Теории лидерства
expressions of concern for the interests of followers and the collective;
g) positive evaluation of followers and the collective; h) instrumental and
symbolic behaviors that emphasize and reinforce the values inherent in the
collective vision; i) role modelling behaviors that set a personal example
of the values inherent in the collective vision; j) frame-alignment
behaviors--behaviors intended to align followers' attitudes, schemata, and
frames with the values of the collective vision; and, k) behaviors that
arouse follower motives relevant to the pursuit of the vision. We refer to
these behaviors collectively as the value based leader behavior syndrome.
This specification of value based leader behaviors integrates the
behaviors specified in prior extensions of the 1976 theory of charismatic
leadership as well as behaviors specified in other theories of charismatic,
transformational and visionary leadership. House and Shamir (1993) provide
the rationale for inclusion of the above behaviors in the theoretical
leader behavior syndrome.
Axioms
Axioms are statements, the validity of which are taken for granted,
either because the enjoy substantial empirical evidence or becuse they
cannot be tested. Axioms provide a foundation for more specific
statements, such as propositions. The axioms stated here provide the
foundation for the selection of leader behaviors from among all of the
leader behaviors specified in the various theories described above.
Axioms Concerning Human Motivation
1. Humans tend to be not only pragmatic and goal-oriented, but are also
self-expressive. It is assumed that behavior is not only instrumental-
calculative, but also expressive of feelings, aesthetic values and self-
concepts. We "do" things because of who we "are," because by doing them we
establish and affirm an identity for ourselves, at times even when our
behavior does not serve our materialistic or pragmatic self-interests.
2. People are motivated to maintain and enhance their generalized self-
efficacy and self-worth. Generalized self-efficacy is based on a sense of
competence, power, or ability to cope with and control one's environment.
Self-worth is based on a sense of virtue and moral worth and is grounded in
norms and values concerning conduct.
3. People are also motivated to retain and increase their sense of self-
consistency. Self-consistency refers to correspondence among components of
the self-concept at a given time, to continuity of the self-concept over
time, and to correspondence between the self-concept and behavior. People
derive a sense of "meaning" from continuity between the past, the present
and the projected future, and from the correspondence between their
behavior and self-concept.
4. Self-concepts are composed of values, perceptions of self-worth,
efficacy, and consistency, and also identities. Identities, sometimes
referred to as role-identities, link the self-concept to society. Social
identities locate the self in socially recognizable categories such as
nations, organizations and occupations, thus enabling people to derive
meaning from being linked to social collectives.
5. Humans can be strongly motivated by faith. When goals cannot be
clearly specified or the subjective probabilities of accomplishment and
rewards are not high, people may be motivated by faith because being
hopeful in the sense of having faith in a better future is an intrinsically
satisfying condition.
6. When individual motives are aroused in the interest of the collective
effort, and when individual identify with the values inherent in the
collective vision, they will evaluate themselves on the basis of the degree
to which they contribute to the collective effort. Under conditions of
motive arousal and value identiication individuals experience intrinsic
satisfaction from their contribution to the collective effort and intrinsic
dissatisfaction from failure to contribute to collective efforts.
These axioms incorporate the extensions of the 1976 theory of
charismatic leadership offered by Shamir, House and Arthur (1993), and
House and Shamir (1995) and provide the integrative framework for the Value
Based Theory of Leadership.
PROPOSITIONS
The theory is expressed in the form of twenty-seven propositions which
assert specific ways in which leader motives and behaviors, in conjunction
with situational variables, affect follower motivation and performance and
organizational performance. These propositions are based on the leadership
and psychological theories reviewed above and reflect the extensions of the
1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership contributed by House et al. (1991),
Shamir et al. (1993), House and Shamir (1993), and Waldman, Ramirez and
House (1996).
Propositions Concerning Leader Behavior and Its Effects
1. The motivational effects of the behaviors of the value based leader
behavior
syndrome described above will be heightened follower recognition of shared
values between leaders and followers, heightened arousal of follower
motives, heightened follower self-confidence, generalized self-efficacy and
self-worth, strong follower self-engagement in the pursuit of the
collective vision and in contributing to the collective, and strong
follower identification with the collective and the collective vision. We
refer to these psychological reactions of followers as the value based
motive syndrome .
