
articulating an inspiring vision, encouraging innovation,
and encouraging collective learning. The first two component
behaviors emphasize leader initiation and encouragement of
change, whereas the second two component behaviors
emphasize leader facilitation of emergent change processes.
Explaining why change is urgently
needed is a key leadership behavior in theories of change
management (e.g., Kotter, 1996; Nadler et al., 1995). When
changes in the environment are gradual and no obvious crisis
has occurred, people may fail to recognize emerging threats
or opportunities. Leaders can provide information showing
how similar work units or competitors have better performance. Leaders can explain the undesirable outcomes that
are likely to occur if emerging problems are ignored or new
opportunities are exploited by competitors. Influencing people to accept the need for change involves increasing their
awareness of problems without creating an excessive level of
distress that causes either denial of the problem or acceptance
of easy but ineffective solutions (Heifetz, 1994). Resistance to
change is common in organizations, and courage is required
to persistently push for it when the leader’s career is at risk. It
is easier to gain support for making innovative changes when
a leader can frame unfavorable events as an opportunity
rather than a threat. The leader can propose a strategy for
responding to a threat or opportunity, but involving people
with relevant expertise usually results in a better strategy and
more commitment to implement it. Negative forms of the
behavior include advocating a costly major change when
only incremental adjustments are necessary (McClelland,
Liang, & Barker, 2009), or advocating acceptance of a costly
new initiative without considering the serious risks and
obstacles (Finkelstein, 2003). Evidence that advocating relevant change is related to effective leadership is provided by
comparative case studies (e.g., Beer, 1988; Edmondson,
2003b; Heifetz, 1994; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Tichy &
Devanna, 1986) and by an experiment using a simulated
team task (Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000).
Advocating Change
Envisioning Change An effective way for leaders to build
commitment to new strategies and initiatives is to articulate a
clear, appealing vision of what can be attained by the work unit
or organization. A vision will be more inspiring and motivating
if it is relevant to the values, ideals, and needs of followers and
is communicated with colorful, emotional language (e.g., vivid
imagery, metaphors, stories, symbols, and slogans). An ambitious, innovative vision is usually risky, and members of the
team or organization are more likely to accept it if the leader
can build confidence that they will be successful (Nadler,
1988). However, an appealing vision based on false assumptions and wishful thinking can divert attention from innovative
solutions that are more likely to be successful (Mumford, Scott,
Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Consistently pursuing a risky and
unrealistic vision is a major reason for serious performance
G in organizations with a charismatic leader (Finkelstein,
A Evidence that articulating an appealing and inspiring
vision is relevant for effective leadership is provided by survey
T (e.g., Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998; Elenkov, Judge,
& Wright, 2005; Keller, 2006; Kim & Yukl, 1995; Wang, Tsui,
& Xin, 2011; Yukl et al., 1990), comparative case studies (e.g.,
S & Nanus, 1985; Emrich, Brower, Feldman, & Garland,
2001; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Roberts, 1985; Tichy & Devanna,
, and laboratory experiments (e.g., Awamleh & Gardner,
1999; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).
There are many ways leaders can
encourage, nurture, and facilitate creative ideas and innovaE
tion in a team or organization. Other terms that describe
A of this behavior include “intellectual stimulation”
and “encouraging innovative thinking.” Leaders can encourNpeople to look at problems from different perspectives, to
D outside the box when solving problems, to experiment
with new ideas, and to find ideas in other fields that can be
R to their current problem or task. By creating a cliapplied
mate of psychological safety and mutual trust, a leader can
encourage members of the team or organization to suggest
novel ideas. Leaders can also help to create an organizational
culture that values creativity and entrepreneurial activities,
1 can provide opportunities and resources to develop
1 products or services, and they can serve as champions
or sponsors for acceptance of innovative proposals. Evidence
2 this type of change behavior to indicators of effective
leadership is provided by survey studies (e.g., Bass & Yam3
marino, 1991; Elenkov, Judge, & Wright, 2005; Howell &
T 1993; Keller, 2006; Waldman, Javidan, & Varella,
2004; Zhu, Chew & Spangler, 2005), comparative case studies
S Edmondson, 2003b; Eisenhardt, 1989; Kanter, 1983;
Peters & Austin, 1985), a laboratory experiment (Redmond,
Mumford, & Teach, 1993), and a field experiment (Barling,
Weber, & Kelloway, 1996).
Encouraging Innovation
Facilitating Collective Learning There are many ways leaders
can encourage and facilitate collective learning of new knowledge relevant for improving the performance of a group or
organization (Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin, & Keller,
2006; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). Collective learning may
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
involve improvement of current strategies and work methods
(exploitation) or discovery of new ones (exploration). Leaders
can support internal activities used to discover new knowledge (e.g., research projects, small-scale experiments) or
activities to acquire new knowledge from external sources.
