The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Embedded leadership: How do a leader's superiors impact middle-management performance?

Jay J. Caughron a,, Michael D. Mumford b
a b

Radford University, United States The University of Oklahoma, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
This study uses a low-fidelity simulation to test the effect superiors can have on the leadership style and cognition of their subordinates who also are leaders. These leaders within the organization, often referred to as middle managers, occupy an important, albeit overlooked position within an organization. In order to emphasize the leadership that occurs at the middle levels of management the term embedded leader is used. Using a sample of 224 undergraduates, three variables were manipulated to examine their effects on participant sensemaking, confidence, and participative leadership. The variables manipulated were the severity of individual level consequences (high vs. low), the severity of organizational consequences (high vs. low), and the superior's motivational strategy (coercive vs. supportive vs. passive style). It was found that a leader's superior can influence their leadership behaviors in a complex manner. Participant sensemaking was higher when their superior emphasized low levels of individual (or personal) consequences. Participative leadership was higher when the supervisor framed organizational level consequences as being high. Findings for participant confidence were complex, but generally suggest that one's superiors can promote or hinder confidence in a variety of situations. 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 25 May 2010 Accepted 1 August 2011 Available online 16 December 2011 Keywords: Leadership Embedded leadership Leader follower relationships Leader sensemaking Coercive leadership Supportive leadership Middle management

As an organization grows in size, multiple layers of management develop in order to keep up with expanding demands. Of course the most visible leaders are those who occupy the highest hierarchical positions within organizations. However, it is important to consider leaders who occupy middle or lower level managerial positions as well. Organizational effectiveness may hinge on the coordination and communication that occurs within the organization between departments and across levels of management. For example, middle level leaders work to get projects finished through their subordinates, coordinate activities between groups within the organization, exert influence on others within and outside of the organization, plan for future projects, and align their groups goals with larger organizational goals (DeChurch, Hiller, Murase, Doty, & Salas, 2010; Jacobs & McGee, 2001). Research on leadership at multiple levels of management is not new. In a recent review of research on leadership, DeChurch et al. (2010) found that in the 25 years prior to their analysis upper management was the focus of research in 34% of studies, lower-levels of management 16% and middle management only 7%. Curiously, leadership behaviors in the middle of the organization have been researched much less than leadership at the higher and lower ends of the organization, leading DeChurch and colleagues to conclude By far the least well empirically-understood aspect of organizational leadership happens in the middle place (p. 1078). It is important to point out that as organizations work to right-size their workforce employees in middle management are often targeted for downsizing. While this means the number of middle managers may be decreasing, it also suggests that those who remain will have to take on a greater burden. Their position in the middle place of the organization dictates that they are
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Radford University, Radford, VA, United States. Tel.: +1 540 831 8700. E-mail address: jcaughron@radford.edu (J.J. Caughron). 1048-9843/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.008

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

343

able to exert upward and downward influence effectively as they work to implement upper management's strategy but respond to the needs of the workforce they lead (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992, 1994; Yammarino, 1994). They also influence organizational success by making sense of organizational events for organizational members above and below them in the hierarchy. In this way they help the organization adapt to emergent events (DeChurch et al., 2010; Weick, 1995). Superiors can exert a great deal of influence on their subordinates, and there is no reason to suspect that middle managers are immune to this effect. They have power over the allocation of resources, promotion decisions, performance evaluations, and a variety of other processes and outcomes that have a real and direct impact on the managers under their supervision and direction (Bass, 2008; Raven & French, 1958a, 1958b; Smith, 1948). Additionally, superiors often set the stage for sensemaking in their subordinates by selecting variables to be monitored, emphasizing certain aspects of performance in group and individual evaluations, and by controlling the flow of information to subordinates (Bass, 2008; Weick, 1995; Yukl, 2006). While upper level leaders have a notable influence over middle managers, their impact on lower level employees appears to be negligible. Chun, Yammarino, Dionne, Sosik and Moon (2009) used a survey technique to examine leadership from a multiple levels of management and a multiple levels of analysis perspective in the same study. Their findings suggest that upper level leaders can have a wide ranging influence on middle managers, but that their impact on lower level employees is minimal. This would underscore the importance of the middle manager as an intermediary who is able to exert greater influence on lower level employees than a distant high level leader. Chun et al. (2009) go on to suggest that high level organizational leaders would be well advised to develop subordinates who can serve as their surrogates. In this way, higher level leaders can exert indirect influence on their front-line employees through their middle managers. This study seeks to follow up on Chun et al. (2009) examination of the middle levels of management. It should be emphasized that the term levels as it is used in this manuscript refers to levels of management, rather than levels of analysis. This manuscript examines the impact a supervisor can have on their direct subordinate's leadership, but does not use a levels-of-analysis approach. Thus, the term level is not referring to levels of analysis as is common in the literature (Chun et al., 2009; Yammarino & Bass, 1991; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2009a, 2009b). The primary purpose of this research is to examine the second-tier leader; the leader who follows, as well as leads. These individuals are typically referred to as middle managers. Yammarino (1994) refers to them as direct reports whereas Chun and colleagues uses the term close followers. These individuals report directly to their own leaders but also work with lower level employees to accomplish organizational tasks. These lower level employees have been referred to as indirect reports or as distant followers (Chun et al., 2009; Yammarino, 1994). Distant followers are separated from a higher level leader by at least one layer of management. In order to emphasize the leadership aspect of what middle managers do and to avoid confusion about which level of leadership is being discussed throughout the rest of this manuscript we use the term embedded leader. When we use this term, we refer to a person who reports to another higher level leader within the organization but is also responsible for leading others towards organizational goals. Given that studying leadership in the middle place is important (Chun et al., 2009; DeChurch et al., 2010; Yammarino & Bass, 1991), how are researchers to go about this task? The preponderance of research focusing on levels of management issues in leadership has been conducted in the field. Field research is indeed a valuable approach because it can capture leadership phenomena at multiple levels of management as they occur in real-world settings. Additionally, it is very difficult to simulate a variety of aspects of real work settings in the lab, especially those dealing with the nature of interpersonal relationships which are developed over time. That being said, it is also important to take a variety of approaches in conducting leadership research. To this point, in DeChurch et al.'s (2010) review, they found that only 11.5% of studies examining multiple levels of management were conducted in the lab. Studying people's behavior as they engage in middle management tasks in a lab setting presents several advantages. First, researchers are able to use levels of control that would be impossible in a real-world setting. Second, researchers can target and manipulate specific variables of interest based on theory or previous findings. Third, biases that are found in real-world research can be eliminated in a lab setting. Specifically, the majority of work on multiple levels of management issues employ surveys; surveys that are typically filled out by the leader of interest as well as that leader's superiors or subordinates. These surveys collect responses based on co-workers' opinions leader of interest. This is practically the definition of a biased response. A more objective evaluation of the leader's performance can be obtained in a lab. Fourth, the dependent variables examined in a real-world setting are much more limited than those that can be examined within a lab. Specifically, Kaiser, Hogan and Craig (2008) noted that not only are many of the variables examined in leadership research drawn from people's perceptions of a particular leader, they are also very often some measure of career success for the leaders in question. As they point out, actions that lead to career success are not the same as those that lead to organizational success, nor are they necessarily the same as those that would be considered high quality leadership. The outcome variables that are the most theoretically and rationally interesting can be examined in a lab setting with much less regard for what are convenient sources of outcome data. Thus, this study seeks to make several unique contributions to the literature. First, it is an experimental examination of leadership phenomenon at multiple levels of management. By simulating middle management tasks and manipulating factors that influence middle managers we can learn about how these individuals are influenced by their environment and then measure the outcomes that are relevant to how they lead their subordinates. Second, this study seeks to go beyond correlational findings that typically result from survey research. By approaching this topic using an experimental technique we can make firm conclusion regarding causal relationships. Third, and finally, this study seeks to expand the outcome variables of interest in multiple levels of management research. While assessing career attainment and the perceptions of leader performance are important, they are limited. This study seeks to measure the cognition people engage in when performing middle management tasks when exposed to select middle management environmental factors.

344

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

1. Leadership outcomes Fortunately, a wide array of leadership variables has been identified and shown to be related to leader and group performance. One such variable is participative leadership. Participative leadership can be described as a leadership style in which the leader shares decision-making power, encourages follower input during discussions, and expects followers to be actively involved in the process of problem-solving (Bass, 2008). Participative leadership has been shown to be related to decision quality (Bass, 1960; Lanzetta & Roby, 1960; Lorge, Fox, Davitz, & Brenner, 1958), decision acceptance (Bass, 1958; Likert, 1961a, 1961b), follower satisfaction (Aspergren, 1963; Harrison, 1985; Preston & Heintz, 1949; Ziller, 1954), task motivation (Aspergren, 1963), and absenteeism (Mann & Baumgartel, 1952). In addition to participative leadership, it is also important to consider sensemaking. Leader sensemaking is important for leader problem-solving, decision-making, communication, and planning. Sensemaking is one's ability to develop a coherent, interpretable understanding of an ambiguous situation that facilitates subsequent decision-making and action (Caughron, Shipman, Beeler, & Mumford, 2009; Weick, 1995). Not only does sensemaking help a leader make decisions and direct action, it also sets the stage for communication, coordination, and progress monitoring within a given situation (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Hershey & Walsh, 2001). As such, it is an important variable to consider when examining how a leader, in this case an embedded leader, is likely to function in situations calling for problem-solving, communicating with subordinates and superiors, decision-making, directing action, and monitoring a group's progress toward a goal. Confidence is another variable that has received a great deal of attention in leadership research. A leader who appears confident is more likely to instill confidence in followers and engender their commitment to shared goals (Black & Porter, 2000; Northouse, 1997). Leaders who are confident enjoy greater influence over followers than those who appear less confident (Post, 1986) in addition to higher ratings of leadership from peers and supervisors (Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000). Clearly confidence is an important variable to consider in evaluating a leader's performance and is likely to be influenced by many situational factors that can be manipulated in a laboratory setting. 2. Superior's leadership technique Of course, if an examination of how leaders are influenced by their environment is to be conducted, it is important to consider the leadership behaviors demonstrated by their superior. Individualized leadership theory suggests that leaders exert a great deal of influence on followers on a dyadic level. Specifically, it suggests that leaders who support their followers' sense of self-worth will enable those followers to demonstrate satisfactory levels of performance (Dansereau et al., 1995). Given the nature of individualized leadership it should not be surprising that two aspects of leadership that are particularly salient to followers is the extent to which a leader is either supportive or coercive. Bankhart and Lanzetta (1970), Barrow (1976), and Hinton and Barrow (1975) have all provided evidence for the fact that superiors tend to become more coercive when their subordinates' performance is inadequate. Similarly, Kipnis (1976) has shown that leaders are more likely to use coercive influence tactics when faced with a potential failure situation. Additionally, it is often the case in real-world organizational settings that organizational leaders will choose a hard-nosed, coercive leader when they discover a high consequence situation needing a quick and effective, resolution. However, little research has been conducted to test the wisdom of this strategy. Although individualized leadership theory suggests supportive leadership will result in higher levels of subordinate performance (Dansereau et al., 1995), it is not always entirely clear what an organization gains when their superiors use a supportive leadership style (Yukl, 2006). Groups with supportive leaders may become more cohesive and demonstrate higher levels of member satisfaction, but may also be slower in solving problems (Bass, 2008; Fox, 1954, 1957). Thus the actual benefit of using a supportive leadership style will likely depend on a given set of circumstances. This is especially true when one considers the relationship between supportive leadership and follower confidence. While it is easy to imagine a case in which supportive leadership would engender higher levels of confidence in an employee, it is unclear whether supportive leadership will engender confidence in all situations. In fact, Jones, James, and Bruni (1975) found that confidence is related to perceptions of leadership. It is likely that the relationship between follower confidence and a superior's use of supportive leadership techniques is a complex one, when one considers that expressions of support may not always be interpreted as leadership. Hypothesis 1. A supportive leadership style will engender greater levels of follower confidence depending on the situation faced by the follower. 3. Framing consequences Given evidence that leaders tend to be more coercive when their followers' performance is lacking and when facing a potential failure situation, it is important to consider the consequences the organization is facing along with the superior's leadership style. One of the most important influences leaders have on their subordinates is how they frame consequences. Followers tend to monitor what consequences the leader talks about as being important and use consequence information provided by the leader as performance feedback (Weick, 1995). Framing the consequences of failure at the organizational level may bolster embedded leaders' motivation and prompt them to take a wider view of a situation. Alternatively, the increased attention that organizational level consequences bring may

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

345

distract the embedded leader from the task at hand. However, it is likely that organizational level consequences will be seen as being more distal and less threatening than individual level consequences. Thus a higher level of organizational consequences are likely to frame the problem as being at the organizational level and encourage an embedded leader to rally organizational members to solve the problem. This would be demonstrated as an embedded leader using higher levels of participative leadership. Hypothesis 2. Higher levels of organizational level consequences will cause a leader to become more participative in their leadership. While organizational level consequences are no doubt important to a conscientious middle manager, they are undoubtedly less threatening than consequences directly targeting the individual. Facing personal level consequences suggests a certain level of personal involvement in the outcome stemming from group performance. If an embedded leader's superior emphasizes severe negative individual level outcomes, such as losing their job or being demoted, it is arguable that this will result in the embedded leader feeling threatened. Should this occur, it is likely that the embedded leader will become self-focused, thinking less about resolving the organizational problems at hand and more about dealing with personal outcomes. This would likely serve as a distraction to the embedded leader. In fact, in his examination of the Mann Gulch disaster, this is exactly what Weick suggests was a key contributor to the collapse of leadership resulting in many preventable deaths (Weick, 1993). One's ability to engage in sensemaking seems to be compromised by high levels of individual level consequences. What is unclear is whether or not this effect can been seen for sensemaking in a middle management situation. In essence, a question remains as to how emphasizing personal level outcomes, especially severely negative ones, impacts one's approach to leadership tasks at the middle levels of an organization. However, given Weick's suggestions that individual level consequences hinder sensemaking we are left with the following hypothesis (Weick, 1993, 1995). Hypothesis 3. Higher levels of individual level consequences will cause a decrement in a leader's ability to engage in sensemaking. 4. Method 4.1. Sample The sample consisted of 224 undergraduate students (44 males and 180 females) drawn from an introductory psychology course at a large southwestern university. The study was announced via a website posting describing the study as a leadership problem-solving study. The mean age of the participants was 19.5 years of age. The mean reported American College Testing (ACT) exam score was 24.85, suggesting that these students represent a set of typical undergraduate college students, in terms of demographics and general intelligence. 4.2. General procedures Upon arriving at the study location, participants read and signed an informed consent form. The study was conducted in a single 3-hour session divided into two blocks. The first block was half an hour long and involved a proctor guiding the participants through a series of timed individual difference measures. The second block was scheduled for two and a half hours. During this time, the participants were allowed to complete the remainder of the study materials at their own pace. The primary experimental task was a low-fidelity simulation (Motowidlo, Dunnette, & Carter, 1990) consisting of a scenario in which the participants assumed the role of a middle-manager involved in directing action of subordinates and giving opinions about challenges faced by a mid-sized manufacturing organization. In this scenario, the middle-manager oversees the development, production, and marketing of a new automobile and writes two open-ended responses to the CEO about how best to turn around lagging sales. Additionally, they provide two open-ended responses to their subordinates giving them information about the company's situation, plan of action, and directions on what to do next. The first response is used as a within subject control because it was solicited from the participants before they encountered any manipulations. The manipulations were administered in the form of emails from the CEO and the last three responses were coded for the dependent variables of interest: participant confidence, use of participative leadership, and sensemaking. 4.3. Individual difference measures Measures were administered in order to control for the role of individual differences. Participants' gender, personality, intelligence, need for cognition, planning skill, and the number of superiors they have had in their work experience were examined as covariates. A significant correlation between gender and participative leadership was found (r = 0.140; p b 0.05), suggesting that females are more likely to engage in participative leadership than males. Prior research has shown that males and females show differences in leadership style, especially where participative leadership is concerned (Jago & Vroom, 1982; Steers, 1977; Vroom & Jago, 1995). Given the evidence for, and importance of, gender differences in leadership, the fact that gender showed a significant

346

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

correlation with participative leadership, and that there were many more females in this sample than males, it was included as a control measure in the analysis of the participative leadership variable. Participants' self-reported ACT score was a significant control measure in the analysis for the sensemaking variable and was thus retained in that analysis. No other control variables demonstrated significant relationships with sensemaking, confidence, or participation and were thus removed from the analyses. 4.4. Experimental manipulations 4.4.1. Organizational consequences Each of the manipulations was written into the scenario, within the CEO's response to their meeting with the board of directors. Participants read this email after they gave their first response to the problem and before they gave their second response. In the email, the CEO discusses organizational consequences that could occur if the problem is not resolved adequately. In the high organizational consequences condition, the CEO chooses to present the board of directors with a plan that is extremely costly in terms of money (approximately $141 million as stated in the vignette) and time (68 months) before the organization will begin to see if the plan is helping the problematic business unit improve performance. In the low organizational consequences condition, the CEO presents the board of directors with a plan that is much less costly (approximately $1 million as stated in the vignette) and while requiring some downtime (46 weeks), will not delay production of the vehicle as much as the high consequence condition. 4.4.2. Individual consequences As with the organizational consequences manipulation, individual consequences were also manipulated at two levels. In the high individual consequences condition, the CEO tells the participant that the board of directors was particularly disappointed with his or her work and that they are considering demoting or laying off the participant. In the low individual consequences condition, the CEO tells the participant that he expects him or her to work through the weekend in order to get a new report finished by Monday. 4.4.3. Superior's leadership technique The CEO's motivational strategy was set at three levels. The first level was that of a coercive response. In this condition the CEO expresses anger with the participant and his or her coworkers in the scenario, questions his or her competence and commitment, and reprimands him or her for poor performance. The second level of this manipulation was a supportive response from the embedded leader's superior. In this condition the CEO still tells the participant and his or her coworkers that the board meeting did not go well but emphasizes that they were not to blame and that the primary cause of the problem was his choice of exactly which material to present to the board of directors. In this condition the CEO is much more supportive and encouraging to the participant, takes responsibility for what the CEO himself could have done differently, and encourages the employees to move forward in a positive direction. The final condition within this manipulation is that of a passive response. In this condition the CEO still mentions that the board meeting did not go well, but does not give the employees feedback regarding their performance, nor does he mention taking responsibility himself for any mistakes that may have occurred. 4.4.4. Content coding Content coding was used to measure a variety of variables in this study. These variables have been identified as important for leaders to exhibit in performing their duties and include sensemaking (Weick, 1995), demonstrating participative leadership (Evans, 1970; Georgopoulos, Mahoney, & Jones, 1957; House, 1971) and confidence (Black & Porter, 2000; Chemers et al., 2000; Northouse, 1997; Post, 1986). The four judges involved in this content coding effort were senior-level graduate students working toward obtaining their PhD in I/O psychology. During their training the judges were introduced to operational definitions for each of the variables to be coded. Additionally, time was spent during each training session rating materials and comparing ratings on a subset of materials drawn from the participants' responses to the stimulus materials. Ratings for each construct were made on a 5-point Likert scale. Discussions were held when judges did not agree on how to rate a given response until the judges had a minimum reliability of 0.70 on ten items drawn from the participant materials for each construct they were rating. After this was achieved, the judges were given the rest of the participant materials to rate and reliabilities were checked again at the end of the study. The judges were blind to the participants' conditions. Judges were each given a manual describing the rating strategy, which included definitions of each construct, markers that highlighted key aspects of the construct, and example materials drawn from participant responses representing high, medium, and low performance on each construct. Table 1 presents the construct label, definition, reliability, and relevant citations for each of these variables. 5. Results Table 2 presents the correlations between the leadership dependent variables. In order to test the hypotheses regarding differences in behavior by embedded leaders, a series of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analyses were conducted. This procedure allowed the researchers to control for the participant's pre-manipulation response, relevant covariate measures, and test the relationship of the manipulations on the participants' post-manipulation responses. One ANCOVA analysis was conducted for each

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

Table 1 Construct definitions and reliability estimates. Construct Confidence Reliability 0.702 Denition Source

Sensemaking Participative decisionmaking

0.734 0.818

The degree to which the participant seems sure of him or herself as they solve problems, give directions, or interact Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004 with others. A participant who expresses self-doubt, prevaricates about the action steps, or discusses multiple options without making a decision should be rated as low in confidence. Participants who give directions without prevaricating, make firm decisions, or express confidence in themselves or team members should be rated as being high in confidence. When solving a problem, it is important that people think about how their position in their group, organization, and Weick, 1995 society relate to the origins of the problem, individuals involved, and relevant principles, goals & values. The extent to which the individual expresses a desire to consult with subordinates, gather information from others, Evans, 1970; Georgopoulos et al., 1957; House, 1971 asks for opinions or suggestions, or encourages others to make decisions.

347

348

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

Table 2 Correlations among leadership outcome variables. Age Age Gender ACT score Confidence Sensemaking Participative leadership Denotes p b 0.05. Denotes p b 0.01. 0.029 0.009 0.051 0.156 0.128 Gender ACT Condence Sensemaking Participative

0.140 0.102 0.083 0.172

0.045 0.059 0.061

0.496 0.316

0.605

leadership outcome variable so that the participant's pre-manipulation response could be used as a covariate for that variable only. This included the participant's confidence, sensemaking, and participative leadership. Table 3 presents the betweensubject results for all dependent variables. Table 4 presents the estimated marginal means for the significant interaction between the organizational consequences and superior's leadership strategy manipulation on the confidence variable (F = 4.47; p = 0.011). These means are charted on graphs in Fig. 1. Table 4, along with Fig. 1, shows a decline in the participants' confidence when organizational consequences were low and the participant's superior used a passive or supportive leadership technique. However, participant confidence was highest when the leader used a coercive strategy in a low organizational consequences situation or a passive or supportive approach when organizational consequences were high. Overall this supports Hypothesis 1 in that supportive leadership enhanced participant confidence but only in certain circumstances. When organizational consequences were high confidence increased with supportive leadership. Alternatively, coercive leadership increased confidence when organizational consequences were low. Tables 5a and 5b along with Fig. 2 show the estimated marginal means for the three-way interaction between organizational consequences, individual consequences, and the superior's leadership strategy on the confidence variable. The highest levels of confidence were found for a supportive superior paired with high organizational and low individual level consequences. This suggests that a superior can help their followers feel more confident when they use a supportive strategy and deemphasize individual level consequences when facing high organizational level consequences.

Table 3 ANCOVA results for outcomes controlling for participants' pre-measure score. Variable Confidence Organizational consequences Individual consequences Superior's leadership strategy Org indiv consequences Org superior's leadership Indiv superior's leadership Org indiv superior's leadership Sensemaking ACT control measure Organizational consequences Individual consequences Superior's leadership strategy Org indiv consequences Org superior's leadership Indiv superior's leadership Org indiv superior's leadership Participative leadership Gender Organizational consequences Individual consequences Superior's leadership strategy Org indiv consequences Org superior's leadership Indiv superior's leadership Org indiv superior's leadership Denotes p b 0.05. Denotes p b 0.01. F 2.59 0.12 1.84 0.77 4.47 0.59 2.89 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, df 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 p 0.084 0.627 0.222 0.393 0.011 0.600 0.046 2 0.014 0.001 0.014 0.003 0.042 0.005 0.029

7.30 1.41 8.69 2.63 0.12 1.20 1.00 0.89

1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2,

211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211

0.007 0.236 0.004 0.075 0.727 0.303 0.371 0.414

0.033 0.007 0.040 0.024 0.001 0.011 0.009 0.008

0.230 4.73 0.01 1.25 0.01 0.82 0.12 1.99

1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2,

211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211

0.632 0.031 0.907 0.288 0.909 0.441 0.885 0.140

0.001 0.022 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.008 0.001 0.018

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353 Table 4 Confidence (organizational consequences superior's leadership strategy). Organizational consequences Low M Superior's leadership strategy Coercive Passive Supportive 3.46 3.24 3.29 SD 0.56 0.42 0.45 M 3.28 3.40 3.45 High

349

SD 0.52 0.43 0.52

However, the next highest level of confidence occurs when the participant's supervisor used a coercive leadership style paired with high individual and low organizational consequences. At face value, this seems to be a counter intuitive finding. That when a leader emphasizes individual level consequences they should pair that with a coercive leadership style in order to engender follower confidence, so long as the organizational level consequences are low. However, previous findings have suggested that follower confidence is related to perceptions of leadership (Jones et al., 1975). It is possible that participants interpreted a coercive leader emphasizing individual level consequences when organizational consequences were low as a display of leadership. However, it should be noted that the lowest mean level of confidence occurred with coercive leadership with high levels of both individual and organizational consequences, suggesting that coercion may facilitate follower confidence but only in a narrowly defined set of circumstances. Interestingly, confidence was the lowest when the situation had low consequences on both individual and organizational levels and the leader used a passive or supportive approach. While the reasons for this finding need to be researched further, it is likely that in low consequence situations the participants did not see the situation as a leadership task as much as a more routine management task. If this was the case then it is likely that they would not have felt the need to make overt expressions of confidence when they interacted with their followers. One last note about Fig. 2, low levels of confidence occurred when participants faced a very high stakes situation in that the organization and the individual were both facing severe negative outcomes. The passive leadership approach engendered more confidence than either a supportive or coercive approach, with coercive being the lowest. It is likely that this results from the fact that the superior's attempts to manage the participant's motivation and ability to solve the problem at hand by being supportive or coercive were either distracting (in the case of the supportive condition), discouraging (in the case of the coercive condition), or both. It appears that the participants who were allowed to develop and pursue their own solution to a high stakes problem were the most confident when their superior did not attempt to manipulate their motivation level using an interpersonal strategy. Table 6 shows the estimated marginal means for the main effect of individual level consequences on sensemaking. When individual level consequences were low participant sensemaking was higher (M = 2.90; SD = 0.66) than when individual consequences were high (M = 2.73; SD = 0.73). The interpretation here is straightforward. The less the participants needed to focus on individual level consequences the more effective they were at engaging in sensemaking. This is entirely in line with Weick's work on sensemaking. His analysis of the Mann Gulch disaster suggest that high levels of individual level consequences can cause an individual to draw within themselves and tunnel vision, resulting in lower quality sensemaking (Weick, 1993). This finding supports Hypothesis 3. The importance of this finding hinges on the fact that it is being demonstrated in a simulation of a middle management task. This effect has been suggested as a causal agent in retroactive reviews of life and death situations and has been theorized as a causal factor in organizations. However, the fact that it is found experimentally adds validity to these theories and opens the door for more work on sensemaking as it occurs in the middle layers of organizations.

