Organizational Psychology: Leadership - Term Paper Example

 Organizational Psychology - Leadership Summary The characteristics and the role of organizational psychology can be differentiated in different organizational and market conditions; in most cases, organizational psychology can influence the activities and the decisions developed within a particular organizational setting; in fact, the influence of organizational psychology on organizational decisions and initiatives is critical, as revealed through the examination of the relevant literature. Three empirical studies have been reviewed in order to identify the characteristics of leadership, as an organizational sector directly related to organizational psychology. Each of these studies highlights different aspects of leadership, including its relationship with politics (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007), the level at which leadership is linked with the proactive behavior of employees (Strauss, Griffin and Rafferty, 2009) and the relationship between the leadership and the chronic stress of followers (Rowold & Schlotz, 2009). It is proved that leadership is a key indicator of organizational psychology, reflecting the psychological and social trends developed within each particular organization. At the same time it is made clear that the approaches used by researchers when having to explore the particular subject may be differentiated, a fact that cannot influence the value of organizational psychology as a factor influencing all aspects of organizational life, including leadership. Also, after examining the content and structure of the three studies, the following assumption has been developed: all of them have addressed their aims; however, the study of Strauss, Griffin and Rafferty (2009) seems to be more appropriately structured and justified responding fully to the requirements of academic research. Aims In the study of Vigoda-Gadot (2007), aims are clearly stated: reference is made to the effort of the researchers to identify ‘politics can be a mediator between the leadership styles and the formal and informal aspects of employee performance (Vigoda-Gadot 2007, p.661). Rowold & Schlotz (2009) also clearly state – in the introductory section - the aim of their study: to prove that leadership style can lead to the employees’ chronic stress. In the third study also, no problem seems to exist regarding the presentation of the study’s aims; Strauss, Griffin and Rafferty (2009) make clear that their study focuses on the identification of the relationship between leadership and employees’ proactivity. However, the specific study seems to have an advantage – regarding the presentation of its aims – compared to the previous two studies; analytical explanations are providing regarding the decision of the authors to choose the particular subject and the gaps in the literature that the study is expected to cover. Structure The structure of the study of Vigoda-Gadot (2007) can be characterized as quite satisfactory, focusing on the analysis of the issues under discussion; moreover, the literature related to the issue under discussion is analytically presented – headings and sub-headings have been employed for increasing the quality of the flow of the text and ensuring that all parts of the text are distinctive, a fact that can be considered as an advantage of the particular paper. From a similar point of view, in the studies of Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty, A. (2009) and Rowold & Schlotz (2009), no problem seems to exist regarding their structure; sub-headings have been used to indicate the parts of the paper and the order/ reasoning of methodology involved. Between the specific two studies also, an advantage seems to exist for that of Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty (2009). Comparing the three studies, it could be noted that the Vigoda-Gadot (2007) offers more analytical explanations on leadership and its role within organization; moreover, the issues discussed are fully and adequately justified using appropriate theories and empirical evidence. Theories In terms of the literature used in the three studies under evaluation, the following issues should be highlighted: a) as of the theories used, differences can be identified among the three studies: the study of Vigoda-Gadot (2007) the theory of Organizational Citizenship Behavior is used in order to explain the potential relationship between leadership and politics – at the level that the latter can act as a mediator between the leadership styles and the employee performance; the Full Range of Leadership model is also engaged aiming to show ‘the hierarchical sequence of leadership styles’ (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007, p.664); at the same time, two different models of Organizational politics, one of mediation and one of non-mediation, have been tested aiming to show the direct and indirect aspect of the relationship between the leadership styles and employee performance – a target that it is achieved. On the other hand, the other two studies focus on the presentation of the aspects of transformational leadership and its effects on employees – in the study of Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty (2009) emphasis is given on the relationship between leadership styles and employees proactivity while in the study of Rowold & Schlotz (2009) the effects of leadership on the chronic stress of employees are explored by referring to the factors of transformational leadership - such as the intellectual stimulation and the leader’s charisma’ (p.36). In accordance with the above, Vigoda-Gadot (2007) have focused on two specific