Leaders can use practices that facilitate learning by an operations team (e.g., after-activity reviews, benchmarking) or a
project development team (e.g., providing resources and
opportunity to test new ideas). By helping to create a climate
of psychological safety, leaders can increase learning from
mistakes and failures. To enhance collective learning from
both successes and failures, leaders must avoid common tenG
dencies to misinterpret causes and over-generalize implications (Baumard & Starbuck, 2005). Leaders can help their
teams to better recognize failures, analyze their causes, and
identify remedies to avoid a future recurrence (Cannon &
Edmondson, 2005). Leaders can also influence how new
knowledge or a new technology is diffused and applied by
explaining why it is important, guiding the process of learnS
ing how to use it, and encouraging the use of knowledge,
sharing programs. Leaders can help people develop a better
understanding about the determinants of organizational
performance. More accurate, shared mental models will
improve strategic decisions and organizational performance.
Evidence that facilitating collective learning is related to
effective leadership is provided by comparative case studies
(e.g., Baumard & Starbuck, 2005; Beer, 1988; Edmondson,
1999; Edmondson 2002, 2003a) and by experiments with
teams (e.g., Ellis, Mendel, & Nir, 2006; Tannenbaum, SmithJentsch, & Behson, 1998).
External Leadership Behaviors
In addition to influencing internal events in the work unit,
most leaders can facilitate performance with behaviors that
provide relevant information about outside events, get necessary resources and assistance, and promote the reputa1
tion and interests of the work unit. Three distinct external
behaviors include networking, external monitoring, and
It is important for most leaders to build and
maintain favorable relationships with peers, superiors, and
outsiders who can provide information, resources, and political
support (Ibarra & Hunter, 2007; Kaplan, 1984; Kotter, 1982;
Michael & Yukl, 1973). Networking includes attending meetings, professional conferences, and ceremonies; joining relevant associations, clubs, and social networks; socializing
informally or communicating with network members; and
using relationship-building tactics (e.g., finding common interests, doing favors, using ingratiation). In addition to developing their own networks, leaders can encourage relevant
networking by subordinates. Networking is a source of information that facilitates other leadership behaviors, but there are
potential costs if it is overdone (e.g., time demands, role
Performance Management and Feedback | 463
conflicts). Evidence that networking can facilitate leadership
effectiveness is provided by survey studies (e.g., Kim & Yukl,
1995; Yukl et al., 1990); studies with incident diaries, interviews, or observation (e.g., Amabile et al., 2004; Ancona &
Caldwell, 1992; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Luthans, Rosenkrantz, & Hennessey, 1985); and comparative case studies
(e.g., Katz & Tushman, 1983; Tushman & Katz, 1980).
External Monitoring This external behavior includes analyzing information about relevant events and changes in the
external environment and identifying threats and opportunities for the leader’s group or organization. Information
may be acquired from the leader’s network of contacts with
outsiders, by studying relevant publications and industry
reports, by conducting market research, and by studying the
decisions and actions of competitors and opponents. Other
terms for external monitoring are “environmental scanning”
or “scouting.” The extent to which top executives accurately
perceive the external environment of their organization is
related to financial performance (Bourgeois, 1985), and it is
more important when the environment is dynamic and competitive. For a team or work unit in an organization, the
importance of external monitoring depends on how much
their performance is likely to be affected by external events.
Likewise, the need to closely monitor events in other subunits
is determined by dependence on them. Evidence that external
monitoring is related to indicators of effective leadership is
provided by survey research (Dollinger, 1984), research with
critical incidents and diaries (e.g., Druskat & Wheeler, 2003;
Katz & Tushman, 1981; Luthans et al., 1985), research with
comparative cases (e.g., Geletkanycz & Hambrick, 1997;
Grinyer, Mayes, & McKiernan, 1990; Van Fleet & Yukl,
1986), and a study using an executive team simulation
(Zalatan, 2005).
Representing Leaders usually represent their team or organization in transactions with superiors, peers, and outsiders
(e.g., clients, suppliers, investors, and joint venture partners).
Representing includes lobbying for resources and assistance,
promoting and defending the reputation of the team or organization, negotiating agreements, and coordinating related
activities. Other terms used to describe this type of leadership
responsibility include “promoter,” “ambassador,” and “external coordinator.” Leaders of project teams have more successful projects when they have sufficient influence to
obtain essential resources and support from top management
(Katz & Allen, 1985). For work units that have high interdependence with other subunits of the organization or with
outsiders such as suppliers, clients, and distributors, it is
important for the leaders to coordinate activities, resolve disagreements, and buffer work-unit members from interference
(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Top executives need to influence
external stakeholders whose confidence and support are
important to the success and survival of the organization
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
464 | Part 2
Implementation of Strategic Human Resource Management
(Fanelli & Misangyi, 2006). Representing also includes some
political tactics that can be used to influence decisions relevant for a leader’s work unit or organization, but research on
the use of political tactics by leaders in organizations is still
very limited. Evidence that representing is related to effective
leadership is provided by research using survey questionnaires (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Dorfman, Howell,
Cotton, & Tate, 1992; Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990),
research with incident diaries and interviews (e.g., Amabile
et al., 2004; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Campbell, Dunnette,
Arvey, & Hellervik, 1973; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), and
comparative case studies (e.g , Ancona & Caldwell, 1992;
Edmondson, 2003b; Kanter, 1983; Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986).
