Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:48:40.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Modelling of the Social Processes of Leadership in Work Units

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Ken Parry
Ken Parry*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Management, Griffith University, Nathan QLD 4111, Australia Phone: +61 7 3875 3703 Fax: +61 7 3875 5582, Email: k.parry@griffith.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research tests the extent to which the social processes of leadership, as derived from the full grounded theory method, may be tapping constructs other than those measured by existing measures of transformational leadership. The impact on work unit outcomes of two measures of transformational leadership and the social processes of leadership scale (SPL) were tested. Comparative structural equation modelling was undertaken. It was found that, with one exception – ‘active management processes’, normally classified as transactional management – measures of transformational leadership are probably pre-existing measures of the social processes of leadership in organisations. The use of the grounded theory method to research leadership is supported. Hierarchy of Abstraction Modelling is useful as a training tool and as a representation of research findings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , January 2004 , pp. 69 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arbuekle, J L & Wothke, W 1999. AMOS 4.0 users guide. SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago. IL.Google Scholar
Avolio, B J. Bass, BM & Jung, DI 1999. ‘Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. vol. 72, pp. 441–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, BM 1998. Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Frlbaum Associates. Inc., Mahwah.Google Scholar
Bass, BM & Avolio, BJ 1993. ‘Transformational leadership: A response to the critics’, in Chemers, MM & Ayman, R (eds). Leadership theory and research: Prespectives and directions. Academic Press Inc., Sydney.Google Scholar
Bentler, PM & Chou, C-P 1987. ‘Practical issues in structural modelling’, Sociological Methods and Research, vol. 16, pp. 78–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B 1995. ‘One application of structural equation modeling from two perspectives’, in Hoyle, RH (ed.). Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks. pp. 138–157.Google Scholar
Conger, J A 1998. ‘Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S 1992. ‘Power in top management teams; Dimensions, measurement, and validation’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 35, pp. 505–538.Google Scholar
Fowler, F J 1988. Survey research methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park. CA.Google Scholar
Glaser, B 1978. Theoretical sensitivity. Sociology Press, Mill Valley. CA.Google Scholar
Glaser, B & Strauss, A 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hughes, R L.Ginnett, RC & Curphy, GJ 1996. Leadership: Faihancing the lessons of experience. 2nd edn. Irwin, Chicago.Google Scholar
Irurita, VF 1994. ‘Optimism, values, and commitment as forces in leadership’, Journal of Parsing Administration (JONA), vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 61–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irurita, VF 1996. ‘Optimising: A leadership process for transforming mediocrity to excellence’, in Parry, K (ed.). Leadership research and practice; Emerging themes and new challenges. Pitman Publishing, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Kan, MM 2002. ‘Reinterpreting the multifactor leadership questionnaire’, in Parry, KW & Meindl, JR (eds). Grounding leadership theory and research: Issues, perspectives and methods. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich. CT. pp. 159–173.Google Scholar
Moser, K & Kalton, G 1971. Survey methods in social investigation. Heinemann Educational Books, London.Google Scholar
Parry, K 1998. “Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, K 1999. ‘Enhancing adaptability: Leadership strategies to accommodate change in local government settings’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 134–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, KW 2002a. ‘Hierarchy of abstraction modelling (H.A.M.) and the psychometric validation of grounded theory research’, international Journal of Organisational Behaviour, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 180–194.Google Scholar
Parry, KW 2002b. ‘Four phenomenologically-determined social processes of organizational leadership: Further support for the construct of transformational leadership’, in Avolio, BJ & Yammarino, FJ (eds). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Monographs in leadership and management, vol. 2, JAI Press? Elsevier Science, Oxford. UK. pp. 339–372.Google Scholar
Parry, KW & Proctor-Thomson, SB 2001. The social process of leadership (SPL): From qualitative to quantitative analyses. Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Annual Conference, Auckland. 5-8 12.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, PM. MacKenzie, SB. Moorman, RH & Fetter, R 1990. ‘Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, M 2002. ‘Salient biases in discussion and research on leadership’, in Parry, KW & Meindl, JR (eds). Grounding leadership theory and research: Issues. perspectives and methods. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, Connecticut, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Rainey, H.Sanjay, P & Bozeman, B 1995. ‘Research note: Public and private managers' perceptions of red tape’, Public Administration Review, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rost, JC 1993. Leadership for die twenty-first century, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Waldman, DA. Ramirez, GG. House, RJ & Puranam, P 2001. ‘Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and pro inability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 134–143.Google Scholar
Yukl, G 2002. Leadership in organizations, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar