133.full

8/2/2019 133.full

1/17

Articles Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies18(2) 133 149 Baker College 2011Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1548051811399445http://jlos.sagepub.com

A Multilevel SystemsModel of Leadership

Angelo J. Kinicki1

, Kathryn J. L. Jacobson2

,Benjamin M. Galvin 3, and Gregory E. Prussia 4

AbstractThis study uses a control theory to develop a multilevel systems model of leadership. The model outlines the processes thatsenior leaders can use to influence others across hierarchical levels of management and clarifies the mechanisms that link leadership across levels of managementgoal cascading, alignment, and the bypass channel of communication. The authorsdiscuss leadership behaviors needed to effectively influence others across a cybernetic process of leadership. Embeddedwithin the multilevel systems model of leadership is a micro-level cybernetic model that focuses on the temporal processthat leaders use to influence individuals in the pursuit of goal achievement.

Keywordscontrol theory, leadership, leadership behavior

The leadership literature is immense and has chronicled thestudy of classical approaches (e.g., the Ohio State model, thecontingency model), contemporary approaches (e.g., trans-formational leadership and leadermember exchange),alternative approaches (e.g., implicit theories and substitutesfor leadership), and new wave approaches (e.g., self-leadership and complexity leadership theory). This researchis summarized in Bass and Bass (2008) and helps provide

important insights into effective leadership behavior.Despite the vast leadership literature, however, Yammarino,Dionne, Chun, and Dansereau (2005) concluded that rela-tively few studies in any of the areas of leadership researchhave addressed levels-of-analysis issues appropriately intheory, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing(p. 879). This is an important omission because todaysorganizations are experiencing increased complexity andvolatility, which requires the development of multilevelmodels of leadership (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008;Yammarino et al., 2005) that capture the influence of leader-ship over time and across organizational levels (Bluedorn &Jaussi, 2008; Gibson, Cooper, & Conger, 2009).

If one conceptualizes multilevel theory as a theory thatexplicates how phenomena interconnect across organiza-tional levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), then there is nofully developed multilevel theory describing how strategicleadership within a top management team (TMT) affects

performance across organizational levels. This articleaddresses this theoretical void and proposes a multilevelsystems model of leadership (MSMOL). Our work is basedon the proposition that a paradigm shift toward systems

thinking and dynamics, with their ability to clarify processesand structures across levels of management (LOM) andlevels of analysis (LOA; Senge, 1990), enables us to pro-vide a new and relevant lens for studying leadership thatwill assist in achieving a higher level of theoretical and

practical understanding about leadership in organizations.This framework is similar to others that rely on systemthinking to model leadership in complex adaptive systems

(Lichtenstein & Plowman, 2009; Uhl-Bien, Marion, &McKelvey, 2007) and dynamic relational contexts (Barge& Fairhurst, 2008; Uhl-Bien, 2006). However, our model isdistinct from these approaches in several ways.

First, in addition to addressing leadership within a broadersystem framework, we also include a micro-level perspectivein the overall system model. This emphasis is akin to theoperational thinking that is a critical characteristic withinsystem dynamics (Richmond, 1994). Second, our modelof leadership also contains a more fine-grained characterto facilitate construct specification and subsequent mea-surement. Unlike other theorists, we do not promotecomplexity to defeat complexity, yet we still embrace the

1Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA2University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA3University of Washington Bothell, Bothell, WA, USA4Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:Angelo J. Kinicki, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, AZ 85287, USAEmail: [email protected]

8/2/2019 133.full

2/17

134 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)

complicated character of a systems approach. Finally, wedeveloped our model following a grounded theoryapproach (Rudolph & Repenning, 2002; Strauss & Corbin,1994) such that our model is grounded in a previously gener-ated, substantive theory. Specifically, we use control theoryand its cybernetic framework as a theoretical foundation to

propose a systems model of leadership that explicatesleadership as a bidirectional process of top-down and bot-tom-up, cross-level influence. Cybernetics/systems thinkingexplicates leadership processes both for LOM and LOA, adistinction that is often ignored in organizational behavior(OB) research (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Yam-marino & Dansereau, 2009).

Our multilevel systems model attempts to answer threeresearch questions. First, what are the processes that allowsenior leaders to influence others across hierarchical LOM,ultimately resulting in alignment, adaptation, and superior

performance at multiple LOA? Second, what types of lead-ership behavior and styles are needed to effectively influenceothers across a cybernetic process of leadership? Explora-tion of this research question necessitates that we drawfrom past theory and research to articulate how commonlyaccepted leadership behaviors and styles fit into the stagesor subprocesses contained in our multilevel model of leader-ship. The final research question is focused at the individuallevel. What is the temporal process that allows leaders toinfluence others in the pursuit of goal achievement? Herethe focus is on the cybernetic process or sequence by whichleaders establish goals and then exert influence in aidingemployees toward goal accomplishment.

The multilevel systems model has several implications

that both challenge and extend current thinking about lead-ership. Our model addresses limitations of past researchnoted by Yammarino and Dansereau (2008) by proposing amultilevel process by which strategic leadership among aTMT cascades down and back up an organization andexplaining the linking mechanisms that integrate leadership

behaviors across organizational layers. Because we explainhow organizational performance is a bottom-up emergent

process in which lower-level properties form higher-level phenomena (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), we broaden theunderstanding of how leadership at one organizational layerinfluences performance at another layer. Finally, by articu-lating how a micro-level systems model of leadership (i.e.,an individual-level model) is embedded within a macro sys-tems model of leadership, we shed insight into the reciprocalinfluence process between leaders and followers that isused to influence the execution of corporate level visions,strategies, and goals. Thus, our overall contribution is aMSMOL that integrates a macro and micro perspective to

produce a more detailed view of how leadership affectsorganizational performance over time, but also challengestrends of examining linear relationships or interactions

between leadership behaviors/styles and various contingencyvariables while ignoring how these relationships dynami-cally change over time.

Foundation of Control Theory

Cybernetics or control theory is based on systems dynam-ics and has been used to explain occurrences in a variety of fields, including engineering (e.g., Dransfield, 1968), eco-nomics (e.g., Pindyck, 1973), medicine (e.g., Guyton, 1976),

psychology (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1982), and OB (e.g.,Vancouver & Day, 2005). Based on cybernetics, controltheory was originally conceived as a self-regulatory modelconcerned with the manner in which individuals processand act on environmental cues in order to maintain orachieve some desired goal (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1982).In the social sciences, control theory has been used by orga-nizational researchers to examine phenomena such as goalsetting (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987), motivation (Klein, 1989),individual reactions to work (Hollenbeck, 1989), andcoping with job loss (Latack, Kinicki, & Prussia, 1995).

The Role of Goals in Control Theory The existence of goals and standards are generally viewedas the starting point because all self-regulation systems aregoal driven (Lord & Hanges, 1987; Vancouver & Day,2005) and goals represent the referent value or standardagainst which sensed feedback or environmental informationis compared (Scheier & Carver, 1988). Although Powers(1973) proposed nine different stages (or levels) of goals

within a cybernetic process, other researchers have con-cluded that there are three fundamental levels of goals (i.e.,systems stage, principle stage, and program stage) thatguide the self-regulation process underlying control theory(see Carver & Scheier, 1982; Scheier & Carver, 1988). Wethus focus our macro-level systems model of leadershiparound these three stages of goals.

Hierarchy of Control Stages or GoalsThe highest level of self-regulated control revolves aroundan individuals idealized self-image (Powers, 1973). Thatis, people desire to avoid cognitive dissonance (i.e., psycho-logical discomfort associated with a discrepancy betweenattitudes/cognition and behavior [Festinger, 1957] by

behaving in ways that are consistent with their idealizedself-image). Consider the example of a manager who desiresto be recognized as a transformational leader. This individ-ual would feel psychological discomfort if he or she actedin an autocratic and/or capricious manner. Powers (1973)labeled this as the systems stage because all subsequentstages of control and associated goals serve to provide the

8/2/2019 133.full

3/17

Kinicki et al. 135

roadmap for achieving ones idealized self-concept. Thenext level in Powers hierarchy is the principle stage. In thisstage, individuals focus on identifying the behaviors oractivities that help them reach their idealized self-concept.Returning to our example, a leader who desired to be trans-formational would attempt to learn what it takes to be

transformational. This may lead the leader to attend a trainingsession or read a book regarding the behavioral componentsof transformational leadership.