2. The behavioral effects of the value based motive syndrome will be
heightened commitment to the collective as manifested by follower
willingness to exert effort above and beyond normal position or role
requirements, follower self-sacrifice in the interest of the vision and the
collective, and increased collective social cohesion and organizational
collaboration. We refer to these effects as the value based follower
commitment syndrome. While the value based motive syndrome described in
proposition one is not directly observable, the behaviors of the value
based follower commitment syndrome are.
Propositions Concerning Leader Attributes
3. Self-confidence and a strong conviction in the moral correctness of
one's beliefs will be predictive of proactive leadership. This proposition
is a slight modification of proposition three of the 1976 Theory of
Charismatic Leadership. This proposition has been supported by Smith
(1982), House et al. (1991), and Howell and Higgins (1991).
4. Strong leader concern for the morally responsible exercise of power
will be predictive of constructive, collectively oriented exercise of
social influence by leaders and predictive of the value based motive and
follower commitment syndromes specified in propositions 1 and 2 above.
5. Power motivation coupled with a strong concern for the morally
responsible exercise of power will be predictive of the constructive,
collective-oriented exercise of social influence by leaders.
6. Power motivation, unconstrained by a strong concern for the moral
exercise of power, will be predictive of impetuously aggressive and self-
aggrandizing exercise of social influence.
7. Power motivation, in conjunction with a strong concern for the moral
exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the role
demands of leaders require substantial delegation of authority and
responsibility and the exercise of social influence.
8. Power motivation, unconstrained by a strong concern for the moral
exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the role
demands of leaders require strong individual competitiveness,
aggressiveness, manipulative and exploitive behavior, or the exercise of
substantial political influence.
9. Affiliative motivation will be predictive of non-assertive leadership,
close relationships with a small subgroup of followers, partiality toward
this subgroup, and ineffective leadership.
10. The leader motive profile will be predictive of proactive leadership
and leader effectiveness when the role demands of leaders require
substantial delegation of authority and responsibility and the exercise of
social influence.
11. Achievement motivation will be predictive of effective leader
performance in entrepreneurial contexts and for small task-oriented groups
in which members have direct interaction with the leader.
12. Achievement motivation will be predictive of ineffective leader
performance for the leadership of organizations in which the role demands
of leaders require substantial delegation of authority and responsibility
and the exercise of substantial social influence.
Propositions four through twelve are derived from the motivation
theories reviewed earlier.
Propositions Concerning Specific Leader Behaviors
13. Leader behaviors intended to enhance followers cognitive abilities
will increase follower and overall organizational performance when such
behaviors complement formal organizational practices and the informal
social system by providing direction, clarification, feedback,
encouragement, support, and motivational incentives to subordinates which
are not otherwise provided.
14. When leader behaviors intended to enhance followers cognitive
abilities are redundant with formal organizational practices and the
informal social system they will be viewed as excessively controlling, will
cause follower dissatisfaction, and will be resented and resisted.
15. To be accepted by followers, it is necessary for leaders to be
perceived by followers as acting in the interest of the collective and the
followers, to be perceived as fair and trustworthy in their interactions
with followers, and to be perceived as not self-aggrandizing.
16. Leader support behavior will be predictive of low follower stress,
trust in by followers, and follower satisfaction with their relationships
with leaders.
17. Leader contingent recognition and approval will be predictive of
follower role clarity, follower perceptions of leaders as fair, and
heightened follower satisfaction and motivation.
18. Directive leader behavior will result in follower role clarification
but will be dysfunctional when followers prefer to exercise independent
actions and initiative, are highly involved in their work, and/or perceive
themselves as having requisite knowledge and skills for effective task
performance.
19. Participative leader behavior will result in follower role
clarification and will be functional when followers prefer to exercise
independent actions and initiative, are highly involved in their work,
and/or when followers perceive themselves as having requisite knowledge and
skills for effective task performance.
20. Leader fairness behavior will be predictive of follower acceptance of
leaders, and the leader's vision and values.
21. Perceived lack of fairness will result in follower resentment and
resistance to the leaders vision and directions. These propositions are
based on equity theory of motivation.
Propositions 13 through 21 are based on the 1996 version of Path Goal
Theory of leadership (House, 1996).
22. Leaders arouse motives of followers by enacting specific motive arousal
behaviors relevant to each motive. For example, defining tasks and goals as
challenging arouses the achievement motive; invoking the image of a
threatening enemy, describing combative or highly competitive situations or
describing the exercise of power arouses the power motive; making
acceptance of the leader contingent on mutural acceptance of followers, or
stressing the importance of collaborative behavior arouses the affiliative
motive.