Future Research
Much of the research on effects of leader behavior has examined how often the behavior is used, but the effects also
depend on other conditions that are seldom considered. To
improve leadership theory and practice we need to know
more about how much the behaviors are used, when they are
used, how well they are used, why they are used, who uses
them, the context for their use, and joint effects on different
outcomes. This part of the article explains the need for more
research on the quality and timing of behavior, patterns of
behavior, leader skills, leader values, trade-offs for multiple
outcomes, situational variables, the joint effects of multiple leaders, and the joint effects of behavior and formal programs.
Quality and Timing of Behavior
Most leader behavior studies emphasize how much the behavior is used rather than how well it is used. Few studies have
examined the quality and timing of the behavior or checked
the possibility of a non-linear relationship between behavior
and the performance criterion. There is growing evidence
that most types of leadership behavior can be overused as
well as underused, and the optimal amount of behavior is
often a moderate amount rather than the maximum amount
(e.g., Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Gebert, Boerner, & Lanwehr,
2003; Pierce & Aguinis, in press). For example, too much clarifying can limit innovation, empowerment of subordinates,
and development of their problem-solving skills, but too
much autonomy can result in coordination problems, lower
efficiency, and inconsistent treatment of clients. Even when
doing more of a behavior does not reduce the benefits or
have negative side effects, spending more time than necessary
on a behavior means that the leader is losing the opportunity
to use more beneficial types of behavior.
Timing is often a critical determinant of effectiveness for
a behavior, and acting too early or too late can reduce the
effectiveness of many behaviors. For example, taking action
to avoid a problem or resolve it quickly is usually more effective than waiting until the problem becomes very serious and
difficult to resolve. Praise for an achievement or contribution
is usually more effective when it is given promptly rather
than waiting months to mention it in a formal performance
review. Research is needed to identify optimal levels of the
behaviors and when the behaviors are most likely to be
Patterns of Behavior
In most research on the effects of leader behavior the focus is
on the independent effects of each meta-category or individual behavior, but in many cases the effects depend in part on
what other behaviors the leader uses. To understand why a
leader is effective requires that we examine how different
G interact in a mutually consistent way. The effective
pattern of behavior may involve multiple components of the
same meta-category or component behaviors from different
For example, monitoring operations is useT
ful for discovering problems, but unless something is done to
E the problems, monitoring will not contribute to leader
Monitoring is more effective when used
together with other behaviors such as problem solving,
and recognizing.
The descriptive research on effective leaders suggests
that they use complementary behaviors woven together into
complex tapestry, and the whole is greater than the sum of
the parts (Kaplan, 1988). Similar results were found in
E using incident diaries from team members (Amabile
al., 2004). The pattern of specific component behaviors is
usually more important than how much each behavior is
N and more than one pattern of behavior may be used
accomplish the same outcome. Sometimes it is necessary
for a leader to find an appropriate balance for behaviors that
R inconsistent, such as directing versus empowering
(Kaiser & Overfield, 2010). More research is needed to deterA
mine how interacting behaviors are used effectively by leaders
in different situations.
Outcomes and Trade-Offs
type of leadership behavior can influence more
than one type of outcome or performance determinant. For
developing is classified as a relations-oriented
the primary objective is usually to help peo3
ple improve their capabilities and advance their careers. But
T types of developing are used to improve performance in
the current job (a task objective) or facilitate the successful
use of an innovative new technology (a change objective).
Consulting with team members about the action plan for a
new project may increase member commitment (human relations), improve the use of available personnel and resources
(efficiency), and identify more innovative ways to satisfy clients (adaptation).
Specific behaviors with positive outcomes for more than
one objective are desirable and can increase a leader’s effectiveness. However, some leader behaviors have unintended side
effects that are negative rather than positive. A behavior can
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
have positive effects for some outcomes and negative effects
for other outcomes. For example, delegating responsibility for
determining how to do a task to someone with little experience
may increase learning for the person, but it can reduce shortterm efficiency (e.g., more errors, slower task completion,
lower quality). Some decisions intended to benefit employees
(e.g., increasing pay and benefits) may increase costs and
reduce short-term financial performance. Some decisions
intended to reduce costs can reduce human relations and
resources (i.e., downsizing can result in less commitment for
remaining employees and loss of unique knowledge). Some
decisions made to reduce costs (e.g., reducing research activiG
ties, outsourcing operations that involve unique knowledge)
can also reduce future adaptation. The trade-offs for different
outcomes are described by leadership theories such as competT
ing values theory (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) and flexible
leadership theory (Yukl, 2008). More research is needed to
discover how effective leaders use specific behaviors that
enhance multiple outcomes, minimize negative side effects,
and balance difficult trade-offs.
Situational Variables
The effects of a leader’s behavior also depend on the situation.
Each meta-category includes behaviors that are often relevant
for influencing performance outcomes, but aspects of the situE
ation determine which component behaviors are relevant.