The third stage of control is labeled the program stage.This stage entails putting the goals or activities identified inthe principle stage into action and resemble what Shank andAbelson (1977) call script processing. A script specifies acourse of action or series of steps to follow in order toaccomplish a superordinate goal from the principle stage.As such, the program stage specifies the more tactical ordetailed things that must be done in order for someone toachieve his or her systems stage idealized self-concept.For the example of our manager who desires to be transfor-mational, he or she would now begin to exhibit leader

behaviors associated with the four behavioral categoriescomprising transformational leadership (i.e., inspirationalmotivation, idealized influence, individualized consideration,and intellectual stimulation).

Applicability of Control Theory as a Theoretical FoundationLinking the above discussion to existing theory on leader-ship uncovers multiple reasons to support control theory asthe theoretical underpinnings of our multilevel systems

model. First, if we accept the premise that leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of indi-viduals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2007, p. 3),then leadership by definition is a goal-driven process. Thisis a conceptual match for the goal-driven process underly-ing control theory. It is important to note that our definitionof leadership as a social influence process is a boundarycondition of our model because there are other definitionsor perspectives from which to study leadership (e.g., socialidentity theory, Hogg, 2001; and self-complexity theory,Hannah, Woolfolk, & Lord, 2009). Second, control theoryis based on an individuals pursuit of hierarchically linkedgoals, and research demonstrates that managers similarlyuse hierarchically linked goals in pursuit of organizationaleffectiveness (see Bateman, ONeill, & Kenworthy-URen,2002). Bateman et al.s (2002) findings revealed that topmanagers created and used a hierarchy of goals (i.e., ulti-mate goals, enterprise goals, strategic goals, project goals,and process goals) to manage their span of control. Third,control theory models the impact of disturbances externalto the system on the pursuit of systems-level goals. This isrelevant in the context of organizational leadership because

all LOM must adapt to external and internal environmentaldisturbances when trying to achieve goals.

Let us now consider how the MSMOL uses controltheory to help answer our first two research questions:

Research Question 1: What are the processes that al-

low senior leaders to influence others across hi-erarchical LOM, ultimately resulting in superior

performance at multiple LOA? Research Question 2: What types of leadership be-

haviors and styles are needed to effectively influ-ence others across a cybernetic process of leader-ship?

A Multivel Systems Model of Leadership (MSMOL)The MSMOL is a dynamic, multilevel perspective of leader-ship primarily using the literatures on control theory andleadership to explain organizational performance. Organiza-tional performance is the endogenous phenomena of interestin the MSMOL, uses distinctions in LOA, and is represented

by the aggregation of performance across all organizationalLOM. As such, organizational performance is conceptual-ized as a bottom-up emergent process.

The MSMOL represents a system within a system and is presented in Figure 1. Specifically, a system of micro-levelleadership (i.e., leadership used to influence individuals) isembedded within a system of macro-level leadership (i.e.,leadership used to influence groups of organizational mem-

bers). Our conceptualization thus produces two models, one

at a macro level and a second at a micro level. Both themacro and micro systems models occur simultaneously andinterdependently.

In addition to discussing these models, we followYammarino et al.s (2005) recommendation to clarify themechanisms that link leadership across organizationalLOMgoal cascading, alignment, and the bypass channelof communication. According to the MSMOL, organiza-tional performance is the key indicator of leadershipeffectiveness and is viewed as being dependent on the com-

bined execution and implementation of both systems of leadership at the macro and micro levels. Let us considereach of these models separately.

Macro Multilevel Systems Model of LeadershipThe system of macro-level leadership is based on the prop-osition that leadership moves temporally across hierarchicalorganizational levels (i.e., LOM) in a self-regulated subsys-tem of stages derived from Powers (1973) hierarchicalcontrol system (i.e., systems, principle, and program). It also

proposes that leadership is both a top-down and bottom-up

8/2/2019 133.full

4/17


Figure 1. Macro-level systems model of leadership

System Stage:Create Organizational

Vision and Values

Principle Stage:Create Organizational

Strategies, Goals/ActionPlans and Communicate

System Vision and Values

Program Stage:Implement Organization

Action Plans

Level 1:Organizational Level

Analysis ofResults/Performance Effect on

Environment

Program: ImplementDivisional/Functional

Goals/Action Plans

Principle:Create/CommunicateDivisionail Strategies,

Goals/Action Plans

Alignment

Alignment Principle:Create/Communicate

Team/IndividualGoals/Action Plans

Alignment

Program: ImplementDepartment/Unit

Goals/Action Plans

Principle:Create/Communicate

Unit Strategies,Goals/Action Plans

Program: ImplementTeam/Individual Goals/ Action Plans

Level 2:Divisional Level

Level 3:Department Level

Level 4:Individual Level

Cascading Goals

Cascading Goals

Cascading Goals

Bypass Channel

SensoryInput

Disturbance = Activation of Micro - level Leadership

process. Kozlowski and Klein (2000) note that top-down processes pertain to describing how higher level units (e.g.,the chief executive officer [CEO]) influence lower levelunits (e.g., divisional managers), and bottom-up processes

pertain to explaining how lower-level unit performanceemerges to form a collective phenomena (i.e., organizational

performance). Each of these distinct levels processes(i.e., LOA and LOM) will be explained as we elucidate thedetails of our MSMOL.

For the purpose of illustration, Figure 1 models a systemof leadership across four organization levels: The actualnumber of levels would depend on an organizations design.Level 1 in Figure 1 represents the strategic leadershipenacted by an organizations CEO. Strategic leadership isgenerally enacted by the CEO and the upper echelon of theTMT (Bass & Bass, 2008). Figure 1 further shows thatleaders at all levels are expected to engage the micro-levelsystems model of leadership at both the principle and

program stages to enhance their ability to facilitate goalachievement from direct reports. Finally, the process depictedin Figure 1 underscores the idea that a vision and organiza-tional goals at the system stage become more specific andtactical as they cascade down an organization.

Control Stages Applied to a Leadership Context

The MSMOL integrates Powerss (1973) control stages toexplain how leadership unfolds across organizational LOMover time to influence organizational performance. Thesecontrol stages are proposed to represent compositional emer-gence because they are essentially the same across levels(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The following descriptions are

based on the highest organizational level of analysis.The systems stage of leadership . The system stage encom-

passes the process of creating an organizational vision andassociated values, a process that is generally completed bythe TMT with input from various constituents. The systemsstage thus is restricted to the TMT or upper echelon of execu-tives that develops an overall vision for the organization. Asis true for an individuals idealized self-image, an organiza-tions vision represents an idealized future state or goal thatan organization wants to achieve (Conger & Kanungo, 1998;Kantabutra, 2009). Vision creation is an important compo-nent of strategic leadership (Boal & Hooijberg, 2001),charismatic leadership (House, 1977), and the inspirationalmotivation dimension of transformational leadership (Bass,1985). Creating and communicating an organizational vision

8/2/2019 133.full

5/17

Kinicki et al. 137

is an important leadership task because visionary leadershipwas found to be positively associated with employees extrawork effort (de Luque, Washburn, Waldman, & House,2008), employee engagement (Moss, 2009), and firm perfor-mance (de Luque et al., 2008). The positive effects of visionary leadership also were found in a virtual context

