Leadership in Governmental Organizations:
Differences in leadership styles and characteristics
between interim managers and managers on permanent
contracts.
Noortje Waterschoot
10197265
Supervisor:
Nesrien Abu Ghazaleh
Bachelor Thesis
Faculty Economics and Business
UvA
Abstract
The goal of this study is to create a better understanding of the differences in
leadership styles and characteristics between two different groups of managers within governmental environments. In-depth interviews have been conducted with interim managers and managers on permanent contracts. The results of this study show differences between the two manager groups on: entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial leadership, delegated ownership, ownership, critical thinking and teambuilding focused on involvement, permanence, team-diversity and guidance. The study
explored areas of leadership characteristics on which research has been limited so far. Furthermore, charting the leadership characteristics of the two groups provides valuable insight for leaders and managers.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 4
1.1 Research Goal 4
2.0 Literature review 6
2.1 Transformational, Transactional and Charismatic Leadership 6
2.2 Self-confidence 8
2.3 Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Leadership 8
2.4 Ownership 9
2.5 Critical Thinking and Critical Reflection 9
3.0 Methods 11 3.1 Research Design 11 3.2 Data Collection 11 3.3 Data Analysis 12 4.0 Results 13 4.1 Self-confidence 13
4.2 Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Entrepreneurial Leadership 14
4.3 Ownership 16
4.4 Critical Reflection 17
4.5 Critical Thinking 19
4.6.0 Transformational Leadership 20
4.6.1 Vision 20
4.6.2 Team Building and Team Spirit 21
5.0 Discussion 23
5.1 Interpretation of Results 23
5.2 Contributions to Existing Literature 25
5.3 Practical Implications 26
5.4 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research 26
6.0 Conclusion 27
1.0 Introduction
Leadership and the development of effective leadership behavior is an important facet in all kind of organizations (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm & McKee, 2014).
However, the field of leadership development is in a relatively immature stage (Day et al., 2014). Therefore, there are still opportunities to gain a better understanding of leadership and thereby stimulate leaders to improve. One of the topics less researched in the field of leadership literature is leadership of interim managers. Feltham and Hughes (1999) researched the difference between interim managers and managers with permanent contracts in corporate environments. They established a basic model that describes which roles and characteristics suit interim managers in corporate environment best. Since this was an exploratory research and no further research on this topic has been performed subsequently, there is still a lot to gain. Moreover, research on the role of interim managers at governmental institution is rather new. In the recently published Interim Index 11 (de Sonnaville, 2014) an increased demand is expected for interim managers in the Netherlands, also in the governmental sector. Therefore, it seems important to research if there are differences in leadership styles and leadership features between government employed interim managers and
government employed managers on the basis of a permanent contract. This in order to find out which group of managers suits which roles best.
1.1 Research Goal
Leadership characteristics and leadership styles are of significant importance to Company X. Company X is a foundation that trains young academics to become government managers. The management training Company X offers these academics consist of personal budgets that can be spent on training and coaching. As a result, the personal scope of the employees of Company X should be broadened. The process of acceptance and the personal budgets accessible for personal development make Company X assume that their employees perform better than government managers that have been trained at the government. More precisely, Company X assumes that their employees show higher levels of self-confidence, entrepreneurship, ownership, critical thinking and critical reflection.
In this thesis will be researched if these assumptions are correct and if there are indicators to assume that different leadership styles are performed. Therefore, the following research question is formulated:
Is there a difference in leadership style and leadership characteristics between employees of Company X and government managers and to what extent?
This research has the following structure. First, different leadership styles and
leadership characteristics will be elucidated in the literature review. Subsequently, the methodology section will outline how the research design is constructed, how the data are collected and how the data are analyzed. In the fourth section the results of the
in-depth interviews are presented. The fifth section will discuss how the results should be interpreted and what the theoretical and practical implications of the study are. Moreover, it will show the limitations and provide suggestions for future research. Lastly, the conclusion of this research will be presented.
2.0 Literature Review
The range of leadership definitions and classifications in current academic literature is extensive. Moreover, the different approaches of leadership have resulted in diverse notions of conceptualization and measuring of the concept (Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio & Johnson, 2011). This wide range of leadership conceptualizations makes it difficult to create one coherent overview of all leadership theories. Therefore, this thesis will focus upon the most prominent leadership concepts in contemporary academic literature. Specific interest is paid to the following leadership
characteristics: self-confidence, entrepreneurship, ownership, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial leadership, critical mind and critical thinking. Some of these concepts relate to personality-traits that can be classified within prominent leadership styles. Other concepts are more self-standing and will therefore be examined individually.
2.1 Transformational, Transactional and Charismatic Leadership
Transformational leadership and charismatic leadership are ubiquitous in
contemporary leadership literature. In the 1970s a distinction was made between the role of leaders and managers in organizations (Levine, Muenchen & Brooks, 2010). As a response to this new distinction, two leadership models emerged prominently in the literature between the mid 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s: transformational and charismatic leadership (Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramanium, 2003). Research on these two leadership styles has mainly focused on the effect on the motivation and performance of the followers of leaders practicing these styles (Antonakis, Aviolio & Sivassubramaniam, 2003).
Transformational leaders focus on the wants and needs of their followers and put the interest of the organization or team above their self-interest (Wallis, Yammarino & Feyerherm, 2011). Moreover, the transformational leader has a personal relation with its subordinates and not one based on formal structures (Wallis et al., 2011).
Transformational leadership comprises five factors developed by Avioli and Bass in the Full Range Leadership theory (FRLT). The FRLT comprises three groups:
transformational leadership, transactional leadership and non-leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003, p.262; Rowald & Heinitz, 2007). The first factor of transformational
leadership is inspirational motivation. This factor describes how leaders communicate and represent a vision and depicts the future with enthusiasm and optimism
(Antonakis et al., 2003). The second factor is idealized influence (attributed). This factor expresses if the leader is perceived as powerful and confident and whether its subordinates can identify with the leader (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007). The third factor is idealized influence (behavior), which represents the leader as a role model who takes actions based on values and beliefs (Antonakis et al., 2003; Rowald & Heinitz, 2007). The fourth factor is intellectual stimulation. The leader encourages
subordinates to challenge the status quo and think creatively (Antonakis et al., 2003). The final factor is individualized consideration, which includes understanding the
needs of their subordinates. The leader should recognize the individual abilities of each subordinate and stimulate personal development (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007). In short, transformational leaders are expected to: articulate visions, lead by example, represent a role model, provide intellectual stimulation and recognize individual needs (Wallis et al., 2011).
