Lade Inhalt...

It's not what a leader does, it's what you make of it

Implicit Personality Theories, Leadership Prototypes, and Cultural Differences in Trait Inferences between Germany and Great Britain

©2003 Diplomarbeit 81 Seiten

Zusammenfassung

Inhaltsangabe:Abstract:
Expatriate managers experience many difficulties that are due to psychological differences between home and foreign country. Especially the behaviour that is expected from managers and the way they are perceived varies across cultures. Perception is determined by the traits that are inferred to a manager. In this thesis it is argued that implicit personality theories and leadership prototypes are culturally endorsed and vary between Germany and Britain. Their variation yields differences in trait inference. Furthermore, a connection between implicit personality theories and leadership prototypes is hypothesised. A questionnaire assessed implicit personality theories, leadership prototypes, and trait inference in management situations in Germany (N= 82) and Great Britain (N= 76). Results indicate that Germans had a more incremental theory of personality (i.e., they regard personality as more malleable) and a lower tendency to infer traits than Britons. Leadership prototypes had no effect on trait inference, but were related to implicit personality theory: People with an incremental theory of personality emphasised leadership behaviour associated with change. Additionally the semantic structure of leadership prototypes of German and British expatriate managers was analysed, revealing high consistency with the national average prototypes. Implications for cross-cultural research on person perception, leadership, and for expatriate managers in Germany and Britain are discussed.

Zusammenfassung:
Führungskräfte, die ins Ausland entsendet werden, erfahren viele Schwierigkeiten, die auf psychologische Unterschiede zwischen Heimat- und Entsendungsland zurückzuführen sind. Insbesondere das Verhalten, das von Managern erwartet wird, und die Art, wie sie wahrgenommen werden, variiert über die Kulturen hinweg. Die Wahrnehmung ist vor allem dadurch bestimmt, welche Eigenschaften einem Manager zugeschrieben werden. In dieser Arbeit wird argumentiert, dass implizite Persönlichkeitstheorien und Führungsprototypen kulturgebunden sind und zwischen Deutschland und England variieren. Diese Variation führt zu Unterschieden in der Zuschreibung von Eigenschaften. Des weiteren wird ein Zusammenhang zwischen impliziten Persönlichkeitstheorien und Führungsprototypen postuliert.
Mit einem Fragebogen wurden von 82 deutschen und 76 englischen Teilnehmern die impliziten Persönlichkeitstheorien, Führungsprototypen und Eigenschaftszuschreibungen in […]

Leseprobe

Inhaltsverzeichnis


ID 7015
Herzfeldt, Regina: It's not what a leader does, it's what you make of it: Implicit
Personality Theories, Leadership Prototypes, and Cultural Differences in Trait Inferences
between Germany and Great Britain
Hamburg: Diplomica GmbH, 2003
Zugl.: Fachhochschule Südwestfalen, Universität, Diplomarbeit, 2003
Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,
insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von
Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der
Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen,
bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung
dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen
der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich
vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des
Urheberrechtes.
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in
diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,
dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei
zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.
Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können
Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden, und die Diplomarbeiten Agentur, die
Autoren oder Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine
Haftung für evtl. verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.
Diplomica GmbH
http://www.diplom.de, Hamburg 2003
Printed in Germany

2
Contents
Acknowledgements 4
Abstract 5
Introduction 6
Cross-cultural differences in trait inference
9
Implicit theories of personality
12
Cultural differences in implicit theories
14
Leadership prototypes
15
Relationship between implicit personality theory and leadership
prototypes 17
Mediation model for trait inference in leadership situations
18
Comparing leadership prototypes: the GLOBE study
19
Relevance of leadership prototype differences in Germany and
Great Britain
23
Method 26
Participants 27
Material 27
Procedure 31
Results 33
National differences in implicit personality theory and leadership
prototypes 33
Cultural differences in trait inference
37
Mediation of cultural difference in trait inference by implicit
personality theories and leadership prototypes
39
Connection between implicit personality theories and leadership
prototypes 44
Differences in the semantic connections of leadership prototypes
47