Note: All scales range from 1-5

Fig. 1. Effect of Organizational consequences superior leadership technique interaction on confidence.

350

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

Table 5a Confidence in low organization consequence condition (organizational consequences individual consequences superior's leadership strategy). Individual consequences Low M Superior's leadership strategy Coercive Passive Supportive 3.41 3.23 3.25 SD 0.49 0.46 0.53 M 3.53 3.26 3.33 High SD 0.64 0.39 0.38

Table 7 shows the estimated marginal means for the main effect of organizational consequences on participative leadership. As predicted in Hypothesis 2, participants showed higher levels of participative leadership when organizational consequences were higher (Mlow = 2.18; SDlow = 0.67 vs. Mhigh = 2.38; SDhigh = 0.66). This suggests that when an embedded leader's superiors emphasize organizational level consequences they cause the embedded leader to use a more participative leadership style with their subordinates. 6. Discussion Before turning to the implications of these findings, a number of limitations should be noted. First, the study uses undergraduates participating in a low-fidelity simulation task. Although evidence has accrued attesting to the validity of using this sample along with this type of task in order to measure cognitive and behavioral variables (Motowidlo et al., 1990; Wintre, North, & Sugar, 2001), it is possible that using a different sample will give somewhat different results. It is likely that real middle managers faced with real organizational or individual level consequences would actually respond in a much stronger fashion, although the direction of the relationships is likely to remain the same. This would also likely increase the average effect size of the findings shown here, which are actually quite low. It should be noted, however, that this is a study about cognition, decision-making, and how these are influenced by one's superiors. Given that these issues do not touch on developmental issues known to change in adulthood, the findings here should be consistent with findings that would be found using an older sample. The only notable challenge to this notion would be the experience gained as one ages in their career. This is a noteworthy challenge and should be addressed in future research. Additionally, this study used a prepost manipulation design. This provides for two layers of control; one stemming from the fact that the study was conducted in a lab and the other stemming from the fact that the participants served as their own statistical controls. This design provides for superior levels of control, especially when compared to field research. Similarly, it allows researchers to make definitive statements about causality that cannot be made in correlation based research. However, one should take note of the small effect sizes demonstrated in this study and bear them in mind when interpreting the results. Effect sizes falling below 0.20 are generally considered small, and the effect sizes here are far below 0.20. This suggests that the relationship between the manipulated variables and the dependent variables is small. It is unclear whether this is due to the technique used to measure these variables or if the relationship between these variables is actually a weak one. Future research on this issue may help clarify this issue. Bearing these limitations in mind, this study makes several important contributions. The findings from this study indicate that superiors must use caution when attempting to engender confidence in their followers. Supportive leadership was found to engender greater confidence when the embedded leaders were facing high organizational consequences paired with low levels of individual level consequences. However, coercive leadership increased embedded leader confidence in certain circumstances. Findings here suggest that superior coercion can cause an embedded leader to approach their tasks with greater confidence, when they emphasize individual level consequences in a low organizational consequence situation. One might expect that pairing supportive leadership techniques with high individual level consequences would be helpful. However, when one considers the practical application of this strategy it becomes clear that pairing expressions of support with an emphasis on personal level consequences is probably not effective for promoting confidence. If one's superior makes a point to mention the personal consequences at stake and then starts using a supportive leadership approach this is a very mixed message. This behavior is likely to come across as either manipulative or confusing; neither of which are likely to increase follower confidence. It is also important

Table 5b Confidence in high organization consequence condition (organizational consequences individual consequences superior's leadership strategy). Individual consequences Low M Superior's leadership strategy Coercive Passive Supportive 3.33 3.37 3.61 SD 0.50 0.36 0.58 M 3.23 3.43 3.30 High SD 0.54 0.51 0.40

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

351

Note: All scales range from 1-5

Fig. 2. Effect of Organizational consequences individual consequences superior's leadership strategy interaction on confidence.

