In the eye of the beholder: A configurational analysis of followers’ conceptualizations of the ideal academic department leader at private universities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2012
In the eye of the beholder: A configurational analysis of followers’ conceptualizations of the ideal academic department leader at private universities
This paper examines followers’ conceptualizations of the ideal business department leader within private universities. Using an internet survey of 273 faculty members and 31 department leaders from 59 private, non-ivy league universities, this paper examines how faculty members and department leaders conceptualize the ideal leader in terms of abilities and traits, and investigates the measures by which they define departmental success. A principal components analysis is utilized to identify the underlying cognitive framework of these abilities, traits, and success measures from both the faculty member and department leader perspective. The results indicate that faculty members desire equity rather than personalized treatment, and the measures by which business faculty and administrators define departmental success reflect the best interests of the institution in which they are employed. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.
AntonakisJAvolioBJSivasubramaniamN (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly14: 261–295.
2.
BargeJKMusambiraGW (1992). Turning points in chair–faculty relationships. Journal of Applied Communication20: 54–77.
3.
BinningJFLordRG (1980). Boundary conditions for performance cue effects on group process ratings: Familiarity versus type of feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance26: 115–130.
4.
BlighMCKohlesJCMeindlJR (2004). Charting the language of leadership: A methodological investigation of President Bush and the Crisis of 9/11. Journal of Applied Psychology89(3): 562–574.
5.
BrewerMBGardnerW (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(1): 83–93.
6.
BrymanA (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education32(6): 693–710.
7.
BrymanAStephensMCampoC (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly7(3): 353–370.
8.
CalderBJ (1977). Endogenous–exogenous versus internal–external attributions: Implications for the development of attribution theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin3: 400–406.
9.
CatramboneRMarkusH (1987). The role of self-schemas in going beyond the information given. Social Cognition5: 349–368.
10.
Collinson D and Collinson M (2009) ‘Blended leadership’: Employee perspectives on effective leadership in the UK Further Education Sector. Leadership 5: 365–380.
11.
EnsariNMurphySE (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes92: 52–66.
12.
EpitropakiOMartinR (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology89: 293–310.
13.
GomesRKnowlesPA (1999). Marketing department leadership: An analysis of a team transformation. Journal of Marketing Education21: 164–174.
14.
GraenGNovakMSommerkampP (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance30: 109–131.
15.
HairJFAndersonRETathamRLBlackWC (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
Harris J, Martin BN and Agnew W (2004) The characteristics, behaviors, and training of effective educational/leadership chairs. In: DC Thompson and FE Crampton (eds) The changing face(s) of educational leadership, Kansas City, Missouri, 11–14 November. Kansas City: University Council for Educational Administration.
17.
HigginsET (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer?Advances in Experimental Social Psychology22: 93–136.
18.
HoggMAMartinREpitropakiOMankadASvenssonAWeedenK (2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin31(7): 991–1004.
19.
HouseRJAdityaRM (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?Journal of Management23: 409–473.
20.
JovanovicB (1979). Firm-specific capital and turnover. Journal of Political Economy87: 1246–1260.
21.
KelleyHH(1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In: LevineD (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 192–240.
22.
KuhnertKWLewisP (1987). Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A Constructive/Developmental Analysis. Academy of Management Review12(4): 648–657.
23.
LinvillePW (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress related disease and illness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology52: 663–676.
24.
LordRGMaherK (1993). Leadership and Information Processing. New York: Routledge.
25.
LordRGBrownDJFreibergSJ (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes78: 167–203.
26.
LordRGDe VaderCAlligerG (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology71: 402–410.
27.
MeindlJR (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly6: 329–341.
28.
MeindlJREhrlichSB (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal30: 91–109.
29.
MeindlJREhrlichSBDukerichJM (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly30: 78–102.
30.
MischelW (1979). On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person/situation debate. American Psychologist34: 740–754.
31.
MitchellTRLarsenJRGreenS (1977). Leader behavior, situational moderators, and group performance: An attributional analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance18: 254–268.
PhillipsJSLordG (1981). Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance28(2): 143–163.
34.
PoolePPGioiaDAGrayB (1989). Influence modes, schema change, and organization transformation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science25: 271–289.
35.
RoschEMervisCB (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology7: 573–605.
36.
RossMSicolyF (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37: 322–337.
37.
RushMCPhillipsJSLordRG (1981). Effects of a temporal delay in rating on leader behavior descriptions: A laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology66: 442–450.
38.
RushMCThomasJCLordRG (1977). Implicit Leadership Theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance20: 93–110.
39.
ShondrickSJLordRG (2010). implicit leadership and followership theories: Dynamic structures for leadership perceptions, memory, and leader-follower processes. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology25: 1–34.
40.
ShondrickSJDinhJELordRG (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly21: 959–978.
41.
StawBM (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance13(3): 414–432.