23. Leaders who engage in selective behaviors that arouse motives
specifically relevant to the accomplishment of the collective vision will
have positive effects on followers' value based motive syndrome described
in Proposition 2.
24. The more leaders engage in the value based leader behavior syndrome the
more their followers will emulate (a) the values, preferences and
expectations of the leader, (b) the emotional responses of the leader to
work-related stimuli, and (c) the attitudes of the leader toward work and
the organization.
Propositions 22 through 24 are slight revisions of propositions
advanced in the 1976 Theory of Charismatic leadership (House, 1977).
25. The use of strong extrinsic material rewards contingent on performance
will conflict with appeals to ideological values and will thus undermine
the effects of the value based leader behavior syndrome. This proposition
is based on dissonance theory (Festinger, 1980) and supported by the
findings of Korman (1970), and Dubinsky and Spangler (1995) described
above.
Propositions Concerning Social Context
26. Two necessary conditions for leaders to have the effects specified in
proposition two are that leaders have the opportunity to communicate the
collective vision to potential followers and that the role of followers be
definable in ideological terms that appeal to them. This is a modification
of one of the propositions originally advanced by House (1977).
27. The emergence and effectiveness of value based leaders will be
facilitated to the extent to which a) performance goals cannot be easily
specified and measured, b) extrinsic rewards cannot be made clearly
contingent on individual performance, c) there are few situational cues,
constraints and reinforcers to guide behavior and provide incentives for
specific performance, and d) exceptional effort, behavior and sacrifices
are required of both the leaders and followers. This proposition is based
on the earlier discussion of strength of situations and dissonance theory
and is a modest modification of one of the propositions originally advanced
by Shamir et al. (1993).
The hypotheses were tested within the context of a latent structure
casual model, using Partial Least Squares Analysis (PLS). This modelling
procedure requires that substantive hypotheses be modelled in the form of
paths connecting the hypothesized variables. The variables are latent
constructs composed of scores on manifest indicators. The The slopes of
these relationships are presented in Figure 3. This finding supports the
competitive hypothesis 5a which states that LMP will have greater effects
in non-entrepreneurial firms than in entrepreneurial firms, and will be
discussed below.
IMPLICATIONS
In this section we first discuss the implications of the findings
with respect to the value based leadership. Next we discuss the
implications of the findings for each of the five theories that were
integrated in the models tested. We then discuss the more general
implications of the study for the discipline of Organizational Behavior.
Value Based Leadership
Thomas (1988), House et al. (1991), and by Waldman, Ramirez and House
(1996)
demonstrate longitudinally, and with adequate controls for spurious
relationships, that leaders have substantial effects on the performance of
the organizations they manage. However, there have been no studies, other
than the U.S. presidential study (House et al., 1991), that investigate the
leader motives and behavior that lead to such leader effects. Thus there
has been a "black box" concerning how leader processes influence overall
organizational performance that remains to be explained.
Collectively, the findings of the present study help to understand the
phenomena in the "black box." More specifically, the findings show, in
some detail, important relationships between chief executives' motives and
behavior and subordinates' motivation and commitment to their organization.
Having shown how the components function, it is now possible to test
linkages between leader behavior, subordinate responses, and organizational
effectiveness using longitudinal quasi experimental designs.
Implications for Specific Theories
In this section we discuss the implications of the study findings for
each of the theories that are integrated to form the Value Based Theory of
Leadership.
Achievement Motivation Theory
Achievement motivation has a more positive effect on CEMS and all
leader behaviors in entrepreneurial firms than in non-entrepreneurial
firms. This finding constitutes yet another confirmation of achievement
motivation theory concerning the specific conditions under which
achievement motivation is predicted to result in high performance.
Moral Responsibility Theory
The bivariate relationships between the moral responsibility
disposition and value based leader behavior, leader fairness and CEMS, and
the moderating effect of responsibility on the relationships between the
power motive, and CEMS, leader charisma, and support/reward behavior all
provide support for Moral Responsibility Theory. Moral responsibility
motivation is clearly an important disposition that deserves further
investigation and attention.