Transactional leadership is another leadership style that emerged from the FRLT. In contrast to transformational leaders, transactional leaders have an impersonal, formal relationship with their subordinates (Wallis et al, 2011). The FRLT states three factors that together comprise transactional leadership. The first factor is contingent reward, meaning the leader should clearly define what is expected from the subordinate and what rewards will be received in return (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007). The second factor is active management by exception, which refers to a leader’s watchfulness to meet the standards by modifying errors (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007). The third factor is passive management by exception. This factor applies when leaders merely intervene when problems already happened (Antonakis, 2003).
Charismatic leadership is the other leadership style that is prominent in contemporary academic literature. Charismatic leadership is a complex term to define (Levine, Muenchen & Brooks, 2010). Several authors provided a definition of charisma. Aviolio and Yammarino (1990) defined charisma as internal to the leader, however: “the power that the leader holds over another is in the eye of the beholder ” (Levine et al., 2010, p.579). Among others, Conger (1989) and Rowald & Heinitz (2007) state that charismatic leadership does not merely encompass one type of personality, but varies for different followers. The Conger-Kanungo Scales (CKS) are designed to assess charismatic leadership. The CKS focuses on three stages, which together compromise five subscales (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). The first stage of CKS encompasses an environment analysis and an evaluation of followers’ needs:
sensitivity to the environment and sensitivity to members’ needs. Stage two covers the development and presenting of a strategic vision: strategic vision and articulation. In the third stage the leader expresses the qualities of a role model: personal risk and unconventional behavior (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007).
The terms transformational leadership and charismatic leadership are sometimes used interchangeably. Even though both leadership styles share some similarities and are partially overlapping, there are some important differences between them (Yukl, 1999). The similarities between the two are the recognized importance of traits, behavior, cognition and affect as leadership mechanisms (Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio, Johnson, 2011) and the notion that performance exceeds expectations (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007). Moreover, charisma is an important aspect of transformational leadership (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007). What makes both leadership styles different is the time frame over which both leadership styles are measured. Transformational leadership is measured at a single point in time, whereas charismatic leadership is measured as a process over time (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007).
Next to the most prominent leadership styles, there are various leadership traits that will be examined in this research. Several leadership traits have not been researched frequently in academic literature. This study would like to examine if these traits result in different leadership styles of managers from different employers.
2.2 Self-confidence
The first trait that will be examined in relation to leadership is self-confidence. Self-confidence is mostly viewed as a valuable characteristic of leadership
effectiveness (Shipman & Mumford, 2011; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004). Hollenbeck and Hall (2004) define self-confidence as: “ a judgment of our capability, how much we think we can do something”. This aligns with the definition of Shipman & Mumford (2011) who describe self-confidence as: “a judgment as to whether an individual believes they can do something”. Leaders that are self-confident increase their follower’s support to work for the objectives stated by them (Shipman & Mumford, 2011; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004). Moreover, certain authors see self-confidence as a trait that is necessary for leaders to be perceived charismatic (House (1977) cited in Hernandez et al., 2011). However, leaders’ self-confidence can have a negative impact as well. Self-confidence is not only a trait of charismatic leadership, it is also a feature of hubristic leaders, Machiavellianism and narcissism (Shipman & Mumford, 2011, p.650). Self-confidence can be destructive as a result from self-confidence tending too much towards, or becoming, overself-confidence. Overself-confidence is: “ the overestimation in judging one’s ability to do something” (Shipman &
Mumford, 2011). Hollenbeck & Hall (2004) provide four factors that indicate self-confidence: actual experience, the experiences of others, social persuasion and emotional arousal. Actual experience is the factor that matters most to the extent of self-confidence. Therefore, leaders that have more experience are expected to have higher levels of self-confidence (Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004).
2.3 Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Leadership
The second leadership trait that will be elucidated is entrepreneurship. The leadership style that relates to this trait is entrepreneurial leadership. In academic literature a distinction is made between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial leadership. Gupta, Macmillan and Surie (2004, p. 242) define entrepreneurship as: “a discrete event based on the autonomous pursuit of innovative opportunities”. In accordance with the preceding definition, entrepreneurship is described as the discovering, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities to create new value (Cogliser & Brigham, 2004;
Greenberg, McKone-Sweet & James Wilson, 2013). In contrast, entrepreneurial leadership is an approach to lead entrepreneurship. Several authors used the following definition of entrepreneurial leadership: “leadership that creates visionary scenarios that are used to assemble and mobilize a ‘supporting cast’ of participants who become committed by the vision to the discovery and exploitation of strategic value creation”
(Gupta et al., 2004, p.242; Ruvio, Rosenblatt, Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2010, p.144).
Despite the fact that different definitions are used for both concepts, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial leadership have a substantial overlap (Cogliser & Brigham, 2004). Gupta et al. (2004, p. 243) state that the entrepreneurial leadership concept derives from the combination of the following concepts: “entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial management and leadership”. Resulting from this concept definition, entrepreneurship is merely an element of entrepreneurial leadership. To achieve a more comprising understanding of entrepreneurship as element of leadership, entrepreneurial leadership will be examined extensively too.
Entrepreneurial leadership, as the definition stated above, elucidates the importance of a vision. A vision is mostly defined as: “an idealized goal to be achieved in the
future” (Ruvio et al., 2010, p.145). This vision should be appealing to its organizational members and its stakeholders. Gupta et al. (2004) identified the establishment of an eloquent vision and four other proficiencies as necessities for entrepreneurial leadership. These four skills are: “extracting exceptional commitment and effort of stakeholders, convince them of their ability to accomplish goals, promise their effort will lead to extraordinary outcomes and be persisting to environmental change” (Gupta et al., 2004, pp. 245-246). Gupta et al. (2004) also identified five roles derived from the preceding skill that frame entrepreneurial leadership. These roles are: framing the challenge, absorbing uncertainty, path clearing, building commitment and specifying limits, all indicating entrepreneurial leadership.
Entrepreneurial leaders will create a climate in which subordinates develop different perspectives and seek out to new opportunities and carry them out (Gupta et al., 2004).