Effective leaders analyze the situation and identify the specific
behaviors that are relevant. The ability to use a wide range of
specific behaviors and adapt them to the situation is sometimes called “behavioral flexibility,” and it is related to effective
leadership (Hart & Quinn, 1993; Hooijberg, 1996; Yukl &
Mahsud, 2010). Unfortunately, most studies on situational
moderator variables have used behavior meta-categories, and
the results are weaker and more difficult to interpret for a
broad category than for specific behaviors. For example, the
research testing contingency theories about the effects of
task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors failed to find
strong, consistent results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, &
Bommer, 1995). There has been less research on situational
moderators for the other meta-categories, and there is little
systematic research to identify situations where specific leader3
ship behaviors are most likely to impact performance outT
comes. More research is needed to learn how leaders adapt
their behavior to changing situations and to assess the imporS
tance of behavioral flexibility for different types of leaders. The
common practice of examining one situational variable at a
time is less useful than examining how the situational variables
that define common situations for leaders jointly determine
which behaviors are most relevant.
Leader Skills
Skills involve the ability to perform some type of activity or
task, and some studies on effective leadership use skills rather
than observable behaviors as the independent variables.
Performance Management and Feedback | 465
Different taxonomies have been proposed for classifying
skills, and some scholars define them more broadly than
others. The early research identified three broadly defined
skills (Katz, 1955; Mann, 1965): Technical skills are primarily
concerned with things, interpersonal skills are primarily concerned with people, and conceptual skills are primarily concerned with ideas and concepts. Other types of skills that
have been used in leadership research include political skills
(Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas, & Lux, 2007),
administrative skills, and competencies involving the ability
to use specific types of behavior such as planning and coaching (e.g., Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007). Skills are
not equivalent to actual behavior, but they can help us understand why some leaders are able to select relevant behaviors
and use them more effectively. A combination of skills and
traits can help to explain why some leaders are able to recognize what pattern of behavior is relevant, how much of each
behavior is optimal, and when to use the behaviors. The
research on how skills can enhance the effects of leader
behavior is still very limited, and more studies are needed
to discover how a leader’s skills and personality traits influence the choice of behaviors and leader flexibility in adapting
behavior to different situations.
Leader Values and Integrity
The effects of the specific component behaviors also depend
on how much the leader is trusted by people he or she wants
to influence. Most types of leadership behavior can be used in
ethical or unethical ways, and a leader who is not trusted will
have less influence. Leader values and integrity did not get
much attention in the early research on effective leadership,
but interest in them has increased in recent years (Brown &
Trevino, 2006). Values such as honesty, altruism, compassion, fairness, courage, and humility are emphasized in servant leadership theory (Greenleaf, 1970), spiritual leadership
theory (Fry, 2003), and authentic leadership theory (Avolio,
Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & Mayo, 2004; George, 2003).
Proponents of these theories contend that leaders whose
behavior reflects these values will be more effective. However,
research on these subjects is still very limited, and more studies are needed to understand how leader values influence the
use of the specific behaviors and the effects of the behaviors.
Multiple Leaders and Shared Leadership
Most of the research on the outcomes of leadership behavior
examines relationships only for individual leaders. However,
organizations have many leaders who can influence important decisions and determine how successfully they are
implemented (Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Theoret, 1976;
Schweiger, Anderson, & Locke, 1985). Sometimes two or
more leaders have shared responsibility for an activity or
project, and sometimes leaders have different but interdependent responsibilities. The performance of an organization
depends in part on the level of cooperation and coordination
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
466 | Part 2
Implementation of Strategic Human Resource Management
among interdependent leaders (Yukl, 2008; Yukl & Lepsinger,
2004). It is more difficult to achieve a high level of cooperation when the leaders do not share the same objectives or
have the same priorities. In some cases, one leader’s actions
to improve subunit performance can be detrimental to the
performance of other subunits and the overall organization.
For example, a subunit leader may gain control of resources
that other subunits need and could use more effectively. Several scholars have discussed how shared or distributed leadership is related to team or organizational effectiveness (e.g.,
Brown & Gioia, 2002; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007;
Denis, Lamothe, & Langley, 2001; Friedrich, Vessey,
Schuelke, Ruark, & Mumford, 2009; Pearce & Conger,
2003). However, more research is needed to discover how
the use of the specific behaviors by different leaders can influence their effectiveness.
Behaviors and Formal Programs
Management programs and systems can enhance the effects
of direct leadership behaviors. For example, encouraging
innovative thinking is more likely to increase innovation
when an organization has a climate of psychological safety
for risk taking and appropriate rewards for creative ideas
about improving products and processes. Programs and
structures can also limit the use of leadership behaviors or
nullify their effects. For example, it is difficult to empower
subordinates when they must follow elaborate rules and standard procedures for doing the work. Management programs
and systems can also serve as substitutes for some types of
direct behaviors. For example, company-wide training programs for widely relevant skills can reduce the amount of
training that managers need to give their immediate subordinates. Top executives have responsibility for implementing
and revising programs, and the effectiveness of programs
depends on support by lower-level managers. The effects of
leader behavior and management programs have been examined separately, but more systematic research is needed to
examine their joint and interacting effects on organizational
Summary and Recommendations
The proposed hierarchical taxonomy facilitates the integration of important findings in research on leader behavior
constructs and research about the effects of specific behaviors on team or organizational performance. More than
half a century of research provides support for the conclusion that leaders can enhance the performance of a team,
work unit, or organization by using a combination of specific task, relations, change, and external behaviors that are
relevant for their situation. Why the behaviors are important for effective leadership is explained better by theories
about the determinants of group and organizational performance than by leadership theories focused on motivating
individual followers. A limitation of the conclusions about
effective leadership is that enhancing performance is not the
only basis for evaluating effectiveness, and the importance
accorded different criteria affects the selection of relevant
behaviors for a taxonomy.