(Whitford & Moss, 2009). Because the systems stage pro-vides the highest level of self-regulated control, a systemsview of leadership suggests that formal organizational lead-ers would generally ensure that goals, projects, and activitieswithin their purview are consistent with the organizationalvision established by senior leaders. Failure to create thisconsistency across LOM is expected to reduce organizational

performance.The systems stage requires strategic leadership because

this type of leadership is focused on creating meaning and asense of purpose for the greater organization (Bass & Bass,2008). In support of this conclusion, Boal and Hooijberg(2001) concluded that strategic leadership focuses on the

people who have overall responsibility for the organizationand includes not only the titular head of the organization butalso members of what is referred to as the top managementteam [TMT] or dominant coalition (p. 516). This stage alsonecessitates the vision creation component of the transfor-mational leadership dimension of inspirational motivation.Empowering leadership, which represents leadership that

provides employees with autonomy and the capability to per-form meaningful work that affects organizational performance(Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007), is relevantduring this stage because the vision creation process has

been conceptualized to be more effective when senior leaders

involve others in the process (Kantabutra, 2009).The principle stage of leadership. The principle stage begins

to establish the detail needed to understand how the organi-zation plans to achieve its vision. This requires that theupper echelon of management create a set of organizationalstrategies, goals, and action plans that support a path toachieving the vision, and then communicate this informationto the employee population. This communication repre-sents the first incidence of top-down leadership. Leader

behaviors needed in this stage are reflective of strategicleadership, two components of transformational leadership(i.e., inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation,which involves behaviors that encourage employees tochallenge the status quo and seek creative solutions to orga-nizational problems), managerial leadership (e.g., planning,

problem solving, environmental scanning, encouragingcollective agreement, making changes consistent with thevision, and influencing others to support the vision andgoals [Yukl, 1989]), and empowering leadership. Based onChun, Yammarino, Dionne, Sosik, and Moons (2009)results, we expect that the modeling of these leadershipstyles by senior leaders will cascade down across LOM.Their findings showed that leadership at higher LOM were

positively associated with the same style of leadership at thenext lower level of management.

The program stage of leadership . The program stage rep-resents what Dean and Sharfman (1996) call quality of decision implementation, defined as the competence withwhich the steps are taken to execute the strategic decision(p. 378). This definition stresses execution as the heart of what occurs at the program stage. Senge (1990) proposed

that strategic vision and goal alignment were useless to anorganization that cannot successfully implement (i.e., exe-cute) a strategy. In a rare empirical test of these beliefsand conclusions, Dean and Sharfmans study of strategicdecision making revealed that the quality of implementa-tion/execution positively predicted strategic decisioneffectiveness. Leaders are expected to engage in manage-rial leadership and empowering leadership when trying toexecute strategic plans because execution is more opera-tional and tactical in focus (Bass & Bass, 2008; Dean &Sharfman, 1996).

Figure 1 further indicates that effective execution requiresthe CEO to successfully engage the micro-level systemsmodel of leadership, which is discussed in the next section.The micro-level model embeds Yukl, Gordon, and Tabers(2002) hierarchical taxonomy of leadership within a cyber-netic process; thereby proposing that effective executionentails the use of task-oriented leadership, relationship-oriented leadership, and change-oriented leadership. Thechoice of this taxonomy is consistent with research on CEOfailures. Charan and Colvins (1999) qualitative study of several dozen CEO failures, for example, revealed thatCEOs were fired because they were not getting thingsdone, being indecisive, not delivering on commitments,which are all representative behaviors associated with task,

relationship, and change-oriented leadership. Furthermore,these results are consistent with Finkelsteins (2003) studyof spectacularly failing CEOs. Failing CEOs ignored taskleadership, for example, when they used financial state-ments as public relations tools, not as monitoring andcontrolling devices. Task leadership was also ignoredwhen failing CEOs did not monitor and control operations.Finkelsteins study also showed that failing CEOs ignoredrelationship leadership in that they treated their staff merelyas instruments to be used or audiences to appreciate their

performances. These CEOs often used intimidation andelimination as tactics to get subordinates on board with theirinitiatives. Finally, Finkelstein notes that failing CEOs alsotended to repeat strategies and behaviors that led to past suc-cess rather than changing to new strategic and managerialstyles.

Environmental impact and the analysis of results/ performance . Figure 1 reveals that the effect on the environ-ment (i.e., organizational performance) represents an emer-gent process described as compilation. A compilation process

describes phenomena that comprise a common domain but are distinctively different as they emerge acrosslevels. . . . Compilation processes describe the combina-tion of related but different lower-level propertiesthat

8/2/2019 133.full

6/17


is, the configuration of different lower-level char-acteristics to yield a higher-level property that isfunctionally equivalent to its constituent elements.(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, p. 16)

Stated differently, performance does not entail or mean the

same thing at the individual, departmental, divisional, ororganizational levels. Yet individual, departmental, anddivisional performance intertwine and combine to produceorganizational-level performance. Figure 1 shows that thiscompilation process is determined by the manner in whichindividuals, departments, divisions, and the CEO executeaction plans, which is expected to vary across LOM. Con-trol theory reinforces the conclusion that effective execu-tion does not guarantee success across LOM, however,

because the environment also is influenced by externaldisturbances. Consider what happened in 2008 to theairline industry because of the disturbance of increased fuelcosts. American Airlines, for example, not only decreasedthe number of flights and laid off employees (i.e., internalimpact) but also tried to increase revenue by charging forchecked baggage (i.e., external impact).

The fundamental feedback loop inherent to controltheory is represented by the analysis of results/performance.Figure 1 shows that all three control stages at the organiza-tional level are directly influenced by this analysis. Forexample, analysis of results may lead the CEO/TMT toadjust the organizational strategic vision at the systemsstage, revamp strategy at the principle stage, and redesignimplementation tactics at the program stage.

The Principle Stage: Linking Leadership Across Levels of ManagementLike previous leadership scholars, we attempt to model the

boundaries of an organizations leadership system, allowingfor the LOM to exist via a cascading effect (e.g., Chun et al.,2009; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). Figure 1 shows thatleadership is linked across LOM via the activities that occurduring the principle stage. We propose that goal cascading,goal alignment, and the bypass channel of communicationare three subprocesses that constitute key linking mecha-nisms. All three processes entail components of top-downand bottom-up emergence.

Goal cascading . Goal cascading is a systematic process of creating vertically linked goals throughout an organization.It starts with the CEO and TMT establishing organizational-level goals and action plans. These goals and action plansare then sequentially cascaded downward across hierarchi-cal LOM (see Figure 1). The purpose of goal cascading is toensure that all LOM have a set of goals that support corpo-rate goals. This constancy of focus creates a synergy inwhich organizational resources and activities are being

channeled to the desired end results. Goal cascading thuscreates a line of site from individual-level goals all the wayup to corporate goals, thereby allowing employees to under-stand how they contribute to organizational success. Thisunderstanding is expected to produce greater levels of goalcommitment and employee engagement, which in turn

are expected to foster individual performance (Donovan &Radosevich, 1998; Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010).

It is important to note that our use of the term cascading is not meant to evoke visions of Niagara-like flows of cas-cading goals that overwhelm and subdue subordinates andlower organizational levels into submission. Rather, researchon participative management (e.g., Cawley, Keeping, &Levy, 1998), empowering leadership (e.g., Chen et al., 2007),and goal commitment (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990) indi-cates that goal cascading is effective when it is an interactive

process in which leaders and followers mutually and col-laboratively establish personalized goals. For example,although leaders might use multiple styles to accomplishthis task, transformational and empowering leadership are

predicted to enhance employees goal commitment (Berson& Avolio, 2004) than more directive approaches. A trans-formational approach, for instance, would rely on explainingthe importance of the organizations vision and strategicgoals and seek to tie the organizational goals to sharedvalues and mutually beneficial outcomes, whereas a moreempowering style is essential to maintain a two-way goalsetting process in which employees feel free to determinegoals and the best action plans for accomplishing them.Transactional leadership might also be used to induce com-mitment to goals through the use of promised rewards

(Bass, 1990). Additionally, the individualized considerationcomponent of transformational leadership, which entails

behaviors related to providing support, encouragement, andcoaching to employees, may help ensure that goals are con-gruent with the needs, capabilities, and self-efficacy of direct reports to foster increased persistence toward goalaccomplishment (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).

Both Chun et al.s (2009) and Yang, Zhang, and Tsuis(2010) results suggest that the style of leadership that man-agers use across various LOM during goal cascading is

partly a function of the styles used by the CEO and upperechelon management during the principle stage of leader-ship at the organizational level (see Figure 1). Futureresearch is needed to determine the types of leadership thatare most effective for successful goal cascading.

Goal alignment. The role and importance of goal align-ment across LOM has been recognized for quite some time(for a review, see Crotts, 2005). The general idea is thatorganizational performance is enhanced when goals arealigned across LOM. Figure 1 shows that organizationalstrategies, goals, and action plans are aligned between eachorganizational level during the principle stage of the MSMOL.

8/2/2019 133.full

7/17

Kinicki et al. 139

Research on participative management (e.g., Cawley et al.,1998), employee empowerment (e.g., Workman & Bommer,2004), and leadership (Avolio et al., 2009; Colbert, Kristof-Brown, Bradley, & Barrick, 2008) suggests that alignmentis more likely to create agreement and commitment to a setof strategies, goals, and action plans when LOM use trans-

formational, managerial, and empowering leadership.The alignment process is compositional. That is, the pro-

cess is the same across organizational LOA (Kozlowski &Klein, 2000). Figure 1 illustrates that the first phase of alignment occurs between the CEO (Level 1) and divisionmanagers (Level 2). It is important to note that there aretwo types of alignment that take place during this processhorizontal and verticaland neither can begin until alldivision managers have met with their direct reports to col-laboratively establish divisional goals and action plans.Horizontal alignment occurs when all Level 2 managersmeet to align among themselves. This reduces the problemof silo-based goals that can cause conflict across divisionsand detract from overall corporate performance, and it iden-tifies interdependencies that exist across the organization.Following horizontal alignment, vertical alignment occurs

between hierarchical LOM, in this case the CEO and eachdivisional manager. Vertical alignment entails the agree-ment about goals and action plans between an employeeand his or her manager.

Labovitz and Rosansky (1997) wrote that if the stepsof communication and personalization assist in creating ashared vision within the overarching system, then alignmentcreates a shared reality within the organization. Alignmentdoes this by strengthening the resources available at every

LOM to successfully and realistically achieve each of thecascaded goals of the principle stage, ultimately, tying theorganization closely to the vision of the system conceptstage. An aligned organization is fluid and aware of theimpact that changes at one level have on the entire system,enabling various LOM to respond accordingly (Semler,1997). Aligned organizations also were found to have higherorganizational performance than nonaligned ones (Yearout& Miles, 2001) and lower levels of organizational politics(Witt, 1998).

Leaders act as linchpins during alignment and goal cas-cading, linking levels of employees to ensure agreementacross the organization (Bass, 1990). Feedback and realign-ment take place throughout the alignment process, resultingin an organic process that allows response to changes andvariation. From this perspective, it is evident that macro-level leadership success is contingent on the entire leadershipsystem. This is why organizational performance is proposedto represent a bottom-up compilation emergent process. Inother words, organizational performance is not determined

by heroic leadership, but rather by an integrated system of leadership that spans the entire organization.

Bypass channel . Although communication in organiza-tions may at times take place in a linear manner and cascadethrough formal hierarchies and the channels they provide,leadership cannot fully be understood by simply looking atsimple flows of information and goals that follow well-defined routes (Burns, 1978). Todays organizations are

fluid and complex and rarely does leadership strictly followthe unity of command where subordinates receive commu-nications from one and only one leader in the manner thatFayol (1949) described as being so necessary to avoid theundermining of authority and the loss of discipline, stability,and order. Leaders maintain relationships and communica-tion with individuals at many levels of their organizations,and it is not uncommon for them to circumvent the chain of command and interact directly with employees (Bass,1985). Therefore, a necessary final addition to the MSMOLis the bypass channel of leader communication.

It is important to allow for complexity in the MSMOL because of the fluid bidirectional nature of organizationalcommunication. This can be achieved with the inclusion of

bypass channels, which represent formal and informal orga-nizational communication that override the scalar chainof command (Mintzberg, 1979). Bypass channels allowfor unfiltered communication that is both top-down and

bottom-up to continuously traverse through the variousstages of leadership control depicted in Figure 1, therebylinking employees across LOM. This type of communica-tion has been associated with increased leader control andinfluence, as well as specific leadership styles such as trans-formational leadership (Bass, 1990). At times this type of communication may indicate a breakdown in the system;

however, it may also be associated with specific needs of the leader such as feedback from an unbiased view, unfilteredinformation, or attempts to unify the organization under asingle vision.

Generally, situations in which the formal chain of com-munication is circumvented are part of the bypass channel.Examples of this type of communication are prevalent inorganizations. CEOs, for example, frequently communicatedirectly with subordinates (Bass, 1985). Direct communicationwith subordinates takes place through formal organizationaddresses and interactions as well as in more informal cir-cumstances such as a CEO engaging someone in an elevatoror on the shop floor during an informal visit. Leaders tendto be seeking information as much as giving information(Yukl, 2006) in these types of situations, and proximal rela-tionship building is a major principle of strategic leadership(Conger & Riggio, 2007). Correspondingly, frontline employ-ees have the potential to provide valuable information bygiving direct unfiltered feedback on newly implementedchanges and strategies directly to a manager. Other situa-tions can be less benign such as when leaders or subordinatessee the need to circumvent the hierarchy due to a lack of

8/2/2019 133.full

8/17


responsiveness, to report or challenge unethical or question-able behaviors, or even to promote self-interest (Bass &Steidlmeier, 1999; Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998).

Micro Systems Model of LeadershipOur third research question focuses on the temporal processthat allows leaders to influence individuals in the pursuit of

goal achievement. We rely on control theory to model thistemporal process at the micro level because it allows us tosimultaneously capture the complexity of the environmentthat dyadic leaderfollower interactions occur in, whilediverging from the simple linear relationships that are tradi-tionally depicted in leadership models (Mackenzie, 2006).Six components generally comprise the control theory model:(a) a goal or reference value, (b) a sensor or input function,(c) a comparator, (d) an effector or decision mechanism,(e) an outcome or environmental impact, and (f) a distur-

bance. Table 1 provides a definition for each componentand illustrates how they translate into leadership actions or

behaviors across the three organizational levels.We acknowledge at the outset that leadership at the micro

level is affected by situational variables and contingenciesthat inevitably arise. Our approach addresses concerns thathave been raised regarding the absence of context when cap-turing the dyadic relationship between a leader and his or hersubordinate using control theory (e.g., Sandelands, Glynn,& Larson, 1991) and avoids taking a heroic approach toleadership by acknowledging that leadership is a two-wayinfluence process between leaders and followers.

Organizations consist of a network of local cyberneticsystems . . . which are linked together by meta-controlsystems (Green & Welsh, 1988, p. 297). Figure 2 repre-sents the local control systems that are embedded withinthe macro-level leadership model presented in Figure 1.The local control systems in the macro-level leadershipmodel indicate points in the leadership process thatinvolve dyadic interactions between leaders and subordi-

nates, such as between high-level leaders and divisionalmanagers, divisional managers and department managers,and department managers and team leaders and/or frontlineemployees.

The micro-level leadership model shown in Figure 2illustrates the ongoing process of aligning individual per-formance with the cascaded goals of the organization. This

process is similar in nature to the practice that has beenreferred to by Aguinis and Pierce (2008) as performancemanagement. Specifically, Figure 2 outlines a behavioralsequence in which leaders consider subordinate perfor-mance information against cascaded goals to determinefuture leadership action. It then depicts the resulting leader-ship action as a reciprocal process between the leader andthe subordinate. Subsequent subordinate behaviors, atti-tudes, and performance then are monitored to provide theleader with information with which to compare against the

predetermined goals to determine future leadership action,continuing the ongoing cycle. It is also important to notethat situational variables affecting the aspects of the leader-ship process are also addressed since they affect multiplecomponents of the micro model.

Table 1. Applying Elements of Control Theory Across Levels of Leadership

Control TheoryElement Standard Definition

Organizational-LevelLeadership Application

Unit-Level LeadershipApplication

Individual-LevelLeadership Application

1. Goal orreference value

Standard that the systemstrives to maintain

Establishing company visionand strategic/operationalgoals

Establishing unit-level visionand goals

Establishing goals forindividuals

2. Sensor Measuring or gatheringinformation aboutstimulus

Ongoing measurement of corporate performance;environmental scanning

Ongoing measurement of unit performance

Ongoing measurement of individual performance

3. Comparator Mechanism that comparessensed informationwith the standard

Conducting quarterlyreviews of corporateperformance

Conducting monthlyreviews of unitperformance

Monitoring employeebehavior andperformance againstnorms and goals

4. Effector Action to maintainequilibrium betweensensed information andthe standard

Revise corporate strategiesand goals; reviseimplementation plan;commit more resourcesto achieving a goal

Revise unit-level goalsand action plan; realignresources to priorities;reassign project activities

Change employees goal;coach and support;provide recognition;send employee totraining

5. Outcome Final result produced bysystem

Corporate performance Unit performance Individual performance

6. Disturbance Events outside the systemthat influence resultsproduced by the system

Subprime crisis negativelyaffects ability to financegrowth

Key manager quits midyear Employee takes leave of absence for personalreasons

8/2/2019 133.full

9/17

Kinicki et al. 141

Analysis and interpretation ofResults/ Performance

Environmental Factors Organizational Factors Group Factors Individual Factors

Situational Variables

PerformanceMonitoring

Goals andExpectations

Subordinate Behaviors,Attitudes and Performance

Core control theory paths

Change-OrientedBehaviors

Task-OrientedBehaviors

Relations-OrientedBehaviors

Leadership Action

Subordinates

Supplemental paths

Figure 2. Micro-level systems model of leadership: The activation of performance management leadership

In the following sections, we discuss the six core aspectsof a cybernetic-based model of leadership (i.e., standards,input sensor, comparator, effector, environmental impact,and disturbances). The micro-level model of leadership has

no definitive beginning or end, as it is cyclical in nature.Therefore, we begin our description of the model compo-nents with a discussion of goals since they are the coredriver of every cybernetic process.

Goals and expectations (standards) . Goals provide thestandard to which subordinate behavior can be comparedand reflect optimum or minimum performance expectations(Vancouver & Day, 2005). Subordinate goals flow fromand contribute to upper-level (i.e., principle-level) goals.Goals can be long term (e.g., increase profit margins duringthe next year) or short term in nature (e.g., finish marketing

proposal by Monday), and developmental (e.g., increaseknowledge of human resource policies) or performance ori-ented (e.g., increase profit margin by 2%). Goals may relateto the subordinates individual performance (e.g., arrive ontime to work) or if the subordinate has subordinates them-selves, to the collective performance of their subordinates(e.g., improve units overall on-time ship rate). Regardlessof the character or nature of the goals, or the process bywhich they are set, they provide the standard against whichmonitored performance information is compared and deter-mine future leadership action and employee behavior. It is

important to note that the organization as a whole has dif-ficulty reaching macro-level goals if either the programlevel goals arent aligned with the principle goals or thegoals are unclear and vague.

Performance monitoring (input sensor). Performance moni-toring is the process of collecting information, directly orindirectly, about the work effectiveness of an individual orgroup (Komaki & Citera, 1990; Larson & Callahan, 1990).Performance monitoring is core to performance manage-ment (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008) and provides informationwith which a leader can compare performance with goals orexpectations. It has been found to positively affect not onlythe performance (Komaki, Desselles, & Bowman, 1989) butalso the perceived importance that subordinates place ona task (Larson & Callahan, 1990). Amsler, Findley, andIngram (2009) further propose that performance monitoringis a critical antecedent of employee motivation, performance,and organizational citizenship behavior.

Performance monitoring is an integral aspect of themicro-level leadership process that allows leaders to under-stand the outcomes of the behaviors they have instigatedand provides information on which to base future goals,

behaviors, and corrective leadership actions (Bass, 1990).Performance monitoring allows leaders to keep track of

performance information such as levels of quality, accu-racy, timeliness, schedule adherence, customer satisfaction,

8/2/2019 133.full

10/17


productivity, task/goal accomplishment, and project success(Yukl, 2006). Methods of monitoring may include directobservation, document review, receiving information fromother supervisors, input from staff members, and assess-ment of self-reports (Yukl, 2006). Leaders also tend tomonitor the collective performance of their subordinates

subordinates as an indicator of performance. For instance, adivisional manager may monitor a unit managers units

performance to provide information regarding the perfor-mance of the unit manager.

Analysis and interpretation of results/performance (comparator) .The comparator is the process of identifying discrepancies(Lord & Hanges, 1987) between subordinate performanceand previously specified goals. Leaders analyze and inter-

pret information about subordinate performance against theestablished performance goals in an evaluative phase,which we label the analysis and interpretation of results/

performance. This comparative process allows leaders tounderstand performance outcomes in the context of estab-lished goals and then ascertain levels of deviations fromgoals and performance standards (Bass, 1990).

This process of analyzing and interpreting performancein comparison to goals and expectations will be affected byleader biases and attributions (Sanchez & De La Torre,1996). The interpretation of subjective performance data is

particularly open to error and leader bias; this problem may be attenuated when the performance data are based onmemories of performance rather than recorded information(Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie, 1995;Sanchez & De La Torre, 1996). Identified discrepancies

between perceived performance and established goals can

take one of three forms: negative discrepancyperformance below target; positive discrepancyperformance abovetarget; or no discrepancyperformance equals target.Traditional cybernetic models focus solely on negative dis-crepancy reduction; however, control models applied tohuman systems suggest that all outcomes are relevant(Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997; Klein, 1989; Tsui & Ashford,1994) because these outcomes determine future leadershipaction.

Leadership action (effector). The effector is the mechanismthat acts on the environment to bring performance back inline with goals (Lord & Hanges, 1987; Vancouver & Day,2005). Leadership action is the effector in our model. Lead-ership action takes place in response to the discrepancy

between the real or perceived outcomes and the goals andexpectations. In addition, as diagramed in Figure 2, ourmodel takes a contingency perspective in which leaderaction is also determined by relevant situational variables atmultiple LOA (Ayman, Chemers, & Fiedler, 1995). Leadersengage in a diverse range and mix of behaviors according tothe specific contingency they face to direct and facilitatesubordinates performance. We explore the reciprocal nature

of the leader and subordinate relationship depicted in Figure 2following our discussion of the three categorizations of lead-ership behaviors.

Although there are many leadership behaviors and stylesthat represent leadership action, we used Yukl et al.s(2002) parsimonious taxonomy of meta-categories of lead-

ership behavior, which includes the task-, relationship-, andchange-oriented categories of leadership behavior. Behav-iors are categorized based on the primary objective of the behavior and the contingencies that the behavior bestaddresses. Yukl et al.s taxonomy was created to provide a

parsimonious and meaningful conceptual framework (p. 15)to the numerous leadership behaviors that have been pre-sented in the past five decades of leadership research. Wefeel that their taxonomy effectively achieves this goal andencompasses the majority of leadership behaviors in a com-

prehensive and concise manner and is consistent with recentresearch (see Burke et al., 2006; DeRue et al., in press).

Task-oriented behaviors are generally conceptualized asfocused on improving performance, efficiency, operations,and the use of resources (Yukl, 2008; Yukl et al., 2002).They include behaviors such as clarifying expectations,monitoring, explaining the purpose of a particular policy, orreassignment of the workload (Yukl, 2006). Leaders likelyengage in these types of behaviors when performance is notat the level necessary to achieve goals and standards. Amongother situations that may induce task behaviors, a leader may

be task focused when operations are depleting budgets orresources disproportionate to their production or profits, orwhen employees seem to be struggling with workloads. Thedashed line in Figure 2 shows that it sometimes is necessary

for the leader to reduce or increase an employees goals orstandards depending on the situation at hand.