theoretical models – they have also used extensive literature to test them; on the other hand, Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty (2009) and Rowold & Schlotz (2009) did not set limits to their study, in terms of theory; rather they preferred to use theoretical concepts mostly related to the organizational environment, such as the transformational leadership - management-by-exception (Rowold & Schlotz, 2009) and the proactive orientations – work environment (Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty, 2009). It could be stated that the theoretical approaches of the last two studies are more general – reflecting the organizational environment whereas the theoretical framework on which the first study (that of Vigoda-Gadot, 2007) was based has been chosen only on the criterion of its appropriateness for developing the particular study; in other words, the studies of Rowold & Schlotz (2009) and Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty (2009) offer a literature framework that can be effectively used in studies referring to the particular subject; the literature including in the study of Vigoda-Gadot (2007) is applicable mainly on the issue discussed in the specific study. Research methods All three studies are based on empirical research; more specifically, in all of them a survey has been employed for highlighting the various aspects of the issues under discussion. Comparing the research methodology part of the above studies, the following comments should be made: a) in terms of explanation of the research methodology and presentation/ analysis of results, all studies present similar performance; the research hypotheses are clearly set, the sample and the research tools are explained and the results are adequately analyzed; b) moreover, in terms of the number of participants – extension of sample, similar trends have been identified among the three studies; the study of Vigoda-Gadot (2007) involves in 201 participants – compared to 244 participants in the study of Rowold & Schlotz (2009) and 196 participants in the study of Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty (2009); c) in terms of the setting involved all studies involved in organizations of the public sector; more specifically, the study of Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty (2009) was developed in ‘an Australian public sector agency’ (p. 284); on the other hand, the study of Rowold & Schlotz (2009) conducted in ‘a German government agency’ (p.39), as for the other study, the one of Vigoda-Gadot (2007), it was developed in ‘a public security division of a law enforcement agency in Israel’ (Vigoda-Gadot 2007, p.669). The only differentiation among the three studies is the fact that in the study of Vigoda-Gadot (2007) the empirical research is used in order to test the validity of two theoretical models – while in the previous two studies, empirical research is used only for testing/ verifying the research hypotheses. In accordance with the above, the findings of all three studies have been based on sample with similar characteristics, both as of the characteristics of the setting, as also of the number of participants. In this context, the findings of these studies are comparable and particularly valuable for understanding the role of leadership in reflecting organizational psychology. Results The findings of the three studies refer to different aspects of leadership – as an organizational sector reflecting the organizational psychology. More specifically, through the study of Rowold & Schlotz (2009) it is revealed that there are certain types of chronic stress of employees, which can be strongly influenced by the leadership styles developed within a particular organization. On the other hand, the research developed by Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty, A. (2009) led to the conclusion that the level at which employees develop proactive behavior – as distinguished from proficient behavior – is depended on the support provided to them by the leader. Moreover, Vigoda-Gadot (2007) managed to prove that politics can be used as a mediator between leadership styles and employee performance; also, the importance of leadership styles for identifying and supporting employee performance is highlighted; most important, it is made clear that the relationship between leadership and employee performance can be both direct and non-direct. In accordance with the above, the results of the three studies cover different aspects of the same subject – the role of leadership as a means for promoting organizational psychology. For this reason, all the above studies can be characterized as quite valuable for understanding the aspects of leadership as related to organizational psychology. References Rowold, J., Schlotz, W. (2009) “Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Followers’ Chronic Stress,” Kravis Leadership Institute, Leadership Review, Vol. 9, Spring 2009, pp. 35-48. Strauss, K., Griffin, M., Rafferty, A. (2009) “Proactivity Directed Toward the Team and Organization: the Role of Leadership, Commitment and Role-breadth Self-efficacy.” British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 279–291. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007) “Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’ performance. An empirical examination of two competing models.” Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 661-683. Bibliography Aamodt, M. (2009). Industrial/Organizational Psychology: An Applied Approach. Belmont: Cengage Learning Isaksen, S. & Tidd, J. (2006). Meeting the innovation challenge: leadership for transformation and growth. John Wiley and Sons Read More