Interaction between leaders and followers

Expectancy theory emphasizes individual perceptions of the environment and subsequent interactions arising as a consequence of personal expectations. Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) suggests that individuals, acting through self-interest, adopt course of action perceived as maximizing the probability of desirable outcomes for themselves, and hence people consciously choose particular course of action, based upon perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs, as a consequence of their desire to enhance pleasure and avoid pain. Building upon some of Vroom’s original concepts, Porter and Lawler (1968) later developed a theoretical model, suggesting that the expenditure of an individual’s effort will be determined by expectations. The fulfilment of expectations – what need to be attained, depends upon the degree of value placed on the outcome in a person’s mind (Pinder, 1984). Therefore motivational theories based upon the concept of extrinsic motivation assume that followers make conscious choices to maximize self-interests (Shamir, 1990).

Some argue that what one perceives to be the normative expectations of others about one’s performance also influence their personal expectations. Normative expectations play a significant role in the behaviours in which people choose to engage, and the beliefs people hold about the expectations of significant others in their lives for their engaging or not engaging in a particular behaviour have, in conjunction with other beliefs, a strong influence on behavioural intentions (Ajzen, 1991). Experimental work (Miyamoto & Dornbusch, 1956) and longitudinal studies (Felson, 1989) have provided compelling evidence of causal effects of others’ expectations on self- evaluations. A separate body of research has examined how others’ expectations can serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of encouraging the individual to establish higher self-standards for behaviour (Eden, 1984). When managers maintain expectations that certain employees will enhance their performance, they should not expect this will occur instantly without their behaving in a manner that facilitates this process (Eden, 1984). These behaviours enable employees to understand the level of managers’ expectations for them. Nonetheless, employees’ self-expectations for productivity also mediate the influences of leaders’ expectations on employees’ productivity (McNatt & Judge, 2004). Stewart (1982) believes that leadership

operates within constraints and opportunities that are presented by followers. The constraints include the expectations and perceptions of followers which can influence leaders (Lord & Maher, 1990). The desire to maximize self-interest provides aspiring leaders with unique opportunities to assume leadership roles by simultaneously meeting both follower needs and organizational requirements.

Followers are affected by leader behaviour and the effect is also shown to be reciprocal (Sanford, 1950). Hollander and Offerman (1990a, 1990b) have argued that the concept of leader and leadership do not exist in isolation, and to be viable, both depend upon followership. Followers affect leaders in a variety of ways, not least as an audience to which leaders oriented and address themselves (Hollander & Offerman, 1990a, 1990b). Leadership, therefore, is usually seen as the more active system, but followership can be proactive, not only reactive, as seen especially in social movements (Hollander, 1992). Similarly, according to Grint (2000), the essence of leadership is followership, and leadership only exists in the interaction between leaders and followers. Furthermore, Sparrowe and Liden (1997, 2005) and Cole, Schaninger and Harris (2002) also state that interpersonal relationships between leaders, subordinates, and co-workers constitute an interconnected social system that operates in teams and organizations. Given their need for mutual responsiveness, leadership and followership can be considered as reciprocal systems requiring synchronization. In addition, many studies have argued that leaders can develop many different relationships with their followers and that the quality of the relationships can pose high impact on leader success (Boyd & Taylor, 1998; Brower et al., 2000; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). The positive effect of transformational leadership on the outcomes is enhanced by the duration of relationship between leader and follower in the case of congruence and identification (Krishnan, 2005). According to these scholars, when leaders develop high quality relationships with followers, followers have been found to be more productive on the task and more willing to engage in organizational objectives and process.