Relations-oriented behaviors involve the creation of employee commitment, trust, and cooperation (Yukl et al.,2002) and are most useful for improving humancapitalrelations (Yukl, 2008). They tend to include behaviors suchas coaching, mentoring, resolving conflict, and buildingrelationships (Yukl, 2006). Leader communications focusedon building the relationship may provide inspiration to theemployee, show concern, acknowledge needs and contribu-tions, or provide empowerment (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).Rewards may also be used to build the relationship, torecognize performance that exceeded standards, or as anenticement for future performance (Jones, 1983). Contin-gencies that may prompt relations-oriented behaviors mayinclude situations in which leaders feel that goals are not

being met because of conflict among coworkers, a lack of trust in the leadership, a loss of employee motivation orcommitment, or various other situations that involve thehuman element of performance.

Finally, change-oriented behaviors are focused on help-ing subordinates adapt to a changing environment and

8/2/2019 133.full

11/17

Kinicki et al. 143

pursue innovation (Yukl, 2008). They tend to involve theexplanation of specific needs for new approaches, changesto standards to meet evolved environmental demands, thefacilitation of learning, and/or the sharing of visions of future opportunities that inspire a change in behavior on the

part of the employees (Yukl, 2006). Leader vision has the

ability to engender subordinate confidence, motivation, andtrust, and is likely to be part of the behaviors leaders engagein to inspire the subordinate confidence needed to engage inand accept change (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Lowe, Kroeck,& Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).Transformational leadership behaviors will build commit-ment to the change the leader seeks to implement (Herold,Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008). Change-oriented behaviorsmay also include explaining new strategies, providing sup-

port for risk taking, and helping subordinates experimentwith new ways of doing things. They are likely to be induced

because of a changing competitive environment that is hurt-ing performance, the entrance of new competition, foreseenchanges in technology or ways of doing business, or anorganizational need for a paradigm change.

We include subordinates within the center of the leader-ship action box shown in Figure 2 to model the interactiverelationship between the leader and subordinates that iscore to the leadership process (Avolio et al., 2009). The twoheaded arrows represent a shared leadership approach inwhich both leaders and subordinates engage in actions thatare deemed as leadership behaviors (Offerman & Scuderi,2007). This is consistent with feedback research thatshows employees are more likely to accept feedback when

performance discrepancies are discussed with a two-way

problem-solving approach that focuses on identifying rootcauses of discrepancies (see Kinicki, Prussia, Wu, & McKee-Ryan, 2004). The two headed arrows also suggest contingencyconsiderations as different behaviors and styles are contin-gent on the employee and environmental characteristics.They also imply that leaders need employee feedback sothat the leader can determine what type of leadership isneeded and whether or not past leadership is working.Finally, the process intimates that leadership is a two-waystreet in which the follower will likely take initiative/actionto reduce the discrepancy between their performance andthe aforementioned goals.

Subordinate behavior, attitudes and performance (environmental impact). Every change in the effector results in an impact onthe environment. Leadership action in the output functionhas a subsequent impact on subordinate behaviors, attitudes,and performance. These include diverse behaviors (both

positive and negative), work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction,organizational commitment), and levels of performancethat employees exhibit at work. Ideally, the leadershipaction results in subordinate behaviors that bring perfor-mance back in line with goals and expectations (Lord &

Hanges, 1987). Any changes in employee behavior, attitude,and performance are then observed or perceived by theleader through performance monitoring. The control cycle iscompleted, and then begins again, when monitored perfor-mance information is compared with goals to determinewhether future leadership actions are needed to execute the

goals. This cycle can be short term (i.e., a few hours) ormore long term in nature (i.e., several months). Because theleadership process at the micro level is complex and inter-active and influenced by numerous factors, it is likely thatthis process simultaneously occurs in long and short timeframes. This process also occurs simultaneously for differ-ent goals because most employees do not work solely on asingle project and are concurrently working to achieve mul-tiple goals. However, these processes are likely to affecteach other and have a cumulative effect that could be mappedonto a single process.

Situational variables (disturbances). The five componentsabove make up the integrated control system loop, but fac-tors independent of the system can also affect aspects of themodel and disturb the system. Previous research has foundthat disturbances outside the system affect outcomes(Vancouver & Day, 2005). For instance, changes in perfor-mance and/or current performance relative to past performancemay influence the expectations placed on the subordinate(Sandelands et al., 1991). A subordinates recent divorce orsickness will likely influence the type of leadership actionthat would be appropriate in helping to motivate this indi-vidual to realign their performance with the goals and mayresult in the need to temporarily lower goals and expecta-tions. Similarly, a massive organization-wide layoff might

disrupt work and create a need for more relations-orientedactions from the leader than usual. The inclusion of situa-tional variables allows us to account for contingencies andcomplex contextual and individual factors that affect theleadership process and acknowledges that leaders and sub-ordinates are susceptible to being influenced by situationalinfluences (Bass & Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2008). Althoughthese disturbances affect subordinate behavior, attitudes,and performance, they also affect goals and expectations aswell as the leaders action (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 depicts external disturbances as situationalvariables, which we separate into environmental, organiza-tional, group, and individual factors. Although researcherssuch as Yukl (1989) have laid out specific lists of situa-tional variables that affect the leadership process, we have

purposefully created broad categories of situational vari-ables to allow for the inclusion of the wide variety of variables that influence the leadership process. This catego-rization allows us to capture the factors that affect thesystem and delineates them by the level at which they exist.It also facilitates thinking beyond a specific level of analy-sis and encourages a comprehensive approach. It would be

8/2/2019 133.full

12/17


impossible to delineate all the specific factors that mayinfluence the leadership process in a general model; how-ever, when using the model to understand specific theoriesor situations, specific factors that fall within these catego-ries can be delineated to understand the impact of situationalvariables on the system.

Environmental factors include economic conditions andlegislative changes. Environmental factors may also includetrends in the market, new technology, or outside pressuresfor performance. Organizational factors encompass organi-zational level goals, resources, demands, and climate. Insome scenarios, it would be important to consider factorssuch as the quantity and quality of both physical and infor-mational resources that exist, and the quantity and thequality of training opportunities. It is also important to con-sider changes in organizational policy or direction. Groupfactors that are relevant consist of group psychological cli-mate, group dynamics, and conflict. Work processes of thegroup also affect the manner in which work is organizedand structured as well as the efficiency and effectivenessof work processes and have a large impact on subordinate

behavior. Finally, individual factors contain variables suchas past performance, difficulty of the individuals task

being performed, and the extent to which a person performsa variety of tasks. They also take into account individualdifference variables such as motivation, ability, values, needs,emotions, job knowledge, cultural differences, education,and personality.

These situational variables might influence the systemseparately or together. They are likely to affect leadershipaction, goals, and expectations. They are also likely to

influence subordinate performance, attitudes, and perfor-mance, independent of impacts derived from the leadership

behavior.

DiscussionThe MSMOL provides a new paradigm for investigating thedynamic complexity inherent in leadership. This approachclarifies how strategic leadership influences performanceacross organizational levels. It provides a lens for studyingleadership that facilitates achieving a higher level of theo-retical and practical understanding about leadership inorganizations. It also elucidates the processes that allowsenior leaders to influence others across hierarchical LOM.Finally, it creates insight into what types of leadership

behavior and styles are requisite for leaders at the macro andmicro levels to effectively influence others.

Theoretical ImplicationsAlthough Avolio et al. (2009) note that leadership is acomplex social process, most leadership theories focus on

processes at only one level of analysis because it can beincredibly difficult to develop multilevel theory (Avolio &Yammarino, 2002). Most often, leadership literature has

been affected by the dominance of dyadic theories thatemphasize the influence processes between a leader and asingle follower, despite the acknowledgment that leader-

ship occurs at all LOA (Schriesheim, Castro, & Yammarino,2000; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). However, currenttheorists support the notion of leadership as a complicatedsystem that has a certain degree of coherence (see Avolioet al., 2009; Yukl, 2008). We move significantly beyonddyadic leadership in that we depict how the leadership pro-cess unfolds in a specific sequence.