2.4 Ownership
The third leadership trait that will be examined is ownership, whereby in this study is meant psychological ownership. Psychological ownership refers to: “the state in which an individual feels that an object, material or immaterial, is experienced possessively” (Van Dyn & Pierce, 2004, p. 442). Organizations and tangible or intangible workplace targets can be objects of psychological ownership. According to McIntyre, Srivastava and Fuller (2009) psychological ownership in organizations makes people feel more responsible and relates to increased productivity,
organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Psychological ownership is a construct that exists out of four indictors: self-efficiency, accountability,
belongingness and identity (Avey, Wernsing & Palanski, 2012). Employees that take psychological ownership tend to make decisions that are best for the company in the long run (Avey et al., 2012).
2.5 Critical Thinking and Critical Reflection
reflection. These leadership traits are interrelated to some extent. According to Ennis (1993), critical thinking will be achieved when thinking involves reasonable
reflectiveness. Thus, in line with Ennis, critical reflection is a condition of critical thinking. Both traits will be examined in the following part. First, the definition of the traits will be clarified individually. Second, personal characteristics and factors that influence both traits will be elaborated on. Finally, the relation of these traits to prominent leadership styles will be established.
There are several definitions of critical thinking, the one provided by Natale & Ricci (2006, p.273) is: “Critical thinking examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence and assesses conclusions”. Other definitions of the concept align with the preceding in the importance of examining and exploring assumptions (Natale & Ricci, 2006). There are several factors that influence one’s disposition of critical thinking. According to Yuzhu (in Yinshan & Ying, 2011) these factors are: ability to analytical and systematic thinking, open mindedness and cognitive maturity. Next to characteristics that influence one’s disposition of critical thinking, Ennis (1993, p. 180) established a list with abilities and dispositions that guide testing of critical thinking ability: “judge the credibility of sources; identify conclusions, reasons and assumptions; judge the quality of arguments; develop and defend a position on a issue; ask clarifying questions; plan experiments; define appropriate terms, be open-minded; try to be well informed; draw conclusions with caution”. Critical thinking is a valuable leadership characteristic since it enables leaders to question their thoughts and challenge their knowledge (Yinshan & Ying, 2011).
Critical reflection is defined by Reynolds (1999, p.538) as: “a commitment to questioning assumptions and taken-for-granted embodied in both theory and professional practice”. Critical reflection is also described as challenging
conventional thinking and having a skeptical approach towards the obvious (Densten & Gray, 2001). To engage in critical reflection, several personal traits are important. According to Densten & Gray (2001, p.120) these traits are covered by three factors: “Open mindedness and the desire to listen to several sides of the story; responsibility to search for the truth and wholeheartedness to critically evaluate themselves and organizations”. Critical reflection is key to the development of leadership skills. It enables leaders to obtain the knowledge and skills to make better judgment in the future (Densten & Gray, 2001).
Critical thinking and critical reflection are related to certain prominent leadership styles. Yingshan & Ying (2011) found overall support for the relation between managers’ disposition of critical thinking and their extent of charismatic leadership. Thus, when a higher level of critical thinking is measured this will be accompanied with stronger transformational leadership behavior. In contrast, critical reflection is more related to charismatic leadership. Critical reflection is one aspect that can guide charismatic leaders to get a better understanding of their environment and better judge the complexity of a situation (Densten & Gray, 2001).
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Research design
This study seeks to find if the assumptions of Company X, related to leadership, are correct. There is little known about leadership differences between Company X employees and the government managers. To gain insight into this, exploratory research can be conducted. Blumer (cited in Corbin & Strauss, 2008) describes the purpose of exploratory research as to gain a clearer understanding of posing the problem, to define appropriate data and to develop appropriate tools.
Consequently a qualitative empirical research was performed. The research design used for this is the qualitative survey. What makes a survey qualitative is the type of knowledge that is pursued, namely variety (Jansen, 2005). According to Jansen, determining variety can have an explorative or conductive goal. Therefore, the design of a qualitative survey matches with the nature of the study, which is explorative.
The qualitative survey was conducted through in-depth interviews.
Mortelmans (2007) elucidates the concept of qualitative survey and distinguishes two types: the in-depth interview and focus groups. Due to time constraints, the option of in-depth interviews is chosen for this research. When using in-depth interviews there is no predetermined list of questions that need to be answered completely, however it is clearly defined which topics and aspects will be discussed (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). This will create an interview without a prior established direction, which generates space to talk about topics brought up by the interviewee.
3.2 Data Collection
The level of analysis for this research is firm specific. This research was conducted in commission of Company X and focuses specifically on their employees and those of the government. Government managers are involved in this research as well, however their role is merely to provide a comparison with leadership of Company X’s
employees.
Non-probability sampling was used for the selection of interviewees. First, several employees of Company X were approached by one contact person within Company X. The approached employees could identify if they were willing to participate in the study. This sampling method is self-selection. Self-selection
sampling has a small likelihood of being representative of the whole population, but is useful in exploratory research (Saunders et al., 2009). To approach the government managers a different sampling strategy was used, namely snowball sampling.
Snowball sampling can be used to identify members that are hard to reach (Saunders et al., 2009). Employees of Company X were approached to contact their direct colleagues. These direct colleagues were government managers and were reached through employees of Company X. The employees of Company X and the
email to specify the time and location for the interview.
The sample size consists of five persons, three employees of Company X and two government managers. Preferably both groups would have consisted of three persons. Only two interviews with government managers have been conducted. Ideally more interviews would have been conducted to reach data saturation but due to time and money constraints this was not feasible. According to Patton (cited in Saunders at al., 2009, p.234): “the validity, understanding and insights that you will gain from your data will be more to do with your data collection and analysis than with the size of your sample”.
The interviews were conducted on different locations, since Company X employees and government managers all work on different locations. The interviews were held on the work location of the interviewees, so they did not have to spend time on travelling. The interviews were recorded on a Philips DVT 1700 voice recorder, with prior given consent of the interviewees.
3.3 Data Analysis
After the interviews were held, each of them had to be transcribed. Transcribing is needed prior to coding, which is part of establishing grounded theory. Qualitative research with in-depth interviews in highly linked to the grounded theory approach (Mortelmans, 2007). “Discovering theory from data is what we call grounded theory” (Corbin & Strauss cited in Mortelmans, 2007, p.42). The grounded theory uses an analytical inductive approach to arrive at theory. There are two central themes in the grounded theory approach: to build from empirical data and to use a cyclic analysis procedure (Mortelmans, 2007).
Thus the analysis of the data collected with the in-depth interviews was cyclic. This means that the data collected in the interviews had to be compared with
previously stated codes and analyses. By repeating the process of comparing data with previous codes and analyses, the codes can be refined and specified (Mortelmans, 2007).
The analysis process, or coding, is where the raw data is transferred to a conceptual level (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This was done in three stages, as defined by Corbin & Strauss. In the first stage open coding will be applied on the raw data. This implies that labels are attached to the raw data. The second stage is axial coding, which explores the relationship between the labeled data and connect them. The third stage is selective coding. This is the process of integrating categories to produce grounded theory (Saunders et al., 2009).
The three stages of coding were applied to all interviews. However, the process of coding differed between the interviews due to the cyclic procedure. Therefore the axial codes resulting from the first interview were kept in mind when open coding was applied to following interviews. Subsequently selective coding was applied when all interviews had gone through the first two stages of coding. After selective coding was performed, the analyses were reported.
4.0 Results
In this section the results of the in-depth interviews will be presented. The data emerging from the interviews will be presented in order to answer the main research question. The data were divided into two groups. One group consists of three
employees of Company X and the other group consists of two government managers. From the data seven topics concerning leadership features and characteristics arose. First, a result section of the interviews with the employees of Company X are presented, under the heading of the defined topics. Subsequently, the results of the interviews with the government managers are presented. This is followed by a compare and contrast section in which the propositions are stated.
4.1 Self-confidence
Employees Company X
The employees of Company X recognize the importance of self-confidence for leaders. All three interviewees mentioned that self-confidence either combined with courage or initiative is required for a strong leader. Courage is stated by two of the interviewees as a factor that led them to be more self-confidence. Interviewee D describes that increased self-confidence is the result of several other factors:
“ More self-confidence (…) is actually the result of several other things, like showing more courage, engage in confrontations or trust more on your feelings than on your wits. ”
Moreover, all three interviewees indicated that their self-confidence grew over the last years. Respondent A accredits this to growing older, becoming mother and having watched around. The other two respondents stated that their self-confidence specifically increased while being employed at Company X. Furthermore, both mentioned that coaching played part in the development of their self-confidence. Interviewee D:
“ Yes, actually through coaching that came up (…) you grow into that, if you look at when I joined Company X, 4.5 years ago, I was far more insecure and less self-confident back then. ”
Government Managers
From the interviews with the government managers came forward that the self-confidence of both interviewees increased during their careers. According to interviewee X this did not influence her performance back then, it was just less pleasant. In contrast, interviewee M recognized that when having less confidence it was harder to get things done. Furthermore M noticed that with increased confidence it is easier to get things done:
“Well, I think self-confidence is a very important one. In particular, to get things done, not just within your own team, but within the organization as well.” Interviewee X is short on the topic self-confidence. X states:
Compare and Contrast
All interviewees stated that their self-confidence had evolved over time.
Proposition 1: Both groups experienced increased self-confidence since the start of their careers.
The group with employees of Company X tends to include courage as an important feature linked to self-confidence. The group of government managers does not
mention this. The group of employees of Company X also tends to value their careers at Company X as a time in which their self-confidence specifically grew. For the group of government managers this was not applicable.
Proposition 2: The self-confidence of Company X employees specifically increased in the time being employed at Company X. For government managers increased self-confidence is not due to a specific employment era.
4.2 Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Entrepreneurial Leadership
Employees Company X
The interviewees were asked about their extent of entrepreneurship.
In relation to the concept of entrepreneurship, interviewees started to talk about creativity and innovativeness. Creativity and innovativeness are topics that were more frequently mentioned in the interviews. Therefore they will be presented too.
The interviewees of Company X provided a wide range of answers on the subject matter. Interviewee J mentioned entrepreneurship frequently. Likewise, interviewee J indicated that entrepreneurship was something used in nearly all J’s projects:
“Yes, entrepreneurship is actually what I am always doing in a project, where something has to be set up, what isn’t there yet.”
In contrast, interviewee A states that:
“I do not find myself very entrepreneurial, that may be not very Company X alike, however, it has increased. ”
Furthermore, interviewee A explained that A saw herself more as a creative person than as an entrepreneurial one. Several times in the interview she provides examples of creative and innovative solutions.
Interviewee D states he doubts its own extent of entrepreneurship. He does provide several examples during the interview of creative solutions.
Subsequently five roles that indicate entrepreneurial leadership wee extracted from the interviews. These roles are: framing the challenge, absorbing uncertainty, path clearing, building commitment and specifying limits (Gupta et al., 2004). It did not emerge from any of the three interviews that one employee of Company X embodied all five roles. However, the interviewees embodied some of the roles.
Interviewee D provided examples in which path clearing and framing the challenge played a role. Interviewee J embodies the role of path clearing in relation to entrepreneurship strongly:
“Entrepreneurship is, according to me, to create something that isn’t there yet. (…) On the go you will encounter all kinds of bumps and setbacks. You need something and it doesn’t work right away and then you could quit. That’s not a sign of
entrepreneurship. (…) If you want to push through than you sometimes need to try a different path, or find help to continue on the path, make things negotiable. That’s entrepreneurship I think. ”
From the interview with interviewee A it emerged that specifying limits is a role A embodies:
“ So, if there is no formation, than it’s really the question, I know you really want this, but it has to have a purpose (…) that you think along, but that it fits with the employer in the direction. Yes, and state that clearly. This is possible, this is not.”
Government managers
Both interviewees stated that they perceive themselves as being entrepreneurial. However, what both interviewees include in the concept of entrepreneurship is different. This difference could be caused by the different workplaces both interviewees are in. Interviewee X states:
“I think that I’m entrepreneurial from the fact you just have to roll up your sleeves and join the work activities of the day. Those aren’t predictable and can all go either way and have a positive attitude towards it. I mean entrepreneurial in a government setting.”
Interviewee M talks often about entrepreneurship during the interview. M has been a self-employed entrepreneur for several years. M applies entrepreneurship in M’s current job to develop a new product, to clearly articulate customer needs and to respond to these:
“ (…) but I do have a certain idea of what customers want (…) My entrepreneurship is mostly about getting customer needs clear, what are the functional needs. What do they want to achieve with ICT, and then I see which components suits them best from ICT.”
M’s entrepreneurship focuses on customers outside the company as well as internal clients.