Leader Motive Profile Theory
The positive relationships between LMP and executive value based
leader behavior, support/recognition behavior, and directiveness provide
support for LMP Theory. These two relationships are consistent with the
interpretation that because high LMP leaders have low affiliative
motivation they enact social influence in an impersonal and more proactive
and assertive manner than low LMP leaders.
The findings are consistent with the propositions that LMP affects
leader behavior, and leader behavior in turn has a positive effect on CEMS.
These findings suggest a re-specification of the boundary conditions for
the role of LMP in organizational functioning. Contrary to the initially
specified boundary conditions, LMP has negligible effects on leader
behavior and CEMS in non- entrepreneurial firms and positive effects in
entrepreneurial firms. These findings imply that LMP has its' major impact
on organizational outcomes through its' influence on leader behavior under
weak psychological conditions.
Path Goal Theory
As predicted by the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership (House, 1996),
leader contingent
recognition and supportive behaviors are predictive of CEMS, and leader
directiveness is more strongly negatively related to CEMS in
entrepreneurial firms. Thus Path-Goal theory is provided additional
support in the present study.
CONCLUSION
The major conclusions that can be drawn from the above findings and
discussion are: 1) the value based theory of leadership successfully
integrates five prominent theories of leadership (transformational,
charismatic, visionary, LMP, and path-goal theories) and assertions drawn
broadly from established psychological theories of motivation and behavior;
2) the components of the value based theory of leadership are rather
strongly and quite consistently supported, although their exact
combinations remain to be established; 3) the psychological theories
integrated within the value based theory are largely supported; 4) the
value based theory of leadership, with various kinds of
operationalizations, has rather broad generalizability; 5) the theory
supported by the U.S. presidential study holds for CEOs with respect to
effects of leader behaviors on subordinates' cognitions and affective
responses; 6) a re-specification of the boundary conditions of LMP should
be further investigated; and 7) the motives that are most appropriate for
effective leadership are contingent on the orientation of the collective
being led.
Beginning with the 1976 theory of charismatic leadership (House,
1977), a new leadership paradigm has emerged. This paradigm consists of
several theories of similar genre (House, 1977; Bass, 1985; Conger &
Kanungo; 1987; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; 1987; Sashkin, 1988) and concerns the
determinants of exceptionally effective or outstanding leadership.
According to this paradigm, value based leaders infuse organizations and
work with ideological values which are intrinsically and powerfully
motivational. Value oriented motivation is stronger, more pervasive, and
more endurable than pragmatic oriented motivation. The theories of the new
paradigm are now integrated and formalized as the Value Based Theory of
Leadership. Hopefully, this theory and the supporting research will
stimulate further leadership research and further development of leadership
and organizational behavior theory. As the final accorsd of my project I am
going to say a few words about the Russian research in this field. Russian
Project is a part of annual International Project GLOBE. Interviews have
been taken among the CEO’s of Russian Entrepreneurial and Non-
entrepreneurial Firms. It would be very interesting to mention the fact
that the results were surprising and clearly showed the profile of a
Russian Leader. The participants did not know each other and at the same
time answered very alike. Russian Leaders have strong potential and all
chances to achieve the desired goals.Strong charracters, clear vision of
the future and optimistic approach are the main strong sides of the
profile. Russian Leaders work a lot and enjoy every moment of life. They
have time for their family. None of the sides suffer. Russia has a strong
potential for Leadership.
Appendix 1
Table 1
Executive Interview Questions
1. Would you briefly describe your career to date, beginning with your
education and then when you first entered a management position?
2. When you assumed your present position was there a mandate for what you
were expected to accomplish, a number of problems you were expected or
desired to solve, goals you expected or desired to achieve, or a vision of
your own or someone elses to be accomplished?
3. What were the major strengths of your organization that help you
accomplish what you wanted to accomplish when taking this position?
4. What were the major deficiencies in the organization?
4. What were the major barriers to accomplishment?
5. What were your major strengths?
6. Were there any personal weaknesses you needed to overcome or were there
any .personal deficiencies such as lack of skills, that that you needed to
improve upon?
7. Please describe the strategy you used, or the major activities you
conducted, to accomplish the objectives you desired to accomplish.
8. Please describe your philosophy of management (this is usually already
implicitly described in the answers to the above questions).
9. Are there any other considerations we need to know about in order to
understand your role in your current position?