Our leadership sequencing was designed to compensatefor the overt narrowing of leadership theory that has been the

predominant paradigm within the past two decades of lead-ership research. For example, in recent years there have beenmore studies on transformational leadership than any othertype of leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Integration isone of our models main features, whereby we attempt toreconcile the realistic nature of organizational context withcurrent research involving a number of input variables(both internal and external to the organization), cascadinggoals, alignment, and control stage components across everyorganizational level of management. Focusing on thesecomponents provides a significant first step because it incor-

porates previous leadership styles and behavioral researchwith current research on systems thinking.

Leadership scholarship is a multidisciplinary enterprise.Once serving small niches in academia, leadership is now aubiquitous component of organizational studies. However, as

the 20th century progressed, leadership literature focusing onsupervisors and middle managers in organizations was rele-gated to the OB literature as attention shifted to executiveand TMT leadership within the realm of strategic leadershipresearch. Our aim in this article is to reintroduce these streamsof research, moving from leadership niches to a leadershipnetwork. Our emphasis on cybernetics represents a signifi-cant departure from current leadership thinking, yet thiseffort resulted in a broader framework that accommodatesthe components of many different discipline perspectives of leadership (e.g., strategic leadership, goal-directed leader-ship, human resources leadership). In other words, bothsystems models are designed to be exceptionally broad innature and the types of leadership required to enhance andsustain a cybernetic process of leadership are drawn fromvarious dimensions of current leadership theories. Put simply,our cybernetic model of leadership provides a gestalt per-spective of past and present leadership theory and practice,an approach suggested by other leadership scholars (e.g.,Antonakis & House, 2002; Yukl, 1999).

Unlike other models, our framework fills another impor-tant research gap by proposing that leadership throughout

8/2/2019 133.full

13/17

Kinicki et al. 145

organizations fosters both models since fundamental to thelevels perspective is the recognition that micro phenomenaare embedded in macro contexts (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000,

p. 5). We begin with the notion that there is a direct link between CEO leadership and organizational performance.Additionally, we propose that there are only modest relation-

ships in current empirical literature (e.g., Dumdum, Lowe, &Avolio, 2002; Judge et al., 2004; Lowe et al., 1996) becausemany current measurements do not take into account the sub-

processes within a dynamic system of leadership.Debates surrounding the correlations between CEO

leadership and outcomes have yet to be reconciled. Someargue that 14% of the variance in organization performancecan be accounted for by CEOs (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005),whereas others contend that leaders have little influence on

performance (e.g., Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985;Pfeffer, 1977). All told, the SMOL proposes that leader-ship effectiveness may be viewed as dependent on thecombined execution of both systems of leadership at themacro and micro levels across LOM. Without activationand ongoing operation of micro-level leadership, the systemof leadership cannot be fulfilled. Hence, leadership effec-tiveness is thought to be partially a function of theeffectiveness by which leaders (and followers) implementtheir action plans in the micro model and the effectiveness

by which leaders enact the core leader behaviors that areoutlined in our cybernetic macro model. We suggest thatleadership is not linear. Therefore, if one believes in asystems model of leadership, wherein leadership effec-tiveness depends on the execution and implementation of an integrated system of both macro and micro processes,

then a proper evaluation of leadership effectiveness is basedon leader actions within a broader system that incorporatescomplexity and the implementation of vision across organi-zational levels.

Finally, our model embraces organizational complexity by examining the reciprocal paths inherent in a feedbacksystem that describe bottom-up alignment that occurs(a) via followers at all organizational levels and (b) in addi-tion to typical top-down leadership processes. In truth, ourmacro-level systems model proposes a duality of leadershipand followership. We avoid a leader-centered model andembrace a more holistic one by acknowledging the complexroles of individuals within organizations and viewing lead-ership in tandem with followers. Importantly, these theoreticaladditions have been mostly absent in leadership theory and

practice, which brings us to the practical implications of our model.

Practical Implications, Limitations,and Directions for Future ResearchThere are several practical implications related to ourresearch. The first is that leaders may benefit from taking a

more multilevel systems approach to leadership. Manyleaders likely struggle with a myopia associated with beingat the upper echelons of an organization. They may losesight of the important role of followers and individualsat lower levels in achieving organizational outcomes andoverlook the bypassing effects of their leader behavior

(Yang et al., 2010). The macro model also can be used byleaders to structure the strategic planning process, under-scoring the need to effectively execute goal cascading andgoal alignment throughout an organization. This in turn isexpected to assist leaders in mapping the cohesive pro-cesses necessary to implement their visions and strategiesfor their organizations. Finally, the micro level model offersmanagers a structured process for implementing the processof performance management.

Performance management is defined as a continuous process of identifying, measuring, and developing the per-formance of individuals and teams and aligning performancewith the strategic goals of the organization (Aguinis, 2009,

p. 2). The goal of the performance management process isto improve employee performance (DeNisi & Pritchard,2006) and ultimately contribute to organizational perfor-mance (Cascio, 2006). The micro model outlines a sequencethat managers can use to help individuals and groups maxi-mize their performance. This model might serve as thefoundation for training managers to improve their leader-ship effectiveness.

There are some limitations of our leadership frameworkas it relates to generalizability, both within and outside of the United States. First, our models are most directly appli-cable to hierarchical organizations. In a world of high

environmental complexity, flattening hierarchies are morerelevant in todays work environment than ever. Therefore, itstands to reason that some components of our models (e.g.,

bypass channels) would be less necessary in flatter organi-zations. Additionally, leadership styles and research are notconsistent across the globe. Our bias within the currentexamination lay within the context of the U.S. research

paradigm. Although this may decrease the ability to gener-alize conceptualizations of leadership between countries,we feel that our initial framework provides a necessarystarting point for multilevel leadership research.

The systems model of leadership provides fodder forfuture research by highlighting the sequential nature of aleadership system based on cybernetics and integratingleadership effectiveness across LOA and LOM. Our modelsupports the testing of relationships that incorporate sys-tems thinking into the leadership process. As a start, futureresearch may question whether specific processes producehigher or lower performance within LOM and across LOA. Itmay explore if leadership across levels has additive ormultiplicative effects on organizational effectiveness. Inaddition, it may determine if there is a significant rela-tionship between organizational performance and effective

8/2/2019 133.full

14/17


control stages. Finally, it may determine whether the absence/ presence/effectiveness of a certain control stage (e.g., thesystems stage) is more important to the overall system thanother control stages.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respectto the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/orauthorship of this article.

References

Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance management (2nd ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational behavior by embracing performance managementresearch. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 139-145.

Amsler, G. M., Findley, H. M., & Ingram, E. (2009). Performancemonitoring: Guidance for the modern workplace. Supervision,70, 12-18.

Antonakis, J., & House, R. (2002). The full-range leadership the-ory: The way forward. In B. Avolio & F. Yammarino (Eds.),Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier/JAI Press.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leader-ship: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual

Review of Psychology, 60 , 421-449.Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. (Eds.). (2002). Transformational

and charismatic leadership: The road ahead . Amsterdam,

Netherlands: Elsevier/JAI Press.Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contin-

gency model of leadership effectiveness: Its levels of analysis.The Leadership Quarterly, 6 , 147-167.

Barge, J. K., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2008). Living leadership: A sys-temic constructionist approach. Leadership, 4 , 227-251.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta-tions . New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership . New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, andauthentic transformational leadership behavior. The LeadershipQuarterly , 10, 181-217.

Bateman, T. S., ONeill, H., & Kenworthy-URen, A. (2002).A hierarchical taxonomy of top managers goals. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 6 , 1134-1148 .Berson, Y., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Transformational leadership

and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case studyof a telecommunication firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 15 ,625-646.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Jaussi, K. S. (2008). Leaders, followers, andtime. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 654-668.

Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadership research:Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11 , 515-549.

Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., &Mackenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective

and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Per sonnel Psychology, 48, 587-606.

Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organi-

zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69 , 9-30.Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., &

Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors arefunctional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quar-terly, 17 , 288-307.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership . New York, NY: Harper & Row.Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation:

A control theory approach to human behavior . New York, NY:Springer-Verlag.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A use-ful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, andhealth psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111-135.

Cascio, W. F. (2006). Global performance management systems.In I. Bjorkman & G. Stahl (Eds.), Handbook of research ininternational human resources management (pp. 176-196).London, England: Edward Elgar.

Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participationin the performance appraisal process and employee reactions:A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83 , 615-633.Charan, R., & Colvin, G. (1999). Why CEOs fail. Fortune , 39, 69-78.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B.(2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92, 331-346.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, 689-707.

Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., &Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership:The role of goal importance congruence in top managementteams. Academy of Management Journal , 51 , 81-96.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadershipin organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Conger, J. A., & Riggio, R. (2007). The practice of leadership: Developing the next generation of leaders. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Crotts, J. C. (2005). Aligning organizational processes with mis-sion: The case of service excellence. Academy of Management

Executive, 19 , 54-68.Dean, J. W., Jr., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process

matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39 , 368-396.

8/2/2019 133.full

15/17

Kinicki et al. 147

de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J.(2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic val-ues relate to subordinates perceptions of leadership and firm

performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 , 626-654.DeNisi, A. D., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal,

performance management and improving individual perfor-

mance: A motivational framework. Management and Organi- zation Review, 2, 253-277.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E.(in press). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology.

Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1998). The moderating role of goal commitment on the goal difficultyperformance relation-ship: A meta-analytic review and critical reanalysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83 , 308-315.Dransfield, P. (1968). Engineering systems and automatic control .

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Dumdum, U. K., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-anal-

ysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlatesof effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. InB. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35-66). Oxford,England: Elsevier Science.

Elangovan, A. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust inorganizations . Academy of Management Review, 23 , 547-566.

Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London:Sir Isaac Pitman.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto,CA: Stanford University Press.

Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail: And what youcan learn from their mistakes. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you seewhat we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance betweenleaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 62-76.

Green, S. G., & Welsh, M. A. (1988). Cybernetics and dependence:Reframing the control concept. Academy of Management

Review, 13 , 287-301.Guyton, A. C. (1976). Textbook of medical physiology. Philadelphia,

PA: W. B. Saunders.Hannah, S. T., Woolfolk, R. L., & Lord, R. G. (2009). Leader

self-structure: A framework for positive leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 269-290.

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). Theeffects of transformational and change leadership on employ-ees commitment to change: A multilevel study. Journal of

Applied Psychology , 93, 346-357.Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2005). What we know about leadership.

Review of General Psychology, 9 , 169-180.Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Per-

sonality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.Hollenbeck, J. (1989). Control theory and the perception of work

environments: The effects of focus of attention on affectiveand behavioral reactions to work. Organizational Behavior

Human Decision Processes, 43, 406-430.

Hollenbeck, J., & Klein, H. (1987). Goal commitment and thegoal-setting processes: Problems, prospects, and propos-als for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 ,212-220.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership.In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting

edge . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Jones, G. R. (1983). Transaction costs, property rights, and organi-

zational culture: An exchange perspective. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 28 , 454-467.

Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transac-tional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.Judge, T., Piccolo, R., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones: The

validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadershipresearch. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51.

Kantabutra, S. (2009). Toward a behavioral theory of vision inorganizational settings. Leadership & Organization Develop-ment Journal, 30 , 319-337.

Kinicki, A. J., Prussia, G., Wu, B., & McKee-Ryan, F. (2004).A covariance structure analysis of employees response to

performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 ,1057-1069.

Klein, H. (1989). An integrated control theory model of workmotivation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 150-172.

Komaki, J. L., & Citera, M. (1990). Beyond effective supervision:Identifying key interactions between superior and subordinate.The Leadership Quarterly, 1 , 91-105.

Komaki, J. L., Desselles, M. L., & Bowman, E. D. (1989). Definitelynot a breeze: Extending an operant model of effective supervi-sion to teams. Journal of Applied Psychology , 74, 522-529.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. K. (2000). A multilevel approachto theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal,and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organiza-tions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Labovitz, G., & Rosansky V. (1997). The power of alignment: How great companies stay centered and accomplish extraordi-nary things . New York, NY: John Wiley.

Larson, J. R., & Callahan, C. (1990). Performance monitoring:How it affects work productivity. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 75, 530-538.

Latack, J., Kinicki, A., & Prussia, G. (1995). An integrative pro-cess model of coping with job loss. Academy of Management

Review, 20, 311-342.Lichtenstein, B. B., & Plowman, D. A. (2009). The leadership of

emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergenceat successive organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly,4, 617-630.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lord, R. G., & Hanges, P. J. (1987). A control system model of organizational motivation: Theoretical development and appliedimplications. Behavioral Science, 32, 161-178.

8/2/2019 133.full

16/17


Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactionalleadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The

Leadership Quarterly, 7 , 385-425.Mackenzie, K. D. (2006). The LAMPE theory of organizational

leadership. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research

in multi-level issues: Vol. 5. Multi-level issues in social systems (pp. 345-428). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier/JAI Press.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romanceof leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations . EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Moss, S. (2009). Cultivating the regulatory focus of followers toamplify their sensitivity to transformational leadership. Jour-nal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15 , 241-259.

Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Offerman, L. R., & Scuderi, N. F. (2007). Sharing leadership: Who,what, when, and why. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, &M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leader-

ship: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 71-92) .Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Man-agement Review, 2 , 104-112.

Pindyck, R. S. (1973). Optimal policies for economic stabilization, Econometrica, 41, 529-560.

Powers, W. T. (1973). Behaviorism: Beyond feedback. Science,179, 351-356.

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engage-ment: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academyof Management Journal, 53 , 617-635.

Richmond, B. (1994). Systems thinking/system dynamics: Lets just get on with it. System Dynamics Review, 10 , 135-157.

Rudolph, J. W., & Repenning, N. P. (2002). Disaster dynamics:Understanding the role of quantity in organizational collapse.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 , 1-30.Sanchez, J. I., & De La Torre, P. (1996). A second look at the

relationship between rating and behavioral accuracy in perfor-mance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 3-10.

Sandelands, L., Glynn, M. A., & Larson, J. R. (1991). Controltheory and social behavior in the workplace. Human Relations, 44, 1107-1129.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1988). A model of behavioral self-regulation: Translating intention into action. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 303-346).San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Schriesheim, C., Castro, S., & Yammarino, F. (2000). Inves-tigating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader-member exchange using traditional and multivariate within- and

between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,659-677.

Semler, S. W. (1997). Systemic agreement: A theory of organi-zational alignment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8, 23-40.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization . New York, NY: Doubleday.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational

effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory.Organization Science , 4, 577-594.

Shank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,124 , 240-261.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology:An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Hand-book of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of managerial effectiveness. Journal of Manage-ment , 20, 93-121.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploringthe social processes of leadership and organizing. LeadershipQuarterly, 17 , 654-676.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complex-ity leadership theorey: Shifting leadership from the industrialage to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18 ,298-318.

Vancouver, J. B., & Day, D. V. (2005). Industrial and organizationalresearch on self-regulation: From constructs to applications.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 155-185.Waldman, D., & Yammarino, F. (1999). CEO charismatic lead-

ership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24, 266-285.

Whitford, T., & Moss, S. A. (2009). Transformational leadership indistributed work groups: The moderating role of follower regu-latory focus and goal orientation. Communication Research,36 , 810-837.

Witt, L. A. (1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: Asolution to organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 83 , 666-674.

Workman, M., & Bommer, W. (2004). Redisigning computer callcenter work: A longitudinal field experiment. Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior, 25 , 317-337.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level natureof and multi-level approaches to leadership. The LeadershipQuarterly, 19, 135-141.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2009). (Eds.). Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Leadership (Vol. 8:Research in multi-level issues). Oxford, England: Emerald.

Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F.(2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-sciencereview. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 , 879-919.

8/2/2019 133.full

17/17

Kinicki et al. 149

Yang, J., Zhang, Z.-X., & Tsui, A. S. (2010). Middle managersleadership and frontline employee performance: Bypass, cas-cading and moderating effects. Journal of Management Stud-ies, 47 , 654-678.

Yearout, S., & Miles, G. (2001). Growing leaders. Alexandria,VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory andres

133.full

Documents

Transcript of 133.full