Furthermore roles that indicate entrepreneurial leadership are derived from the interviews. These roles are: framing the challenge, absorbing uncertainty, path
clearing, building commitment and specifying limits (Gupta et al., 2004). Interviewee M embodies partly one of the roles of entrepreneurial leadership. M states that M is framing the challenge. M is the one who communicates and frames the challenge, on M’s department, about transforming into a new, more commercial organization:
“ So we are entering a reorganization in which the organization structure will change considerably (…) What I am actually doing is shaping the service description and I’m trying to include the subordinates.”
Compare and Contrast
The employees of Company X tend to be uncertain about their extent of
entrepreneurship, but indicate that they do provide creative solutions. In contrast, the government managers do declare high levels of entrepreneurship, in the meaning of how you can be entrepreneurial in a governmental setting. However, creativity was not mentioned very often.
Proposition 3: Government managers perform higher levels of entrepreneurship than employees of Company X do.
Furthermore, entrepreneurial leadership was examined. Employees of Company X seem to embody several roles of entrepreneurial leadership. They embodied several roles per individual. In contrast, the government managers almost did not embody any role of entrepreneurial leadership.
Proposition 4: Employees of Company X embody roles of entrepreneurial leadership more frequently than Government Managers do.
4.3 Ownership
Employees Company X
The interviewees of Company X mentioned the term ownership relatively often during the interviews. All three interviewees emphasized that they expect others to take ownership and that they stimulate ownership of their subordinates. Interviewee A expects ownership from subordinates to emerge from thinking along with them. Interviewee D relates ownership closely to own responsibility and perceives this as an important competence of good leaders:
“ (…) That’s how I try to let people take ownership. Own responsibility is a core competence of good managers. Not merely of themselves, but also to create this with their subordinates and people surrounding them.”
The three interviewees of Company X gave different answers when it concerned their own extent of ownership. Both interviewee D and A recognized the importance of ownership and gave an extended example of a situation in which they took ownership. However, interviewee D acknowledged that some days D’s extent of ownership was more than on other days.
In contrast, it emerged from the interview that interviewee J takes ownership at a more intrinsic level than the other interviewees of Company X:
“If you take ownership of a project (…) then eventually you take more responsibility, because you feel that as an owner it is partly yours, in collaboration with others (…) I could not imagine not to take ownership. I easily connect very quickly to things, because I try to act upon my feelings”.
Government Managers
The interviewed government managers provided answers that differed somewhat from one another. Interviewee X stated that X’s ownership was predominantly a matter of responsibility. X stated that X was first in line to take responsibility for issues that affect several areas. As X describes:
“ (…) Because it has to do with a subject that touches several areas (…) If something doesn’t go very smooth there, yes who would feel responsible to help out. Then it makes sense that I stand in and say: listen if you meet me, than we can find a solution”.
Responsibility was something interviewee X felt strongly about. Furthermore, interviewee M felt that ownership was something that was especially important for her personal development:
“ (…) When you don’t take ownership or take responsibility, you’ll never get further, more in a general sense.”
Interviewee M emphasized that ownership is important to create support: “ (…) taking ownership carries out importance of the issue towards others, these others will be more helpful, because they see how you take it on personally.”
Compare and Contrast
The employees of Company X emphasized that they stimulate ownership of their subordinates. Moreover, the majority of the group takes ownership and could provide examples of when they did. The government managers emphasized responsibility more than ownership and provided examples in which they took responsibility. Stimulating ownership of their subordinates was far less frequently mentioned than in the group of employees of Company X.
Proposition 5: Employees of Company X grant more importance to letting their subordinates take ownership than government managers do.
Proposition 6: Employees of Company X have higher levels of ownership than government managers have.
Proposition 7: Government Managers have higher levels of responsibility than employees of Company X have.
4.4 Critical Reflection
Employees Company X
Critical Reflection is the most frequently used theme in the interviews with the
employees of Company X. Critical reflection defined by the interviewees of Company X results in different definitions. However, the definitions have in common that self-reflection is what is mentioned first by all three interviewees of Company X.
Moreover, self-reflection is something that is referred to often during all interviews of the employees of Company X. Interviewee J emphasized the importance of
“ If you’re talking about reflection and critical self-reflection, than it’s about looking in the mirror and contemplate your own behavior. That can never be done completely objectively (…) hence the self-reflection you’re creating is a real image, always a colored reality, but close to the reality”.
Both interviewee J and D mentioned situations where critical reflection took place in situations where something went wrong or didn’t go the way it was to. Both
interviewees applied critical reflection here, to see how things could be dealt with differently in the future. Interviewee D states:
“ Critical reflection, reflection is looking closely at my actions in certain situations and what went well, but as well what didn’t go so easy.. And then subsequently, how can I do that differently in subsequent settings or what does it take for me to handle that differently”.
Interviewee A states the same content as provided by interviewees D en J. However, A classifies it under critical thinking.
Government Managers
The government managers mention critical reflection and self-reflection often during the interviews. Both interviewees stress the importance of critical self-reflection during the interview. However, interviewee M emphasizes self-reflection as one of the most important features of a good leader. Interviewee M uses examples
throughout the entire interview in which M shows how M is critically reflective: “ Self-reflection is very important, because it enables you to see how you’re perceived by others and if you bring about the things you want to bring about. (...) Not merely self-knowledge, but self-reflection as well. To know how you react in a certain situation and to place that into the right perspective.”
Both interviewees mention that critical reflection includes moments in which to stop and reflect. Interviewee X states:
“ Critical reflection is to be confronted by the mirror, stand still, and wonder what does this say about me”.
Interviewee X acknowledges that X’s self-reflection could be increased by feedback from the outside. However, later in the interview X makes a remark that indicates that X is often reflecting:
“ In every situation, when things aren’t going the way they are supposed to, I try to think and see what I could do better.”
Compare and Contrast
Both groups, employees of Company X and government managers, talked very frequently about critical reflection and critical self-reflection during the interviews. When both groups where asked about critical reflection, all interviewees shifted soon to critical reflection. The frequency of mentioning critical reflection and self-reflection is roughly similar in both groups.
Proposition 8: Both groups, employees of Company X and government managers, perform critical self-reflection frequently and strongly.
4.5 Critical Thinking
Employees Company X
The interviewees of Company X talk less frequently about critical thinking compared to critical reflection and their answers are less coherent. Interviewee D and A have in common that both acknowledge that they tend to be too critical and too strict towards themselves. For interviewee D this leads to overanalyzing:
“ I could be more soft towards myself in that regard. I am a thinker. There is a power that makes too much thinking resulting in regarding, which makes you detached (…) and makes it unable to act impulsively.”