The hierarchical taxonomy can be used to explain
results found in the extensive research on behavior metacategories not used in the taxonomy, such as transformational and transactional leadership. The results found in survey research on transformational leadership can be explained
as effects of specific behaviors used to compute the composite
score for each leader (e.g., Yukl, 1999; Yukl, O’Donnell, &
G 2009). Individualized consideration includes supportTaber,
Aand developing, inspirational motivation includes envisioning change, and intellectual stimulation includes aspects
ofTencouraging innovation. Idealized influence is primarily a
measure of perceived leader integrity involving consistency
between leader actions and espoused values. Transactional
includes one task-oriented behavior (monitoring),
one relations-oriented behavior (recognizing), and communi, of reward contingencies, which are usually specified by
the formal compensation program.
The taxonomy described in this article should not be
D as the final solution for classifying leadership behavior.
Behavior constructs are conceptual tools, and there is no
objective reality for them. They are most useful when they
A be measured accurately, they can predict and explain
leader influence on important outcomes, and they can improve
development programs. Future research may discover
D additional component behaviors that should be included
(e.g., implementing change). Some component behaviors may
R to be expanded to include forms of the behavior not
A included in the current descriptions. Some of the
broader component behaviors in the current taxonomy may
need to be subdivided in the future if it is found that narrower
components would provide a better explanation of leadership
However, at this time it does not appear worthwhile
the taxonomy any more complex. The current
version is easy to remember and easy to use for developing an
checklist or a coding guide (the behavior definitions
in the appendix).
3 Future research
may also provide justification for addTmore meta-categories, and a possible candidate is ethical
and socially responsible leadership. One component of this
meta-category could be leadership behavior that encourages
ethical practices. Some examples are communicating ethical
standards, encouraging ethical conduct, modeling ethical
behavior, and opposing unethical conduct. Another component could be leadership behavior that encourages corporate
social responsibility. Examples include making decisions
that consider the needs of different stakeholders, encouraging support of worthy community service activities, encouraging improvements in product safety, and recommending
practices that reduce harmful effects for the environment.
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
Leadership decisions and actions intended to benefit
employees, customers, or the environment are controversial
if they do not also benefit the organization (Cameron, 2011;
Waldman, 2011; Waldman & Siegel, 2008). Research on the
effects of ethical and responsible leadership is still very limited, and more research is needed to identify relevant behaviors and assess their short-term and long-term effects. The
focus of this article is on leadership behaviors intended to
improve performance, and more research is needed to
determine if ethical and responsible leadership should be
included as a separate meta-category in a taxonomy for
describing performance-enhancing behaviors.
The hierarchical taxonomy provides a broad perspective
for understanding the types of behavior that determine how
effective a leader will be, but the specific component behaviors
are much more useful than the meta-categories for developing
better contingency theories and practical guidelines for leaders.
Moderator variables for some of the specific behaviors have
been suggested (Yukl, 2013), but more research is needed on
the joint effects of situational variables. Other relevant condi,
tions that need more attention in future research include nonlinear relationships between behavior and outcomes, reciprocal
causality, lagged effects, effects for different outcomes, effects
of negative forms of the behaviors, effects of different combinations of specific behaviors, mediating processes that explain
why the behaviors influence performance, the joint effects of
multiple leaders, multi-level effects of behaviors, and joint
effects for behaviors and programs.
When designing future studies on leadership it is important to select research methods that are appropriate for the
type of knowledge sought rather than merely using a method
that is familiar or convenient. Each research method has limitations, and it is desirable to use multiple methods whenever
feasible. Strong research methods should be used more often,
including longitudinal field studies and experiments with
manipulation of leader behaviors in simulated teams or orga1
nizations to assess immediate and delayed effects. More studies should include incident diaries or video recording of
leaders. When behavior questionnaires are used, more effort
should be made to improve measurement accuracy and minimize respondent biases (e.g., train respondents to under3
stand and recognize the behaviors). If a survey is conducted
for a sample of homogeneous leaders (e.g., project team managers, coaches of athletic teams, public administrators), it
should include some behavior items that are directly relevant
for the sample rather than relying only on a behavior questionnaire with generic examples. Leadership effectiveness
should be assessed from the perspective of multiple stakeholders and with multiple criteria that include objective measures of work unit or organizational performance.
Finally, it is important to recognize that observable leadership behaviors are not the same as skills, values, personality
traits, or roles. These other constructs can be useful for
understanding effective leadership, but they differ in
Performance Management and Feedback | 467
important ways from observable behaviors. When feasible,
future studies should investigate how the different types of
constructs jointly explain leader influence on work unit performance and other outcomes.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J.