to note, however, that the use of a coercive technique did cause the lowest levels of confidence in other situations. Thus, while being coercive might spur followers on to being confident in a few situations, it appears that those situations are constrained to a very limited set of circumstances. It is important to bear these findings in mind when one considers the fact that real-world organizational leaders often put a coercive leader in charge of high-stakes organizational events. This study suggests that coercive leadership can engender the most confidence when organizational consequences are lowest, not highest. Further, these findings suggest that when middle management is facing high organizational consequences, such as the expenditure of large sums of money or large scale changes in organizational strategy, their confidence is likely to be boosted by bringing in a supportive leader who does not emphasize severe personal level consequences. However, it also appears that being neither supportive nor coercive can actually be helpful in some circumstances. Findings here suggest that organizations should bring in a leader who will allow the middle managers to focus on their task without engaging in overt attempts to spur subordinate confidence when facing high levels of both organizational and personal consequences; apparently, trying to spur middle managers' confidence in an overt manner when they are facing a high stakes situation can cause them to lose confidence. Perhaps embedded leaders interpret these attempts as a lack of trust from their superior. This is an intriguing finding and more research should be conducted to flesh out this issue. Emphasizing individual level consequences also had an interesting effect on sensemaking. It is not surprising that embedded leader's sensemaking behaviors were lower when faced with higher levels of individual consequences. These findings agree with Weick's analysis regarding the MannGulch disaster, it is likely that personal level consequences, especially severe consequences, act to promote a more individualistic cognitive processing style (Weick, 1993). When facing negative personal outcomes, individuals begin to look for a way to take care of themselves rather than focusing on resolving the larger problem at hand. Finding this effect for approaching middle management situations is worth noting. This suggests that organizational leaders should be mindful when selecting the consequences they wish to emphasize with their employees. If those employees are working to create a coherent and actionable understanding of an ambiguous situation, it is best to refrain from emphasizing personal level outcomes. In line with the findings regarding sensemaking, it appears that emphasizing organizational outcomes may be helpful for encouraging participative leadership. Framing consequences at the organizational level appears to encourage middle managers to think in a more collective fashion and recognize the problem as on that should be faced as a group. By emphasizing organizational level outcomes, the embedded leader's superior is able to focus attention on a collective level problem and encourages a collective response, rather than encouraging the individual to approach the problem from an individualistic perspective. One issue that is made very clear by this study is that all consequences are not created equal. The outcomes one's superior emphasizes shapes the way those under his or her guidance think about and approach their work. This is an important issue to consider for organizational leaders seeking to motivate their employees. Emphasizing certain outcomes involves more than influencing which outcomes a subordinate monitors and works to improve, as has been suggested in the past (Weick, 1995). The findings here suggest that upper level managers can hinder their middle manager's ability to understand organizational

Table 6 Sensemaking. M Individual consequences Low High 2.90 2.73 SD 0.66 0.73

352 Table 7 Participative decision-making.

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

M Organizational consequences Low High 2.18 2.38

SD 0.67 0.66

problems by emphasizing individual level consequences. If these managers cannot make sense of organizational problems their ability to create a cohesive plan of action and promote organizational success will be limited. Additionally, emphasizing organizational consequences helps mid-level leaders use a more participative leadership style. Given the complexity of the problems many organizations face a participative leadership style is likely to bring together individuals who have a wide range of expertise and talents and provide higher quality solutions to organizational problems. A few clear cut implications can be made from these findings. First, organizational leaders should take care when they choose which consequences to emphasize to their subordinates. Emphasizing the personal consequences for one's subordinate should be undertaken with great care as it can undermine confidence and derail sensemaking. However, emphasizing organizational level consequences can boost confidence when paired with supportive comments from the supervisor. Additionally, emphasizing organizational level consequences can promote participative leadership in one's subordinates; a type of leadership behavior that is associated with a many positive organizational level outcomes. Lastly, coercive leadership tactics should be used with caution. While there is evidence to suggest that coercive tactics are likely to be used in certain circumstances (Bankhart & Lanzetta, 1970; Barrow, 1976; Hinton & Barrow, 1975), findings here suggest that the use of coercion can hinder the development of follower confidence except in a very narrowly defined set of circumstances. Specifically, here coercion was shown to promote subordinate confidence when paired with emphasizing the severe consequences for the subordinate, but only when it is clear that organizational consequences are low. While the use of coercion is more likely when facing failure in high-stakes situations and when the follower's ability to perform is in question, findings here suggest that coercion is actually only helpful in promoting confidence in low-stakes situations. Future research can build upon these findings by continuing to examine how superiors influence their subordinate leaders. This includes how superiors discuss consequences of failure with their subordinates bearing in mind that consequences operate on multiple levels and are not all of one type. Specifically, examining the effect of emphasizing consequences for a middle manager's subordinates is likely to reveal interesting effects, perhaps causing the middle manager to engage in higher levels of participative leadership or changing the degree to which they use coercive or supportive leadership themselves. Additionally, considering that coercion actually increased follower confidence in some circumstances, further research could also examine how and when a subordinate is likely to accept coercive leadership. Lastly, future research on middle management is warranted above and beyond the variables examined here. Middle managers engage in many tasks that are unique within the organization, such as communicating and influencing others in an upward and downward direction, identifying and allocating resources, and creating workarounds that help organizational members pursue appropriate goals and avoid obstacles within the organization. These tasks can and should be examined in both applied settings but also in the laboratory where superior levels of control can be used to manipulate causal variables and identify cause and effect relationships beyond correlational associations. Middle managers serve simultaneously as leaders and followers. Findings here suggest that their superiors can have a substantial impact on their behavior by choosing which outcomes to emphasize and by taking a coercive or supportive leadership style. This is a noteworthy finding given that a great deal of leadership occurs at the middle levels of an organization; especially when one considers how poorly leadership in the middle place is understood (DeChurch et al., 2010). Middle managers are often responsible for accomplishing the day-to-day tasks that enable an organization to function smoothly and pursue the goals handed down from top level leaders. It can also help high level leaders expand their influence over lower level employees (Chun et al., 2009). Knowing how to facilitate specific types of leadership behavior can enable top level organizational leaders to actively influence the type of leadership behaviors middle managers demonstrate and ultimately spur organizational performance. References
Aspergren, R. E. (1963). A study of leadership behavior and its effects on morale and attitudes in selected elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts, 23, 3708. Bankhart, C. P., & Lanzetta, J. (1970). Performance and motivation as variables affecting the administration of rewards and punishments. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1, 110. Barrow, J. C. (1976). Worker performance and task complexity as causal determinants of leader behavior, style, and flexibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 433440. Bass, B. M. (1958). Leadership opinions as forecasts of supervisory success: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 11, 515518. Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper. Bass, B. M. (2008). Handbook of leadership. New York, NY, US: The Free Press. Black, J. S., & Porter, L. W. (2000). Management: Meeting new challenges. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Caughron, J. J., Shipman, A. S., Beeler, C. K., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). Social innovation: Thinking about changing the system. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 1, 732. Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267277. Chun, J. U., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Sosik, J. J., & Moon, H. K. (2009). Leadership across hierarchical levels: Multiple levels of management and multiple levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 689707.

