In the 2008 study by Craig, Hogan, and Kaiser, the researchers attempt to gain insight into leadership effectiveness, regarding leadership personality, the cognitive ability of leaders, leadership style, and the evaluation of leadership potential and performance.
The authors define leadership, offer a taxonomy for the classification and measurement of leader effectiveness which draws together the perceptions of management and the performance of the teams and organizations they are supposed to lead, review past literature and recognize that there is much research about how managers are regarded but little research on how management affects group performance, and summarize the evidence which supports the idea that management behaviors affect the performance of organizations, in good ways and bad.
By reviewing the leadership research which has already been conducted and organizing it into a clear taxonomy, the authors hope to illustrate the fact that organizational leadership effectiveness has a unified yet dual nature, with behavioral qualities of management and the leadership styles within an organization having a profound influence on the ability of workers to carry out the collective plans of the organization. Hypothesis The researchers of this study believe that leadership style has a profound effect on the ability of the group to organize and perform collective tasks.
Overly dictatorial behaviors by management lend as much damage to organizations as managers who are lax in their duties, creating environments which are not conducive to the success of the entire group operations. By figuring out which behavioral aspects of management prove to be successful to group performance and which behavioral aspects of group performance point to management success, readers will be encouraged by the ability of being able to view the ways in which effective management and group success are related and intertwined.
In discussing the duality or interrelationship between management and workers, the authors claim that “leadership is required to unite people, channel their efforts, and secure their contribution to the success of a collective enterprise. ” Methodology The researchers claim that by constructing a taxonomy based on previous research and data, they can predict whether or not a leader is effective in organization.
Organizing their taxonomy into categories which address four categories, leader characteristics, leadership style, group process, and group results, the authors create a kind of flow chart, where the effectiveness of the leader is born within the effectiveness of the organization. The initiating leader characteristics such as individual behavioral differences lend to social behaviors and organizations decisions, which in turn lends to the context of team performance, with the outcome of organizational effectiveness as the end result.
The taxonomy of leadership data is also organized in this way, the flow chart beginning with the standing out or emergence of a leader, followed by the approval ratings of management, which in turn promotes the game play or process of teamwork, followed by the outcomes, wins or loses. This type of a four part flow chart is utilized to make sense of previous research and data and effectively binds together two larger categories of the interplay between leadership styles and organizational performance.
Variables & Sampling By reviewing ten meta-analytic studies, the authors dissected and categorized the data from previous leadership research, including evaluations of over 280,000 leaders from 1,124 samples and 1,695 statistical tests of the relationship between predictor variables (e. g. , leader personality, ratings of leader behavior) and leadership criterion variables. By content analyzing the data, the researchers were able to construct two categories of leadership measures, each having two sub-categories.
The first category concerns data focusing on individual leaders, and the second category includes data focused on the group, team, or organization, this layout paralleling previous research in which there is distinction between how a leader is perceived and the actual effectiveness of the group for which the leader takes responsibility. Within each of these two main groups, there are two finer distinctions drawn.
The past studies selected for inclusion within this study were the most recent articles containing the most thorough and pertinent data, including a wide range of various management evaluations, employee turnover, worker ratings, and productivity. This data was then organized and presented within their new taxonomy with its four interrelated categories which aim to predict the effectiveness of organizational leadership. Statistics & Major Findings
By looking to the taxonomy created by the researchers and how previous data falls into the selected categories, it is obvious that many people believe that organizational success is a mixed and unified relationship between employers and employees. Although much of the focus is given to the researchers’ second out of four categories, the leader approval rating, the data certainly lies across the board, with much information falling into each of the four categories.
It can be assumed that leader approval is highly important to previous researchers and/or the subjects involved in the past studies and that perhaps more research regarding leader emergence, group process, and group outcomes are in order, the first, third, and forth categories. According to the new taxonomy, where the ten previous studies included in this comprehensive study are categorized, 18% of the data falls under leader emergence, 35% under leader approval, 28% under group process, and 18% under group outcomes.
The very beginning and end of organization and group formation are the most ignored, with leader emergence and group outcomes being the least researched aspects of organizational formation. If the development of an organization can be viewed as having a beginning, middle, and an end, the midpoint if organizational life is fairly well known, with less known about organizational emergence and outcomes.
Looking to the span of all four categories can raise alarms or give cause for celebration, depending on the emergence of negative or positive findings, since all four categories lend to the comprehensive view of the organization’s leadership effectiveness. Opinion Craig, Hogan, and Kaiser were able to develop a very thorough and clearly understandable taxonomy for the evaluation of leadership effectiveness with respect to organizational success.
By placing emphasis on leadership effectiveness, they place responsibility in the hands of the leaders, while also placing emphasis on the unity of the entire team and consideration of workers’ efforts. This model is appropriate and serves as a corporate representation for evaluating organizational leadership, with the head and body working together as one comprehensive unit, while retaining the understanding that the head takes the lead.
The categorization of their taxonomy is well developed as serves as a valuable tool for organizational evaluation and considerations for future research. This type of research aims to cover a broad analysis and create a common overview for the comprehensive understanding of leadership effectiveness, generating an easily understandable method for organizing specialized data into a general layout. This research, in itself, is not highly specialized or geared towards understanding the fine inner workings of a particular organization.
Although this research lends much to the idea of data organization and a conceptual framework for understanding the workings of organizations in general, it would take further research to apply this broad evaluation system to particular organizations. Now, it is the task of future researchers in organizational leadership to test the functionality of this taxonomy and to see if it does in fact produce the insight necessary to predict the present and future successes and failures of leaders and their groups. References Craig, S. , Hogan, R. , & Kaiser, R. (2008). Leadership and the Fate of Organizations. American Psychologist 63(2), 96-110.