3
Discussion 54
Person perception across cultures
56
Implications for research on leadership prototypes
60
Consequences for expatriate managers in Germany and
Great Britain
62
Conclusion 64
References 65
Appendix A
70
Appendix B
72
Appendix C
74
Appendix D
76
Appendix E
77
Statutory Declaration / Eidesstattliche Erklärung
79

4
Acknowledgements
Many people have helped and assisted me in the research that led up to this
thesis. All their contributions to this work were very valuable for me and
improved both the research presented here and the way it is presented. My
thanks go to Keith Dobson, Peter Dorfman, Marko Eckert, Carolin Ehrlich,
Nicole Ehrsam, Sandra Hagen, John Kidd, Günter Maier, Petra Martin,
Norman Munroe, Jenny Thomson, Michael West, and Ulrich Hoppe and the
British Chamber of Commerce in Germany.
Especial thanks go to Nikola Mende, who illustrated the cartoons (besides
the value of your gifted hand, it was great fun working with you!), Brigitte
Tod, who did the back-translation of the questionnaires, corrected my
grammar, provided me with participants, and was of great help in all steps
of this work, and last not least my mother. I don't know how I would have
managed without you!
Biggest thanks to Veronika Brandstätter and Felix Brodbeck, my supervi-
sors. They gave me the chance to develop and implement my own ideas in a
fruitful way and taught me how to think and work as a scientist. Their guid-
ance, motivation, feedback, patience, and support in every way cannot be
acknowledged appropriately in this place. Please know that I will always
remember you and the help you gave for developing this research and my
personality.

5
Abstract
Expatriate managers experience many difficulties that are due to psycho-
logical differences between home and foreign country. Especially the
behaviour that is expected from managers and the way are perceived varies
across cultures. Perception is determined by the traits that are inferred to a
manager. In this thesis it is argued that implicit personality theories and
leadership prototypes are culturally endorsed and vary between Germany
and Britain. Their variation yields differences in trait inference. Further-
more, a connection between implicit personality theories and leadership
prototypes is hypothesised. A questionnaire assessed implicit personality
theories, leadership prototypes, and trait inference in management situations
in Germany (N= 82) and Great Britain (N= 76). Results indicate that Ger-
mans had a more incremental theory of personality (i.e., they regard person-
ality as more malleable) and a lower tendency to infer traits than Britons.
Leadership prototypes had no effect on trait inference, but were related to
implicit personality theory: People with an incremental theory of personality
emphasised leadership behaviour associated with change. Additionally the
semantic structure of leadership prototypes of German and British expatriate
managers was analysed, revealing high consistency with the national aver-
age prototypes. Implications for cross-cultural research on person percep-
tion, leadership, and for expatriate managers in Germany and Britain are
discussed.

6
Introduction
Matthew is a senior manager working in private equity for an international
bank based in the UK. He has been sent to Germany to manage the Frank-
furt branch which had been one of the bank's slowest-growing divisions.
Therefore UK headquarters sent somebody experienced to Frankfurt as a
kind of trouble-shooter, to clarify to the German staff the goals which head-
quarters wanted them to achieve in the next years and improve communica-
tion both with customers and headquarters.
All of Matthew's new employees were host Germans. He felt he had a good
start, with the staff understanding that major changes were required. In one
particular situation Matthew had to make an important decision, so he asked
the whole management team for a meeting, intending a joint decision mak-
ing process. In his mind, he had very clear deadlines from headquarters con-
cerning decision times and taking initial actions, but little specific
instructions. So he tried to get a tight meeting to inform his colleagues about
all relevant issues and then come to a decision they all were satisfied with.
But things evolved very differently: "When we reached the point where all
information was shared and we had to make a decision, people fell silent.
They left the decision completely to me as the manager and did not have
any suggestions, which was quite difficult for me. I could see that in a way
they were testing me, when asking `what shall we do?'. I reacted in the a
classical English way and replied `what do you recommend?' But they were
absolutely horrified that they should be asked! They really felt I should de-
cide, as that is what I am paid for." So Matthew suggested the option that
evidently made most sense, and got general agreement. As far as Matthew
could see, his subordinates appreciated the choice.
In the weeks afterwards Matthew became aware that none of the staff did
anything to promote the decision or implement required actions. He was