(2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1),
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the
boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,
Atwater, L. E., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., Camobreco, J. F.,
& Lau, A. W. (1996). Leader attributes and behaviors predicting emergence of leader effectiveness (Technical Report
1044). Alexandria, VA. U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining
the components of transformational and transactional
leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72,
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F.,
& Mayo, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the
process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes
and behaviors. 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(3), 345–373.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of
transformational leadership training on attitudinal and
financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 827–832.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (2008). Handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York:
Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self
and others’ leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 40(4), 437–454.
Baum, R. J., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
468 | Part 2
Implementation of Strategic Human Resource Management
to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 43–54.
put failure to work to improve and innovate. Long Range
Planning Journal, 38(3), 299–320.

Baumard, P., & Starbuck, W. H. (2005). Learning from failures:
Why it may not happen. Long Range Planning, 38, 281–298.
Carson, J., Tesluk, P., & Marrone, J. (2007). Shared leadership
in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217–1234.
Beer, M. (1988). The critical path for change: Keys to success
and failure in six companies. In R. H. Kilmann & T. J. Covin
(Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalizing organizations for
a competitive world (pp. 17–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M.,
& Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 17,
Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance
to change. Human Relations, 1, 512–532.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral
theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647.
Blake, R. R , & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid.
Houston: Gulf Publishing.
De Groot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A metaanalysis
A to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative
T 17(4), 356–371.
Bourgeois, L. J. (1985). Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty,
and economic performance in volatile environments. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 548–573.
E J. L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of
S leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 809–837.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager. New York:
John Wiley.
Bradford, D. L , & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for excellence: The guide to developing high performance organizations.
New York: John Wiley.
Bragg, J., & Andrews, I. R. (1973). Participative decision
making: An experimental study in a hospital. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 9, 727–735.
Brewer, N., Wilson, C., & Beck, K. (1994). Supervisory
behavior and team performance amongst police patrol sergeants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 69–78.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A
review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6),
Brown, M. W., & Gioia, D. A. (2002). Making things click:
Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline
organization. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 397–419.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C , Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E.,
& Halpin, S. M. (2006). What types of leadership behaviors
are functional in teams? Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.
Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous
leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 25–35.
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Arvey, R. D., & Hellervik,
L. W. (1973). The development and evaluation of behaviorally
based rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 15–22.
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to learn
and learning to fail (intelligently): How great organizations
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E.
(2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. PerD
sonnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52.
M. J. (1984). Environmental boundary spanning
Ainformation processing effects on organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 351–368.
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Cotton, B. C. G., & Tate, U.
D Leadership within the “discontinuous hierarchy”
structure of the military. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, &
D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 399–416).
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the
boundary: The effective leadership of self-managed work
1 Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 435–457.
A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
Edmondson, A. (2003a). Framing for learning: Lessons in
technology implementation. California ManageT
ment Review, 45(2), 34–54.
Edmondson, A. (2003b). Speaking up in the operating room.
Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419–1452.
Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of
learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13, 128–146.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in
high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576.
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
Performance Management and Feedback | 469
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership:
An extension of the two-dimensional model. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 7, 17–26.
Grinyer, P. H., Mayes, D., & McKiernan, P. (1990). The
sharpbenders: Achieving a sustained improvement in performance. Long Range Planning, 23, 116–125.
Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W., & Wright, P. (2005). Strategic
leadership and executive innovation influence: An international multi-cluster comparative study. Strategic Management
Journal, 26, 665–682.
Halpin, A. W. & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the
leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons
(Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.
Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State
Ellis, S., Mendel, R., & Nir, M. (2006). Learning from successful
and failed experience: The moderating role of kind of afterevent review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 669–680.
Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H.
(2001). Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and
greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 527–557. A
Hart, L. S., & Quinn, E. R. (1993). Roles executives play:
CEOs, behavioral complexity, and firm performance. Human
Relations, 46(5), 543–575.
Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Books of Harvard University Press.
Fanelli, A., & Misangyi, V. F. (2006). Bringing out charisma:
CEO charisma and external stakeholders. Academy of Man-E
agement Review, 31(4), 1049–1061.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). The management of
organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L.,
Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations.
Journal of Management, 33, 290–320.
Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidimensional approach toward
leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations, 49(7), 917–947.
Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail. New York:
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339.
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leader-N
ship behavior related to employee grievances and turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 15, 43–56.
Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark, G. A.,
& Mumford, M. D. (2009). A framework for understanding
collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory
behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1–6.
team expertise within networks. Leadership Quarterly, 20(6),
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Lanwehr, R. (2003). The risks of2
autonomy: Empirical evidence for the necessity of balance in
promoting organizational innovativeness. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 12(1), 41–49.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.
G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp.
189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
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.
Ibarra, H., & Hunter, M. (2007). How leaders create and use
networks. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 40–47.
Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. H. (2009). Bracketing team
boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, teamlevel, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30, 731–759.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative
validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.
Geletkanycz, M. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). The external
ties of top executives: Implications for strategic choice and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 654–681.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten
ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in
leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51.
George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the
secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership
and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2),
Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Richter, D. J. (1979). Effects
of leader behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction: A laboratory experiment with student employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 166–172.
Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2010). Assessing flexible
leadership as a mastery of opposites. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 105–118.