10. Executives often need to devote a large amount of time to ltheir work.
How do you reconcile the potential time conflicts between your work
demands and family demands
Table 2
VALUE BASED LEADERSHIP CONSTRUCT
This construct consists of seven subscales, each of which serves as a
manifest indicator. These subscales are Vision, Performance Expectations
and Improvement, Follower Confidence and Challenge, Intellectual
Stimulation, Role Modeling, Integrity, and Self Confidence.
VISION
| |Clearly articulates his/her vision of the future | | | | | | | | |
| |Paints an exciting picture of the future of our | | | | | | | | |
| |organization | | | | | | | | |
| |Communicates an exciting vision of the future of the | | | | | | | | |
| |organization | | | | | | | | |
| |Is optimistic about the future of this organization | | | | | | | | |
| |Has a clear understanding of where we are going | | | | | | | | |
| |Has a clear sense of where he/she wants our unit to be in| | | | | | | | |
| |five years | | | | | | | | |
| |Has a hard time exciting others with a dream of the | | | | | | | | |
| |future | | | | | | | | |
| |Has no idea where our organization is going* | | | | | | | | |
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS-IMPROVEMENT EMPHASIS (for the subordinates)
| |Expects a lot from us | | | | | | | | |
| |Expects less from me than other superiors with whom I | | | | | | | | |
| |have worked (-) | | | | | | | | |
| |Expects me to give 110% all f the time | | | | | | | | |
| |Insists on only the best performance | | | | | | | | |
| |Does not expect much of me in terms of performance (-) | | | | | | | | |
| |Challenges us to be innovative in our approach to work | | | | | | | | |
| |assignments | | | | | | | | |
| |Encourages us to look for better ways of doing | | | | | | | | |
| |Tells me how to do my work* | | | | | | | | |
| |Urges me to be self critical if my performance is not up | | | | | | | | |
| |to par | | | | | | | | |
| |Expects me to set goals for myself | | | | | | | | |
FOLLOWER CONFIDENCE AND CHALLENGE (sub)
| |Shows confidence in my ability to contribute to the goals| | | | | | | | |
| |of this organization | | | | | | | | |
| |Demonstrates total confidence in me | | | | | | | | |
| |Allows me to take a strong hand in setting my own | | | | | | | | |
| |performance goals | | | | | | | | |
| |Allows me to set my own goals | | | | | | | | |
| |Encourages me to solve problems on my own | | | | | | | | |
| |When I have a problem he/she asks me to find a solution | | | | | | | | |
| |Challenges me to set high goals for myself | | | | | | | | |
INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION,
| |Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways | | | | | | | | |
| |Has ideas that have forced me to rethink some things that| | | | | | | | |
| |I have never questioned before | | | | | | | | |
| |Asks question that prompt me to think about the way I do | | | | | | | | |
| |things | | | | | | | | |
| |Has ideas that have challenged me to re-examine some of | | | | | | | | |
| |my basic assumptions about my work | | | | | | | | |
ROLE MODELING
| |Sets a good example | | | | | | | | |
| |Leads by "doing" rather than simply by "telling" | | | | | | | | |
| |Provides a good model for me to follow | | | | | | | | |
INTEGRITY
| |Follows a definite moral code | | | | | | | | |
| |Makes sure that his/her actions are always ethical | | | | | | | | |
| |Will not sacrifice or compromise his/her moral standards | | | | | | | | |
| |Can be trusted to serve the interests of his/her | | | | | | | | |
| |subordinates rather than him/herself | | | | | | | | |
| |Is pragmatic and adjusts his/her ethical standard to fit | | | | | | | | |
| |the situation (-) | | | | | | | | |
| |Does not behave in a manner that is consistent with the | | | | | | | | |
| |values he/she expresses (-) | | | | | | | | |
| |Does not follow the rule "practice what you preach" (-) | | | | | | | | |
SELF CONFIDENCE
| |Has strong convictions in the correctness of our | | | | | | | | |
| |competitive strategy | | | | | | | | |
| |Has strong convictions in the correctness of his or her | | | | | | | | |
| |actions | | | | | | | | |
| |Shows a high degree of self confidence | | | | | | | | |
| |Views obstacles as challenges rather than threats | | | | | | | | |
| |Rises to meet difficult goals | | | | | | | | |
| |Encourages people to see changing environments as | | | | | | | | |
| |situations full of opportunities | | | | | | | | |
SUPPORT - REWARD
This construct consists of the Leader Consideration and Contingent Reward
subscales.
