|عنوان مقاله||Dynamic viewpoints on implicit leadership and followership theories: Approaches, findings, and future directions|
|ترجمه عنوان مقاله||دیدگاه های پویا در مورد رهبری ضمنی و نظریه پیروان: رویکردها، یافته ها، و جهت های آینده|
|تعداد صفحات مقاله||۷ صفحه|
|رشته های مرتبط||مدیریت|
|گرایش های مرتبط||مدیریت عملکرد|
|مجله||دینامیک سازمان – Organizational Dynamics|
|تعداد کلمات||۴۷۰۲ کلمه|
|لینک مقاله در سایت مرجع||لینک این مقاله در سایت الزویر (ساینس دایرکت) Sciencedirect – Elsevier|
|وضعیت ترجمه مقاله||ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.|
|دانلود رایگان مقاله||دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی|
|سفارش ترجمه این مقاله||سفارش ترجمه این مقاله|
|بخشی از متن مقاله:|
|Future research and new directions
To begin, we offer some important clarifications for those doing research in this area. 1) ILTs are not synonymous with actual leader behavior. Instead, the literature focuses on perceptions of leaders rather than objective leader behavior. For example, in Lord and Maher’s (1991) reciprocal influence model, social perception is conceptualized as a sense-making process that focuses on the interpretation of behavior rather than leader behavior per se. Moreover, reliance on ILTs and ILFs may trigger “false alarms” in person perception whereby observers incorrectly report behaviors that were not observed yet are consistent with the leader prototype (Phillips & Lord, 1982). Therefore, reliance on ILTs may introduce a bias into leadership ratings. Epitropaki and Martin (2005) showed that employees relied more on their ILTs to make sense of their relationship with their manager when their intrinsic motivation was low. Their finding was consistentwith Macrae and Bodenhausen’s (2000) suggestions that individuals resort more to schematic thinking when motivation is low. The Trichas et al. (2017) study in this special issue further emphasizes the role of emotion and mood as a contributing factor to individuals’ reliance on prototypical (in conditions of positive emotion) and antiprototypical (in conditions of negative emotion) leadership traits. This is an interesting avenue for future research. Under which conditions are individuals more likely to resort to categorical thinking and fill in perceptual gaps based on their ILTs and IFTs rather than engage in careful information processing of exhibited leadership behaviors?
Notably, implicit leadership theories are not outside an individual’s conscious awareness. Rather the term implicit, as used in implicit leadership theories, refers to individuals’ preconceptions about traits (e.g., the patterning of leadership variables) that they bring to the leadership situation (Eden & Leviathan, 1975). Individuals have an internal working model or schema comprised of certain traits and characteristics that are typically associated with the word “leader”. Moreover, as demonstrated by previous research, individuals are quite aware of the content of these categories; yet, at the same time, individuals may be unaware of the impact of these categories (e.g., false memories) on their decision making and judgments. As shown in the Trichas et al.’s (2017) study, embodied characteristics and states such as facial expressions and emotion may impact leadership perceptions outside conscious awareness. Therefore, contrary to early perspectives that imposed a strict dichotomy of implicit vs. explicit processing, the current consensus is that most schemas may be processed implicitly and explicitly (Epitropaki et al., 2013).
Implicit leadership theories have a clearly defined center but fuzzy boundaries. Therefore, even though there may be wide spread agreement about certain characteristics such as intelligence associated with the word “leader” (e.g. Lord et al., 1984; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994) there is still variation based on individual differences. For example, previous research has found that some individuals are more likely to endorse antiprototypical leader characteristics (Bray, Foti, Thompson, & Wills, 2014; Foti, Bray, Thompson, & Allgood, 2012; Keller, 1999). Moreover, the GLOBE studies (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1999) found that while leader attributes associated with charismatic/transformational leadership were universally endorsed, the endorsement of other leader attributes-such as risk taking, ambition, compassion, enthusiasm, sensitivity, self-sacrifice, and willfulness was culturally contingent.