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
470 | Part 2
Implementation of Strategic Human Resource Management
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Kaplan, R. E. (1984). Trade routes: The manager’s network of
relationships. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 37–52.
Kaplan, R. E. (1988). The warp and woof of the general
manager’s job. In F. D. Schoorman & B. Schneider (Eds.),
Facilitating work effectiveness (pp. 183–211). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Katz, R. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard
Business Review, 33–42.
Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1985). Project performance and the
locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 67–87.
Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1981). An investigation into the
managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers and project
supervisors in a major R&D facility. R&D Management, 11,
Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1983). A longitudinal study of
the effects of boundary spanning supervision on turnover and
promotion in research and development. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 437–456.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating
structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study
of research and development project team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202–210.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership:
Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 22, 375–403.
Kim, H , & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of self-reported and
subordinate-reported leadership behaviors to managerial effectiveness and advancement. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361–377.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect
effects of three core charismatic leadership components on
performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 36–51.
Komaki, J. L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71(2), 270–279.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995).
Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic
decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60–84.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change:
Real-life stories of how people change their organizations.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Larson, J. R., & Callahan, C. (1990). Performance monitoring:
How it affects work productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 530–538.
Latham, G. P., & Baldes, J. J. (1975). The “practical significance”
G of Locke’s theory of goal setting. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60, 122–124.
Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1976). Effects of assigned and
goal setting on performance and satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 166–171.
Leana, C. R. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegaS Academy of Management Journal, 29, 754–774.
, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York:
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).
Effectiveness of correlates of transformational and transactional
E leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.
Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Hennessey, H. W. (1985).
N do successful managers really do? An observational
D of managerial activities. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 21, 255–270.
Mann, F. C. (1965). Toward an understanding of the leaderA role in formal organization. In R. Dubin, G. C. Homans,
F. C. Mann, & D. C. Miller (Eds.), Leadership and productivity. San Francisco: Chandler.
1 M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). PerforMarks,
1 implications of leader briefings and team-interaction
training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal
of2Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986.
J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel
review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal
of Management, 36, 911–940.
McClelland, P. L., Liang, X., & Barker, V. L. (2009). CEO
commitment to the status quo: Replication and extension
using content analysis. Journal of Management, 36, 1251–1277.
Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free
McDonough, E. F., & Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding up new
product development: The effects of leadership style and
source of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8, 203–211.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Michael, J., & Yukl, G. (1993). Managerial level and subunit function as determinants of networking behavior in
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
Performance Management and Feedback | 471
organizations. Group and Organization Management, 18,
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (in press). The too-much-of-a-goodthing effect in management. Journal of Management.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of
Management Journal, 29, 727–753.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bommer,
W. H. (1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to
identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviors.
Journal of Management, 21, 423–470.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New
York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The
structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21, 246–275.
Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. (1985). The performancemaintenance (PM) theory of leadership: Review of a Japanese
research program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervi-E
sion and workplace deviance and the moderating effects ofS
negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(4), 1159–1168.
Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of selfmanaged teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disD
ruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497–508.
Morse, J. J., & Wagner, F. R. (1978). Measuring the process of
managerial effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal,A
21, 23–35.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M.
(2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise andD
relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007).
The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements
across organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 154–166.
Nadler, D. A. (1988). Organizational frame bending: Types of
change in the complex organization. In R. H. Kilmann & T. J.
Covin (Eds.), Corporate transformation: Revitalizing organi-1
zations for a competitive world (pp. 66–83). San Francisco: 2
Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B., Walton, A. E., et al. (1995). Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation. T
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership:
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Peters, T. J., & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence: The
leadership difference. New York: Random House.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of
excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New
York: Harper & Row.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning
mechanisms: A structural and cultural approach to organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
34(2), 161–179.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of
effectiveness criteria: Toward a competing values approach to
organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–377.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. J. (1993).
Putting creativity to work: Leader influences on subordinate
creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 55, 120–151.
Schweiger, D. M , Anderson, C. R., & Locke, E. A. (1985).
Complex decision making: A longitudinal study of process
and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36, 245–272.
Shamir, B., House, R J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept
based theory. Organization Science, 4, 1–17.
Shipper, F. (1991). Mastery and frequency of managerial
behaviors relative to subunit effectiveness. Human Relations,
44, 371–388.
Shipper, F., & Dillard, J. E., Jr. (2000). A study of impending
derailment and recovery of middle managers across career
stages. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 331–345.
Shipper, F., & Wilson, C. L. (1992). The impact of managerial
behaviors on group performance, stress, and commitment. In
K. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of
leadership (pp. 119–129). Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A
meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.
Stogdill, R. M., Goode, O. S., & Day, D. R. (1962). New leader
behavior description subscales. Journal of Psychology, 54,
Tannenbaum, S. I., Smith-Jentsch, K., & Behson, S. J. (1998).
Training team leaders to facilitate team learning and performance. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making
decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team
training (pp. 247–270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
472 | Part 2
Implementation of Strategic Human Resource Management
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational
leader. New York: John Wiley.
Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communication
and project performance: An investigation into the role of
gatekeepers. Management Science, 26, 1071–1085.