Both interviewee J and A recognize that being too critical isn’t for the best. Interviewee J states that it can create unrest when situations are constantly being critically reviewed. Interviewee A underlines the importance of constructive criticism, in situations that demand a critical approach:
“ I sometimes expect too much of others, because I expect a lot of myself. Then I expect the other to do that too, very constructive, yes always constructive. You can be critical, but you can’t go whining”.
Government Managers
Critical thinking is a topic both interviewees did not talk very frequently about. One of the interviewees declares to possess this quality strongly. The other interviewee states to be a critical thinker, but that there is room for improvement. Both
interviewees perceive critical thinking as a process in which to look ahead and weigh the pros and cons on future decision-making and strategy. As interviewee M states: “ How do I want to come across, that is then a part critical thinking towards others. (…) How do I bring it about? And then critical thinking is more, all right, which strategy will I enforce. ”
Interviewee X talks about critical thinking and states that it involves putting question marks at all things that come your way. Moreover, that you are aware of possible pitfalls and never accept goals just like that.
Compare and Contrast
Employees of Company X mention critical thinking rarely during the interview and they emphasize the downside critical thinking can have when applied too repeatedly and too often. The employees of Company X tend to be very critical thinkers, in the sense that they are very critical towards themselves. The government managers do not often refer to critical thinking during the interview. From the interview it emerged that the government managers apply critical thinking regularly for future decision-making. Despite the fact that one interviewee of the government managers states to be
a strong critical thinker, it seems that the employees of Company X tend to possess even higher levels of critical thinking.
Proposition 9: Employees of Company X have higher levels of critical thinking than government managers do.
Proposition 10: Employees of Company X have more tendencies to let critical thinking shift to overcritical thinking than government managers do.
4.6.0 Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is a complex concept to measure with qualitative research. Previous qualitative studies defined subgroups to measure components of transformational leadership. Vision, team spirit and team attitude are components that emerged from the in-depth interviews and measure transformational leadership. Therefore vision, team spirit and team attitude are the following topics that will be discussed. The structure of these sections is similar to the preceding topics.
4.6.1 Vision
Employees Company X
During the interviews with the employees of Company X, vision was rarely
mentioned. Even though vision was rarely spoken of, the interviewees did mention future directions. Throughout the interview with interviewee A, the importance of indicating direction emerged. Interviewee A stated that letting her subordinates know a clear direction proved to be helpful. However, to get people along, A felt that it is important to believe in it intrinsically:
“ Where do I believe in myself? What do I think works? Only then, I can get people along. (…) I just notice, I just notice that it really works to really intrinsically believe in things. Then it is just easier to get people along, because I can better tell, explain. Not just because it needs to.”
Interviewee D talks about a teaching method, appreciative inquiry, to let D’s subordinates look for moments that went well in the past, to use them as a starting point in the future.
Interviewee J talked about inspiring people. However, this referred more to a foundation J is creating outside her work.
Government Managers
The two interviewed government managers spoke very different about vision.
Interviewee M mentioned vision often during the interview. In contrast, interviewee X hardly mentioned vision during the interview at all. X accounted for not being able to promote any inspiring future plans due to the insecure situation of the division:
“I find inspiring plans for the future too bombastic. (…) To really inspire, I just try to pull towards the positive, but it just is insecure and I don’t know what is ahead of us.
Thus, to make it all very positive and inspiring, I feel like that is pulling the wool over someone’s eyes.”
In contrast, interviewee M often talked about vision and future plans.
“ I think you need to know where you want to go. So have vision, or develop it and place a dot on the horizon for your subordinates. Take your subordinates along with you in the process and work towards the dot. That is really important. ”
Accordingly, M thinks that her subordinates perceive M as a person with vision, who maps out a route.
Compare and Contrast
For the employees of Company X vision is not something frequently talked about. However, they did mention themes related to it as future directions and inspiring plans. These related themes differ between all three interviewees. In the government managers group, the extent to which vision was propagated lay far apart. Both groups defined a very indistinct image of vision. Therefore, no propositions are suggested here.
4.6.2 Team building and team spirit
Employees Company X
Team spirit and teambuilding are frequently mentioned in the interviews with interviewees of Company X. From the interviews it emerged that the employees of Company X are concerned with teambuilding and team spirit.
Two of the three interviewees stressed the importance of teams sticking together after they left the job. Since their jobs are temporary, both emphasized the importance of keeping a priority on the team’s interest. Interviewee A elucidates: “ It’s my intention that the team spirit stays, also when I am gone. Because that’s what it is like, working for Company X, it is always temporarily.”
Interviewee A and J talk about the importance of input and initiative of their subordinates. That it is important that their subordinates feel involved and able to contribute to projects. Interviewee J states:
“ I want to do that by picking up the project together with them, and provide space for the initiatives they have for the project. Or to create a pilot and give it place.”
All interviewees talked about different subtopics related to teambuilding activities. Interviewee D mentioned conflict resolving several times during the interview. According to D this was important in order to keep a team functioning well. D also mentioned organizing team-workshops. Interviewee J talked about creating
partnerships and collaboration to create team spirit. Furthermore, Interviewee A mentioned that restoring self-confidence is most important in a group.
Both interviewees indicated the importance of team’s spirit and stimulate working in highly diverse personality teams. Interviewee X states:
“ I hope I am stimulating team spirit (…) by creating plenty of space for a variety of personalities, wherefore everyone can feel at home in one group.”
Accordingly, both interviewees provide guidance to their teams. Interviewee X does that more specifically to persons who are in need of guidance. Interviewee M
provides guidance, personal consultation and attention for the whole team. M is also the initiator of team meetings that emphasize individual successes and positive experiences.
Both interviewees talk about getting the best out of people and to connect with them. M states:
“ (…) Because I think that leadership is strongly linked to getting people along, connect with people and get the best out of them.”
Furthermore, interviewee M emphasizes the importance of being approachable.
Compare and Contrast
The employees of Company X talked about teambuilding and team spirit frequently. They emphasized the importance of teams sticking together after they left the company, due to the temporality of their jobs. The employees of Company X also stated that it was important to create a feeling of involvement for their subordinates in projects. The government managers also talked often about the importance of
teambuilding and team spirit. Furthermore they emphasized the importance of guidance and working with teams that consist of a variety of personalities.