7
confused about what he had done wrong ­ it had seemed that at the time of
the meeting everybody agreed with the decision made.
Matthew at last presumed he had in some way failed the kind of test the
Germans had set him. He talked with his German colleagues about it, which
proved futile. In the end he enforced the implementation of the decision by
linking it to their salary bonuses, which worked more or less for the time he
stayed in Frankfurt. But shortly after he returned to London headquarters,
the same problems emerged again in Frankfurt. At the moment the bank is
thinking of either replacing the entire local staff with people from the UK or
closing the Frankfurt branch and operating the service for German cos-
tumers from London.
Why did Matthew fail? And why is it so difficult to say where he failed, or
to establish the exact point of time when he should have acted differently?
In the end the real dilemma probably was a cultural one, namely that the
German staff did not agree with the way Matthew introduced changes,
whilst Matthew didn't understand their real thoughts. Instead of an open
confrontation resistance evolved in a covert process, which Matthew noticed
too late in time to improve commitment or change his strategy and further
deepen commitment to implementing his decision.
This example shows that some very detrimental effects of unsuccessful in-
ternational cooperation are due to cultural differences, especially those that
aren't obvious at first glance and remain overlooked by the people involved.
Only their negative effects are clearly visible. The underlying reasons reside
in the way we perceive the world and people around us. The difficulties ex-
patriate managers face lie not so much in a visible change of environment
and procedures in another country, but rather in the implicit rules and expec-
tations particular to that cultural and social environment.
In Matthew's case, also the views of the local staff had to be taken into ac-
count: They had had trouble with headquarters and failed to accomplish
goals set in the last few years. Although Matthew seemed a nice guy and

8
had good ideas, when it came to important decisions it appeared to the local
staff that he already had made up his mind. He did not seem to care that the
issues concerned were related to the identification with their role within the
bank. This was what they sensed in the beginning of this calamitous meet-
ing. There was no chance to get into open confrontation, as they were all in
fear of losing their jobs. They felt trapped when Matthew made a seemingly
hurried final decision. During this process their perception of Matthew es-
tablished him as a seemingly pleasant, but dictatorial and uncompromising
character that enforced his or headquarters' views with no apparent concern
or understanding of the local view.
From a psychological perspective both parties, Matthew and the German
staff had very different perceptions of one process, each misinterpreting the
other's behaviour. These mutual misinterpretations resulted in trait infer-
ences on both sides that were neither right nor intended: Matthew was seen
as dictatorial and uncompromising, while he conceived of his staff as apa-
thetic, lazy and not committed to the organization's goals.
This example shows that dissimilar perceptions on both sides regarding the
inference of traits are of high importance in practical leadership experience,
and can determine the success of an expatriate manager to a very large ex-
tent.
This study looks at cultural differences in trait inference, as they occur be-
tween Germany and Great Britain, and considers the mechanisms that medi-
ate and direct these differences. Based on current cross-cultural research on
trait inference, the influences of implicit assumptions about people's per-
sonality generally and about leadership behaviour in particular are consid-
ered. It is assumed that both have an impact on a manager's perception at
home and in a foreign country, and examined how they might relate to the
broad variable of culture.
Furthermore, implicit theories about leadership in Germany and Britain will
be explored in depth, focussing on differences in content and semantic con-

9
nections. Understanding how Germans and Britons differ in their percep-
tions of a leader and their opinions about what constitutes good leadership
could contribute significantly to an expatriate's success in these two coun-
tries. The following is a short summary of the research that led up to this
study.
Cross-cultural differences in trait inference
In many cross-cultural studies about trait inference its dependency on cul-
ture in general became clear. The extent to which and ease with which a trait
is inferred to a person depends on the perceiver's cultural background. Most
approaches to this topic used the large cultural difference between eastern
and western societies, and compared results from US-American and Asian
populations (for an overview, see Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
There was a general trend for US-Americans to make more trait inferences,
whether spontaneous or triggered, than Asians. They also formed their in-
ferences more easily and needed a smaller information basis about a person
to come to a conclusion about his/her personality.
It has also become clear, however, that this difference is not due to special
environmental influences of culture, but that a person has a kind of disposi-
tion towards high or low trait inference. This disposition is stable over time,
even if he or she has been confronted with different cultural environments
where it is atypical or causes conflicts.
In a study about spontaneous trait inference that looked at students from the
same university but from different cultural backgrounds, Zàrate, Uleman,
and Voils (2001) found that students from an Anglo-European background
generally inferred more traits than Hispanic students, though they had been
studying together for quite a while and had a shared environment.
The dispositional nature of trait inference has also been shown in the works
of Smith (1994). He assumes that there exists a dispositional tendency to

10
ascribe traits which is based on practise. For example, inferring egotism
from the kinds of behaviours that fall into that category might become easier
and faster the more this trait has been ascribed before. Generally spoken,
people who easily infer traits do so because it has become habitual to them.
Their way of inferring traits is shaped through a process that comes by mak-
ing a wide range of trait inferences over time.
Supposing there exists a culture-specific style of trait inference, these con-
siderations imply that, when a manager is sent abroad, there is no easy ac-
commodation process to the way persons are perceived there. It will rather
take him/her a long time until he/she gets used to the other culture's way of
perceiving people and inferring traits. Up to that point, on the grounds of
this diversity he/she will likely make some awkward experiences.
Even if cultural differences in trait inference have been widely acknowl-
edged and can be satisfactorily measured, it remains unclear how they
evolve. Why did Matthew's German staff perceive him as dictatorial ­ the
opposite to what Matthew had intended? What are the mediating factors that
lead to qualitative and quantitative differences in trait inference? To give an
answer to this question, it must be examined which ingredients of culture
have a grip on relevant processes in person perception.
Person perception can be divided into the three steps of incoming sensory
stimuli, processing of these stimuli, and a concluding classification or
judgement of a person which can be verbally expressed (Zimbardo, 1995).
The ascription of a trait cannot be made until the third step of this process.
Therefore, any cultural determinants that could impact trait inference have
to be settled at an earlier stage in this process rather than at the stage where
traits are actually assigned. If the assumption is allowed that sensory infor-
mation as such is independent from culture, the remaining step which is of
concern is information processing, that is what people make of their sensory
stimuli.

11
As cognitive research has pointed out, stimulus processing usually follows a
schema or script that is learned at an early age and used more or less uncon-
sciously. These schemas bridge the gap from unprocessed stimuli to a mean-
ingful perception (Shaw, 1990). They determine, for example, which
behaviour is a supportive or hostile one, and who shall be seen as supportive
or aggressive because of his/her behaviour.
If accepting that such implicit schemas or theories moderate our perception,
the automation hypothesis of trait inference as described above becomes
easily explicable: Automation is nothing other than creating a schema or
theory and becoming habituated to use it in the perception of people around
us. For we are forced to make meticulous distinctions in our perception of
people ­ shouting by a manager at his staff means something completely
different the shout of a friend from far away ­ we need to have a sophisti-
cated organization of various schemata, so that we always use the appropri-
ate schema or theory in any given situation (for a cross-cultural examination
of the two steps of schema activation and trait inference, see Zàrate et al.,
2001)
So which culture-dependent schemas are most likely to influence trait infer-
ence in a cross-cultural leadership situation? As the activation of schemas is
situation-related, it is assumed that the most appropriate ones would be im-
plicit personality theories on the one hand, because the inferences in con-
cern are about a person's traits and personality, and implicit leadership
theories on the other (because inferences about leaders that occur in leader-
ship situations are regarded). Following the two shall be described in detail.

12
Implicit theories of personality
Implicit personality theories are lay theories. They pertain to the conviction
whether personality or important features of it like intelligence, motivation,
and social competency shall be seen as fixed entities, or whether they should
be regarded as malleable and open to influence. Dweck (1999) identified
two theories of personality that can be described as entity theory and incre-
mental theory.
Entity Theory.
An entity theorist is a person who believes in fixed traits. In his/her view,
traits are very important, and people consist more or less of fixed character-
istics. When thinking about other persons, an entity theorist thinks of them
in terms of their traits. One could say that personality, in an entitist's view,
is the unique configuration of the traits a person embodies. This becomes
obvious when people with an entity describe other persons. For example, an
entity theorist might describe his best friend as supportive, humorous, extra-
vert and reliable rather than saying the friend is somebody who is always
there, who laughs often and knows how to make others happy etc.
Entity theory also impacts the perception of other people: when observing a
person's behaviour, an entitist would see this behaviour as manifestation of
underlying traits of this person (this shows, for example, in the attribution
style of entitists, Dweck, 1999). It can also be put the other way round: Be-
cause entitists regard a person's behaviour as the manifestation of an under-
lying trait, this trait could also be inferred from a behaviour. For example,
when Bill, an entity theorist, watches Mary shouting at Anne, he might as-
sume that Mary is a nasty person. This conclusion is even more likely if no
other reasons for her behaviour are obvious, for example whether Ann in-
sulted Mary beforehand, also if Bill is preoccupied with other things and not
willing to examine all possible explanations thoroughly.

13
This is the phenomenon often referred to as fundamental attribution error
(Ross, 1977). When Bill comes to the conclusion that Mary is a mean per-
son, he will expect to find her shouting in various other situations as well.
This in turn would be a sign of her malevolence and uphold his judgement
about her. Generally spoken, believing that the deeds of persons are deter-
mined by their personality, by their traits, an entitist could easily infer traits
from a person's behaviour. The assumption that there are underlying traits
allows these to be inferred from their behavioural manifestations.
In this way, an entity theorist can make more trait inferences from a per-
son's behaviour than a person holding the contrary type of implicit personal-
ity theory, that is an incremental theory.
Incremental Theory.
People holding an incremental theory do not believe that a person should be
regarded in terms of fixed traits. They do not believe that a person has no
power over their personality, but that their characteristics can be changed
over time. Personality characteristics like intelligence, social competency,
and motivation are not uncontrollable or unmodifiable attributes, but vari-
able factors that a person can influence.
Incrementalists reject the theory that that a person's behaviour is only the
manifestation of underlying traits. There are more factors, internal and ex-
ternal influences, that lead to the performance of behaviour. For them it isn't
necessarily a trait that is responsible for the way a person acts. This impacts
also on the degree to which incremental theorists can ascribe traits to a per-
son by watching his/her behaviour: as a trait is not the only underlying rea-
son for behaviour in an incremental view, it is not possible to infer a trait
from single behaviour. If the incremental theorist Lin watches Mary shout-
ing at Anne, she might attribute her behaviour to other circumstances and
will not infer a trait from this single occasion. Therefore she cannot make
any predictions about Mary's future behaviour, and will not necessarily ex-
pect Mary to be nasty again. From observing a behaviour, incrementalists

14
might get a rough idea what the character of the actor must be like to allow
for such a behaviour, but they would not infer a trait from this straight away.
In their view, consistent behaviour in more than one incident would be nec-
essary to confirm that the best explanation for a person's behaviour is
his/her personality (Plaks, Dweck, Stroessner, & Sherman, 2001).
So, incremental theorists could also be assumed to be less prone to the fun-
damental attribution error then entity theorists would be. Incremental theo-
rists do not understand outcomes and actions in terms of fixed traits, but
focus on more specific behavioural and psychological mediators ("Anne is a
little deaf so Mary always has to shout", "Mary shouted because she had a
bad day").
Cultural differences in implicit theories
Could it be assumed that implicit personality theories are universal for peo-
ple across all cultures? In her research, Dweck (1999) has shown that the
differentiation between entity and incremental theory is valid in many cul-
tures, whether examining subjects from the United States or from Hong
Kong China. This can be taken as evidence that having an implicit theory
about personality is a somewhat common phenomenon for all cultures.
However, it has remained unclear to what extent both theories (entity and
incremental) occur in a specific culture. Though the distribution of entity
and incremental theory is about fifty-fifty in the United States, this doesn't
necessarily mean that it's universally the same. Regarding recent research, it
is likely to find in many cultures a prevalence of one of both theories, either
entity or incremental.
The fundamental attribution error, which was originally conceptualised as a
universal phenomenon, has turned out to be culture-dependent and limited
to the Western world (Cousins, 1989; Miller, 1984; Nisbett, Choi, Peng, &
Norenzayan, 2001; Shweder & Bourne, 1984). Also implicit social theories
have proved to be culture-bound: The construal of the self as autonomous

15
entity is more likely in North America, whilst Chinese rather construe a
group of people as an autonomous force (Chiu, Hong, Morris, & Menon,
2000; Menon, Morris, Chiu & Hong, 1999). As these authors have pointed
out, implicit social theories are developed in the socialisation process. The
same is assumed to hold for implicit personality theories. Therefore they
should be culture-bound as well.
The effect of implicit personality theory on trait inference has already been
examined: When regarding a single incident, an entity theorist like Bill can
be expected to make more trait inferences about the actor than people like
Lin with an incremental theory. Expecting that the distribution of entity and
incremental theory of personality varies across cultures also implies a varia-
tion of trait inference across cultures. The cross-cultural variation of implicit
personality theories and their influence on trait inference is one of the hy-
potheses examined in this study: The more entity oriented people of a cul-
ture are, the more trait inferences they should make.
Leadership prototypes
The other of the implicit theories that are likely to impact trait inference in
leadership situations are implicit leadership theories. They also belong to the
class of lay theories and specify the qualities and behaviours that observers
expect leaders to exhibit (Kenney, Blascovitch, & Shaver, 1994). Everybody
has an implicit theory or prototype of what makes an outstanding leader.
Even though this prototype is difficult to pin down, it plays a vital role for a
manager's perception.
It has already been argued that implicit personality theories determine the
degree of the trait inference, for example, how easily one concludes that a
person is "mean". Implicit leadership theories, however, influence the con-
tent of a trait that is inferred from a leadership situation. The assumptions
people have about how a leader should behave and what features and char-
acteristics make him an excellent leader determine the perception of leaders.