J.J. Caughron, M.D. Mumford / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 342353

353

Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., et al. (1995). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 413450. Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857880. DeChurch, L. A., Hiller, N. J., Murase, T., Doty, D., & Salas, E. (2010). Leadership across levels: Levels of leaders and their levels of impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 10691085. Evans, M. G. (1970). Leadership and motivation: A case concept. Academy of Management Journal, 13, 91102. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 153167. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management's strategic role. The Academy of Management Executive, 8, 4757. Fox, W. M. (1954). An experimental study of group reaction to two types of conference leadership. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus. Fox, W. M. (1957). Group reaction to two types of conference leadership. Human Relations, 10, 279289. Georgopoulos, B. S., Mahoney, G. M., & Jones, N. W., Jr. (1957). A path-goal approach to productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 345353. Harrison, T. M. (1985). Communication and participative decision making: An exploratory study. Personnel Psychology, 38, 93116. Hershey, D. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2001). Knowledge versus experience in financial problem solving performance. Current Psychology, 19, 261292. Hinton, B. L., & Barrow, J. C. (1975). The superior's reinforcing behavior as a function of reinforcements received. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 123149. Hollenbeck, G. P., & Hall, D. T. (2004). Self-confidence and leader performance. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 254269. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321338. Jacobs, T. O., & McGee, M. L. (2001). Competitive advantage: Conceptual imperatives for executives. In S. Zaccaro, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders (pp. 4278). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jago, A. G., & Vroom, V. H. (1982). Sex differences in the incidence and evaluation of participative leader behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 776783. Jones, A. P., James, L. R., & Bruni, J. R. (1975). Perceived leadership behavior and employee confidence in the leader as moderated by job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 146149. Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63, 96110. Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lanzetta, J. T., & Roby, T. B. (1960). The relationship between certain group process variables and group problem-solving efficiency. Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 135148. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Likert, R. (1961). an emerging theory of organizations, leadership and management. In L. Petrullo, & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Lorge, I., Fox, D., Davitz, J., & Brenner, M. (1958). A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance, 19201957. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 337370. Mann, F. C., & Baumgartel, H. (1952). Absences and employee attitudes in an electric power company. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center. Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection measure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640647. Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Post, J. M. (1986). Narcissism and the charismatic leaderfollower relationship. Political Psychology, 7, 675688. Preston, M. G., & Heintz, R. K. (1949). Effects of participatory vs. supervisory leadership on group judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 345355. Raven, B. H., & French, J. R. P. (1958). Group support, legitimate power, and social influence. Journal of Personality, 26, 400409. Raven, B. H., & French, J. R. P. (1958). Legitimate power, coercive power, and observability in social influence. Sociometry, 21, 8397. Smith, M. (1948). Control interaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 263273. Steers, R. M. (1977). Individual differences in participative decision-making. Human Relations, 30, 837847. Vroom, V., & Jago, A. (1995). Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of leader participation. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 169181. Weick, K. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann gulch Disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628652. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Wintre, M., North, C., & Sugar, L. (2001). Psychologists' response to criticism about research based on undergraduate participants: A developmental perspective. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 42, 216225. Yammarino, F. J. (1994). Indirect leadership: Transformational leadership at a distance. In B. M. Bass, & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 2647). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Person and situation views of leadership: A multiple levels of analysis approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 121139. Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2009a). A new kind of organizational behavior. Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Leadership Research in Multi-level Issues, 8, 1360. Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2009b). A new kind of organizational behavior. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 8 (Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Leadership) (pp. 1360). Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall. Ziller, R. C. (1954). Four techniques of decision making under uncertainty. American Psychologist, 9, 498.