Proposition 11: Both groups, employees of Company X and government managers, are highly concerned with teambuilding and team spirit.
Proposition 12: Employees of Company X emphasize involvement and permanence of teambuilding more than government managers do.
Proposition 13: Government Managers emphasize guidance and team diversity more than employees of Company X do.
5.0 Discussion
This research explored if there is a difference in leadership styles and leadership characteristics between two different groups of managers. More specifically, it focused on the differences between the employees of Company X and government managers. In the previous section, the results on the in-depth interviews of both groups are presented. Here, these results will be discussed in relation to the research question and compared with existing literature. Subsequently, contribution to existing literature will be represented. A section will follow with recommendations for
managers. Finally, suggestions for future research will be presented.
5.1 Interpretation of Results
The first proposition that emerged from the results on the self-confidence section is that the self-confidence both groups, being the employees of Company X and the government managers, increased since the start of their careers. This aligns with preceding research of Hollenbeck and Hall (2004) in which is stated that actual experience is the strongest source to determine the extent of self-confidence. Thus, people with more actual experience, should rate higher on self-confidence. All interviewees indicated that they felt more self-confident than earlier in their careers, when they had less experience. Moreover, on the topic of self-confidence it emerged that the group of employees of Company X specifically identified their time being employed at Company X as causing their self-confidence to increase. For government managers increased self-confidence was not due to a specific employment era.
According to Hollenbeck and Hall (2004), self-confidence is dependent on four factors: actual experience, experience of others, social persuasion and emotional arousal. The difference in indicating a specific employment era or not can be explained by an increased presence of one of the factors during this period. Actual experience is the factor that matters the most. Therefore, it is plausible that the employees of Company X experienced actual situation most in the time being employed at Company X.
Furthermore, from the results on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial leadership section the proposition emerged that government managers perform higher levels of entrepreneurship than employees of Company X do. Ruvio, Rosenblatt and Hertz-Lazarowitz (2010) stated that innovativeness and risk taking are the most prominent characteristics of entrepreneurship. A difference that could explain the different levels of entrepreneurship is the time lengths of the contracts. Where employees of
Company X work on project basis, government managers are longer situated on one place. Working in a more familiar environment might encourage taking risk and coming up with innovative ideas.
Additionally, from the entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial leadership section the proposition emerged that employees of Company X more frequently embody roles of entrepreneurial leadership than government managers do. Stated by Greenberg, McKone-Sweet and Wilson (2013, p.57): “Entrepreneurship is a discipline primarily focused on new value creation. In contrast, entrepreneurial leadership is needed in all organizations to act in fundamentally different ways and create new opportunities”. Due to the project basis on which the employees of Company X work for different government bodies, the entrepreneurial leadership role supports their employability in
all kind of organizations. In research of Feltham and Hughes (1999) personality characteristics of interim managers and managers with permanent contracts were compared. The research found that interim managers scored higher on the leadership role, which meant that they tend to see themselves as more competent and confident in a leadership role. This is in accordance with the finding that the employees of Company X, who are on short-term contracts, are more inclined to take up the entrepreneurial leadership role than the role of entrepreneur.
On the section of ownership, three propositions are formed. The first is that
Employees of Company X grant more importance to letting their subordinates take ownership than government managers do. The second is that employees of Company X have higher levels of ownership than government managers have. O’Reilly (cited in Avey et al., 2012, p.24) states that when managers talk about ownership they mean: “ a feeling on the part of the employees that they have a responsibility to make
decisions that are in the long term interest of the company”. Thus, employees that take ownership tend to make the decisions for the best of a company in the long run. The suggested propositions corresponds with the fact that the managers of Company X find it more important to let their subordinates take ownership. Since those
subordinates work for a longer time at the company, it might be more important to let them take decisions best for the company in the long run. Also when the employees of Company X have left the company, it is deemed essential that the subordinates keep acting upon the best interest of company in the long run. In contrast, the government managers tend to have more ownership than the employees of Company X have. This supports the preceding reasoning. For the government managers, employed on the basis of a permanent contract, it seems more important to make decisions that are in the interest of the company for the long run.
The third proposition that came up in the result section on ownership is that government managers have higher levels of responsibility than the employees of Company X have. According to McIntyre, Srivastava and Fuller (2009) psychological ownership in organizations makes people feel more responsible and relates to
increased productivity, organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Since increased responsibility is an outcome of ownership behavior, it is in accordance with government managers tending to take more ownership and showing more
responsibility.
Furthermore, the result of critical self-reflection led to one proposition that both groups, employees of Company X and government managers, perform critical self-reflection frequently and strongly. Densten and Gray (2001, p. 123) stated: “Critical reflection is at the core of leadership development”. Since critical self-reflection takes up a central place in the development of leaders it seems reasonable to expect that all managers, either governmental or employed at Company X, perform high levels of it. Little research has been done on differences in levels of critical self-reflection related to leadership. Therefore, there is no existing benchmark to which the results on critical self-reflection can be measured.
On the section of critical thinking two propositions are formed. The first is that employees of Company X have higher levels of critical thinking than government managers do. The second is that the employees of Company X have more tendencies to let critical thinking shift to overcritical thinking than government managers do. In research of Feltham and Hughes (1999) it was found that Interim managers scored
higher on conceptual thinking than the control group did, which consisted of
managers on permanent contracts. Even though conceptual thinking is not the same as critical thinking, it comes close. Conceptual thinking in research of Feltham and Hughes (1999, p.211) was conceptualized as: “Perception of self as creative and conceptual/theoretical in style of thinking, as opposed to very immediate and pragmatic, dealing with tangible concrete realities.” Feltham and Hughes (1999) provided as possible explanation that Interim managers are often situated in new and challenging situations and therefore have to make more thoughtful conceptual analysis of their environment. This reasoning might also explain the higher level of critical thinking, a tendency that came up with the employees of Company X. A possible explanation for the second proposition in this section can be found in the definition of critical thinking. It enables to question their thoughts and challenge their knowledge. However, when contemplating thoughts it will not be possible to
completely objectively consider one’s own thoughts. Therefore, the employees of Company X might tend to overcritical thinking.
In the section on teambuilding and team spirit three propositions emerged. The first proposition states that both groups, employees of Company X and government managers, are highly concerned with teambuilding and team spirit.