Van Fleet, D. D., & Yukl, G. (1986). Military leadership: An
organizational perspective. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wagner, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influence and
organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524–541.
Waldman, D. A. (2011). Moving forward with the concept of
responsible leadership: Three caveats to guide theory and
research. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 75–83.
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., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially
responsible leader. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 117–131.
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011).
Transformational leadership and performance across criteria
and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.
Group and Organization Management, 36, 223–270.
Wang, H., Tsui, A. H., & Xin, K. R. (2011). CEO leadership
behaviors, organizational performance, and employee attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 92–105.
Wikoff, M., Anderson, D. C., & Crowell, C. R. (1983).
Behavior management in a factory setting: Increasing work
efficiency. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
4, 97–128.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions
of effective leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 33–48.
Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 708–722.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical
taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century
of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 15–32.
Yukl, G., & Kanuk, L. (1979). Leadership behavior and
effectiveness of beauty salon managers. Personnel Psychology,
32, 663–675.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating
value by balancing multiple challenges and choices. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible, adaptive leadership is important. Consulting Psychology Journal, 62(2), 81–93.
Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2009). Leader behaviors and leader member exchange. Journal of Managerial
24(4), 289–299.
A G., & Van Fleet, D. (1982). Cross-situational, multimethod research on military leader effectiveness. OrganizaT Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 87–108.
E G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report
onSvalidation of the managerial practices survey. In K. E. Clark
& M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 223–238).
, Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Zalatan, K. A. (2005). Inside the black box: Leadership
influence on team effectiveness (Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation). University of Albany School of Business.
E W., Chew, I. K. H , & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO
leadership and organizational outcomes:
The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human
N management. Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 39–52.
Definitions of 15 Specific
Planning: develops short-term plans for the work; determines how to schedule and coordinate activities to use people
1 resources efficiently; determines the action steps and
resources needed to accomplish a project or activity.
clearly explains task assignments and member
responsibilities; sets specific goals and deadlines for impor2
tant aspects of the work; explains priorities for different
explains rules, policies, and standard procedures.
Monitoring: checks on the progress and quality of the work;
relevant sources of information to determine how
S important tasks are being performed; evaluates the performance of members in a systematic way.
Problem Solving: identifies work-related problems that can
disrupt operations, makes a systematic but rapid diagnosis,
and takes action to resolve the problems in a decisive and
confident way.
Supporting: shows concern for the needs and feelings of
individual members; provides support and encouragement
when there is a difficult or stressful task, and expresses confidence members can successfully complete it.
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
Recognizing: praises effective performance by members; provides recognition for member achievements and contributions to the organization; recommends appropriate rewards
for members with high performance.
Developing: provides helpful feedback and coaching for
members who need it; provides helpful career advice;
encourages members to take advantage of opportunities for
skill development.
Empowering: involves members in making important workrelated decisions and considers their suggestions and concerns; delegates responsibility and authority to members for
important tasks and allows them to resolve work-related proG
blems without prior approval.
Advocating Change: explains an emerging threat or opporA
tunity; explains why a policy or procedure is no longer
appropriate and should be changed; proposes desirable
changes; takes personal risks to push for approval of essential
but difficult changes.
Envisioning Change: communicates a clear, appealing vision
of what could be accomplished; links the vision to member
values and ideals; describes a proposed change or new initiative with enthusiasm and optimism.
Encouraging Innovation: talks about the importance of
innovation and flexibility; encourages innovative thinking
Performance Management and Feedback | 473
and new approaches for solving problems; encourages and
supports efforts to develop innovative new products, services,
or processes.
Facilitating Collective Learning: uses systematic procedures
for learning how to improve work unit performance; helps
members understand causes of work unit performance;
encourages members to share new knowledge with each
Networking: attends meetings or events; joins professional
associations or social clubs; uses social networks to build
and maintain favorable relationships with peers, superiors,
and outsiders who can provide useful information or
External Monitoring: analyzes information about events,
trends, and changes in the external environment to identify
threats, opportunities, and other implications for the work
Representing: lobbies for essential funding or resources; promotes and defends the reputation of the work unit or organization; negotiates agreements and coordinates related
activities with other parts of the organization or with
9781305234758, Strategic Human Resource Management, Fourth Edition, Mello – © Cengage Learning All rights reserved No distribution allowed without express authorization
Chapter 10
number of unique challenges that often prevent them from
obtaining successful outcomes. Broadly, these challenges
include (1) logistical problems, such as communicating and
coordinating work across time and space, (2) interpersonal
concerns, such as establishing effective working relationships
with team members in the absence of frequent face-to-face
communication, and (3) technology issues, such as identifying, learning, and using technologies most appropriate for
certain tasks.6
There is an abundance of advice to managers on how
to motivate virtual teams to high levels of performance.
Some authors encourage managers to help virtual teams
draft mission statements, set goals, and coordinate their
work. Others emphasize the importance of teambuilding
exercises to create a team identity and strengthen interperT
sonal relationships. Much of this advice is based on single
observations or laboratory studies with student virtual
teams. Our goal is to understand how virtual teams of real
employees develop through every phase of a team life cycle
from team formati…
Purchase answer to see full

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.