16
In his categorisation theory of leadership, Lord and colleagues (Lord &
Maher,1991; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999) have pointed out that leader-
ship as such is a bi-directional process: The success of a manager depends
not only on his actual behaviour, but also on the recognition he gains from
his colleagues and staff. Recognising a manager as a good leader is a cate-
gorisation process, in which one compares observed behaviour with the
category "prototypical leader" in one's mind. The higher the concurrence of
prototype and actual behaviour, the more likely a manager is recognised as
an outstanding leader. For example, if John's prototype of a leader states
that a person is male, tall and well-dressed, he would easily recognise a tall
man in dark suit as leader. On the other hand it would be hard for John to
recognise a stocky woman in jeans and T-shirt as a leader. This in turn im-
pacts the manager's success: If he/she always struggles to be recognised as a
good leader, time for the actual tasks and leadership processes is lost.
The more attributes and behaviour a person shows that fit into the concept
of a prototypic leader, the better this person will be judged as outstanding
leader. The recognition process that takes place when comparing a manager
with the leadership prototypes one has in mind depends on the performed
behaviour. If an observed behaviour is associated with either a very proto-
typic or a very antitypic trait, this trait should be easily inferred. Less infer-
ence should occur for traits that are considered neither facilitating nor
impeding outstanding leadership. The line of reasoning for this statement is
as follows: A highly prototypic or antitypic trait is important it is in the rec-
ognition process of a manager as a good or bad leader. If one can infer that,
for example, a manager is a very good team integrator, this is a step towards
the judgement of this manager as good leader. On the other hand, observing
a situation where the manager shows genuine malevolence leads to the as-
sessment of him being a very bad leader. Because these traits constitute the
basis of a decision, they are important when categorising a manager as a
good or bad leader. Because of this importance, these traits probably have
been used before to categorise managers as good or bad leaders. The fre-
quent use of certain traits leads to an automation in their inference. The

17
automation of inferring traits facilitates their inference in future situations.
Because of its automation, a prototypic or antitypic trait should be inferred
more easily than a trait that is irrelevant in a person's category of good lead-
ership. Thus it is hypothesised that prototypic or antitypic traits would be
easier ascribed to a manager than traits irrelevant to leadership prototypes.
The categorisation of leaders is also of practical relevance: The better the fit
between a person's characteristics or attributes and one's implicit category
of leader, the easier the person will be acknowledged and respected as a
leader. A fit between leadership prototypes and actual behaviour is not only
contributing to a good relationship between manager and staff, but also en-
hances efficiency as there is little time lost until staff accepts a manager as
such and is willing to cooperate.
The risk that a manager's behaviour does not correspond with the prototypes
in staff's mind is even higher if manager and staff stem from different cul-
tures. As various studies about leadership styles and prototypes in different
cultures have shown (Calori & De Woot, 1994; Gerstner & Day, 1994;
Kenney et al, 1994; Hickson, 1993; Hofstede, 1984; Mobley, Gessner, &
Arnold, 1999; Smith, 1997; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996), leader-
ship styles and prototypes are not isolated from the influences the individual
is confronted with in his/her everyday life. They are developed in the indi-
vidual's socialisation and depend to a large extend on the values and prac-
tices of the culture the individual has grown up in.
Relationship between implicit personality theory
and leadership prototypes
Implicit theories about personality and leadership prototypes are similar in
the way they influence trait inference. Implicit personality theories work as
schemata which are applied when making sense to people. Leadership pro-
totypes, on the other hand, serve as comparison standards for the categorisa-
tion of good leaders. However, they both affect the inference of traits.
Because of their similarity in origin and effect, it is assumed in this study

Details

Seiten
Erscheinungsform
Originalausgabe
Jahr
2003
ISBN (eBook)
9783832470159
ISBN (Paperback)
9783838670157
DOI
10.3239/9783832470159
Dateigröße
967 KB
Sprache
Englisch
Institution / Hochschule
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München – Psychologie und Pädagogik
Erscheinungsdatum
2003 (Juli)
Note
1,0
Schlagworte
führung personenwahrnehmung interkulturelles management persönlichkeit ursachenzuschreibung
Zurück

Titel: It's not what a leader does, it's what you make of it
book preview page numper 1
book preview page numper 2
book preview page numper 3
book preview page numper 4
book preview page numper 5
book preview page numper 6
book preview page numper 7
book preview page numper 8
book preview page numper 9
book preview page numper 10
book preview page numper 11
book preview page numper 12
book preview page numper 13
book preview page numper 14
book preview page numper 15
book preview page numper 16
book preview page numper 17
81 Seiten
Cookie-Einstellungen