In several studies the positive moderating effect of teambuilding on team
effectiveness is presented (Klein, DiazGranados, Salas, Burke, Lyons & Goodwin, 2009). Therefore, teambuilding is important to get the most out of a team. Moreover, in research of Wallis, Yammarino and Feyerherm (2011) the link between team spirit and transformational leadership is made. Developing a team attitude and team spirit is one of many indicators that tend to suggest higher levels of transformational
leadership. However, since both group seem to rate equally on teambuilding, this indicator does not indicate higher levels of transformational leadership in either of the groups. The second proposition made in this section is that the employees of
Company X emphasize involvement and permanence of teambuilding more than government managers do. The third proposition in this section is that government managers emphasize guidance and team diversity more than employees of Company X do. Both proposition give emphasis to parts of teambuilding that are emphasized by either of the groups. There is little known how different types of leadership express these specifics parts of teambuilding and team spirit.
5.2 Contributions to Existing Literature
This study provided a contemporary view on the differences in leadership styles and leadership characteristics between two different groups of managers. Moreover, it contributed to the existing literature by reconfirming previously suggested
correlations. Furthermore, it explored areas on leadership characteristics on which research so far has been limited and provided starts for future research.
On the topic of self-confidence, this study reaffirmed what Hollenbeck and Hall (2004) stated: self-confidence increases with an increase of actual experience. Furthermore, this study highlighted the difference between two managers groups in the embodying of entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurship. It is in accordance with the study of Feltham and Hughes (1999), which found that interim managers scored higher on the leadership role. This study found that the preceding applies on interim managers too with regard to the embodying of entrepreneurial leadership. It
suggests that there is a difference between interim managers and permanent contract managers in primarily letting their subordinates take ownership or take ownership themselves. Besides, this study builds on to the finding of Densten and Gray (2001) that critical reflection is at the core of leadership development. This study found that critical reflection is a feature that all leaders strongly possess. On the topic of critical thinking it found that interim managers scored higher than the control group. Previous research of Feltham and Hughes (1999) found a tendency towards this. This study contributed to existing research by confirming a tendency of interim managers scoring higher on levels of critical thinking. On the topic of teambuilding this study found that interim managers and governmental managers focus on different teambuilding
activities. No previous research has been conducted that elaborates on these specifications of teambuilding in relation to leadership. Therefore, this study can provide the foundation for future research to build upon.
5.3 Practical Implications
This research showed that there are differences between groups of managers. The identified leadership features on which differences between the groups were most striking are: entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial leadership, ownership, critical thinking and team building. Leaders and subordinates can benefit from the insights gained in this study. The features of two different groups of managers are charted. Therefore, executives in need of managers for a project can determine which group suits best. When high levels of entrepreneurial leadership, delegated ownership, critical thinking and teambuilding focused on involvement and permanence is needed, managers from Company X would suit well. Furthermore, when high levels of
entrepreneurship, ownership and teambuilding related to team-diversity and guidance is needed government managers would be a match.
5.4 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Even though this research is carried out with accuracy and precision, it comes with certain limitations. First, the sample of both groups was small, respectively two and three persons. This limits the extent to which the results can be generalized and thus diminishes the external validity. Secondly, the interviewees were asked their personal perceptions. What the interviewees perceive can deviate from how they are perceived by others. This also limits the generalizability of the study for a larger population. Thirdly, the predetermined list with questions was partly based on questions tested in previous qualitative research. However, some topics from this study were not
examined in previous qualitative leadership research. Therefore, the validity of some questions is not confirmed. Future research could further examine these questions to show if their validity is acceptable. Moreover future research should focus on
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial leadership, ownership, critical thinking and team building to establish a deeper understanding on the subject. These topics showed the greatest difference between the two manager groups and further research could clarify the correlation. Furthermore, to elucidate vision in further research could be
interesting. In this study, the range of answers on this topic was widely ranging and coherency seemed lacking. Future research could search for correlation between vision and leadership.
6.0 Conclusion
This study wanted to create a better understanding of the differences in leadership styles and characteristics between two different groups of managers within
governmental environments. These two manager groups have the substantial difference that one of the groups exists of interim managers and the other of
permanently employed managers. With an increasing demand for interim managers it seemed relevant to broaden the knowledge in this field. Therefore, this study wanted to examine if the difference between interim managers and permanently employed managers resulted in different leadership features and styles. The main research question was formulated: What are the differences in leadership styles and leadership characteristics between employees of Company X and government managers? The data to answer the main research question was collected through in-depth interviews. Due to a relatively small sample size the external validity is limited and generalizability is fairly low.
The results of this study showed that the group of interim managers of Company X scored higher than the other group on levels of entrepreneurial leadership, delegated ownership, critical thinking and teambuilding focused on involvement and
permanence. Moreover it showed that governmental managers on permanent contracts scored higher on levels of entrepreneurship, ownership and teambuilding related to team-diversity and guidance.
This study provided a contemporary view on the differences in leadership styles and leadership characteristics between these two groups. Moreover, it contributed to the existing literature by reconfirming previously suggested correlations. Furthermore, charting the leadership characteristics of the two groups provides valuable insight for leaders and managers. When they need to choose a manager for a certain project their decisions can be better substantiated.
References
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine- factor full- range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
Avey, J., Wernsing, T., & Palanski, M. (2012). Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership.
Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 21-34. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1298-2
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a levels-of- analysis framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(3), 193-208. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90020-I
Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2004). The intersection of leadership and
entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.004
Conger, J. A. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations / jay A. conger,
rabindra N. kanungo. Thousand Oaks, CA etc.: Thousand Oaks, CA etc.] : Sage.
Cremer, D. D., & Knippenberg, D. v. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self- confidence. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 140-155.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004
de Vries, R. E. (2012). Personality predictors of leadership styles and the self– other agreement problem. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 809-821.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.002
Densten, I. L., & Gray, J. H. (2001). Leadership development and reflection: What is the connection? International Journal of Educational Management, 15(3), 119-124. doi:10.1108/09513540110384466
Ennis, R. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179-186. doi:10.1080/00405849309543594
Feltham, R., & Hughes, D. (1999). Interim managers: Distinguishing personality characteristics of managers on Short‐ term contracts. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 7(4), 209-214. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00121
Greenberg, D., Mckone‐ sweet, K., & Wilson, H. J. (2013). Entrepreneurial leaders: Creating opportunity in an unknowable world. Leader to Leader, 2013(67), 56-62. doi:10.1002/ltl.20063
Gupta, V., MacMillan, I. C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business