CONSIDERATION
| |Looks out for my personal welfare | | | | | | | | |
| |Considers my personal feelings before acting | | | | | | | | |
| |Sees that the interests of subordinates are given due | | | | | | | | |
| |consideration | | | | | | | | |
| |Behaves in a manner which is thoughtful of my personal | | | | | | | | |
| |needs | | | | | | | | |
| |Acts without considering my feelings* | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
CONTINGENT RECOGNITION AND APPROVAL
| |Gives me positive feedback when I perform well | | | | | | | | |
| |Informs others in the organization when I do outstanding | | | | | | | | |
| |work | | | | | | | | |
| |Gives me special recognition when my work performance is | | | | | | | | |
| |especially good | | | | | | | | |
| |Acknowledges improvements in the quality of my work | | | | | | | | |
| |Encourages me to feel positive about myself if I do an | | | | | | | | |
| |assignment especially well | | | | | | | | |
| |Commends me when I do a better than average job | | | | | | | | |
| |Personally compliment me when I do outstanding work | | | | | | | | |
| |Makes my compensation contingent on my performance | | | | | | | | |
| |Rarely praises me when I do well (-) | | | | | | | | |
| |Frequently does not acknowledge my good performance (-) | | | | | | | | |
| |Would indicate disapproval if I performed at a low level | | | | | | | | |
| |Shows his or her displeasure when my work is below | | | | | | | | |
| |acceptable standards | | | | | | | | |
| |Points it out to me when my work is not up to par | | | | | | | | |
| |Is just as likely to praise me when I do poorly as when I| | | | | | | | |
| |do well* | | | | | | | | |
| |Will praise me even when I don't deserve it* | | | | | | | | |
DIRECTION
| |Provides direction in regard to my job | | | | | | | | |
| |Sets goals for my performance | | | | | | | | |
| |Gives me instructions about how to do my job | | | | | | | | |
| |Tells me how to do my work | | | | | | | | |
| |Establishes my goals for me | | | | | | | | |
| |Takes a strong hand in establishing my goals | | | | | | | | |
FAIRNESS IN EVALUATION (inverted)
| |Holds me accountable for work I have no control over | | | | | | | | |
| |Often holds me responsible for things that are not my | | | | | | | | |
| |fault | | | | | | | | |
COMMITMENT, MOTIVATION, AND PERCEIVED TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
This construct consists of three subscales: Motive Arousal; Commitment,
Satisfaction, and Motivation; Perceived Top Management Team Effectiveness.
MOTIVE AROUSAL,
|My CEO (or COE) | | | | | | | | | |
| |Makes me enthusiastic about my assignments | | | | | | | | |
| |Arouses in me motivation to work harder and better | | | | | | | | |
| |Motivates me to do more than I originally expected I | | | | | | | | |
| |would do | | | | | | | | |
| |Inspires me to get a lot more done than I could have if | | | | | | | | |
| |he or she were not | | | | | | | | |
| |Inspires me to my highest level of performance | | | | | | | | |
COMMITMENT, SATISFACTION, AND MOTIVATION,
| |I agree with to my superior's vision of this | | | | | | | | |
| |organization. | | | | | | | | |
| |I am very satisfied with the CEO | | | | | | | | |
| |I expect to be with this organization in 1996 | | | | | | | | |
| |I expect this organization to have an excellent future | | | | | | | | |
| |I am willing to make serious personal sacrifices to | | | | | | | | |
| |contribute to the success of this organization | | | | | | | | |
| |I contribute to this organization 100% of my ability | | | | | | | | |
| |I perform above and beyond the call of duty | | | | | | | | |
| |My work performance and efforts are above and beyond that| | | | | | | | |
| |which is required | | | | | | | | |
| |The CEO (or COE) makes me feel good to be around him/her | | | | | | | | |
| |I find the CEOs vision of the future to be confusing* | | | | | | | | |
TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
| |My CEO (or COE) gets people to place the interests of the| | | | | | | | |
| |organization ahead of their own interests | | | | | | | | |
| |People at my level work well together | | | | | | | | |
| |The top management of his company works very effectively | | | | | | | | |
| |as a team | | | | | | | | |
| |My work is made difficult because others will not provide| | | | | | | | |
| |the cooperation and support they should provide* | | | | | | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Страницы: 1, 2, 3
|