2.2.3.2 Follower’s cultural orientation and leadership style

Hofstede (1980a) claims that many differences in individual motivation and leadership styles could be traced to differences in cultural programming. Preliminary

evidences have shown that culturally different groups prefer different ways of being led (Hofstede, 1993; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). The person or self is defined more as an independent entity in individualist cultures, whereas the self is defined in association with groups or organizations in collectivist cultures (Triandis, 1995). Collectivists maintain long-term relationships with their organizations and view interpersonal skills and relationships as being more valuable than specific job knowledge and skills, and therefore many organizations in collectivist cultures highlight the importance of maintaining long-term relationships as well as in-group solidarity (Ungson et al., 1997). However, American managers make distinctions between kinds of relationships, and the colleague relations that bridge structural holes are detached from the routine work activities (Burt et al., 2000).

People in individualist cultures are expected to be more motivated to satisfy their own self-interests and personal goals (Hofstede, 1980b). In such cultures, individualists take care of themselves, and they tend to place higher priority on individual initiative and achievement, as well as on personal rewards based on satisfying transactional agreements. Earley (1989) also claims that individualist American managers performed better on an individual than on a group task. Transactional leadership, hence, is typically in line with the value orientation in more individualistic cultures (Hofstede, 1993). However, Jung and Avolio’s (1999) research illustrates that Caucasians in the transactional leadership condition produced more ideas than those working in the transformational leadership condition, and transformational leadership appeared to promote Caucasian’s generating ideas with a long-term orientation. This result would be consistent with the idea that transformational leaders encourage followers to go beyond their immediate needs to address the long-term interests of their organizations.

In collectivist cultures, the strong tendency to support organizational values and norms should fit with a transformational leader’s effort to align followers’ personal values with a new mission or vision (Avolio & Bass, 1988). Followers from collectivist cultures are expected to more readily internalize their leaders’ vision than will individualist followers for at least two reasons (Hofstede, 1980b). First, collectivists tend to accept their leaders’ beliefs more readily because of the high power distance that exists in those cultures. Second, there is typically a high level of

value congruence between followers and leaders owing to extensive socialization processes in collectivist cultures. Consequently, it can be expected that a transformational leader’s emphasis on achieving collective goals would be more readily accepted when group members’ cultural orientation was more collectivist (Jung et al., 1995). Cross-cultural studies have shown that collectivists tend to have a stronger attachment to their organizations and tend to subordinate their individual goals to group goals (Earley, 1989; Triandis, 1995). Collectivists are expected to identify with their leaders’ goals and the common purpose or shared vision of the group or organization, so they typically exhibit high levels of loyally and commitment to their leaders (Jung et al., 1995). Furthermore, the results of Earley’s study (1997) also show that Asians working with a transformational leader outperformed their Asian counterparts working with a transactional leader on the measures of quality and productivity. However, the transformational leader did not have a significant impact on the Asians’ generation of long-term ideas; their strong tendency towards face saving, maintenance of group harmony, and fear of evaluation may explain this finding (Earley, 1997).

2.2.3.3 Problems and undeveloped issues

Assuming the same leadership behaviour and statement will be interpreted similarly by followers with different cultural orientations should be questioned. A series of detailed case studies have demonstrated that the creation of joint ventures in mainland China does not automatically lead to the compatibility of management styles between partners (Wang, 1992). The same leadership style could be perceived differently and could have different effects on motivation and performance for followers from different cultural societies. Hall and Xu (1990) propose that the Far Eastern countries have what they refer to as ‘high context’ cultures and that, in countries such as China and Japan, the people place a high importance on the maintenance of good relationships, and mutual tolerance while favouring informal communication. Discussing personal matters with a follower might be viewed as the leader’s consideration of the follower in mainland China; in contrast, it might be considered as invading the follower’s privacy in the United States.

It should be argued that transactional leadership and transformational leadership seem to overemphasize leader’s influences on follower; however, follower’s expectations of leader and follower’s cultural orientation were probably ignored. The results of some studies have shown that Chinese followers have a unique expectation of their Chinese leaders: character and moral (Ling et al., 1987, 1991). An admired Chinese leader was usually perceived by Chinese followers to be self-restrained, honest towards fellow colleagues and employees, trustworthy, and impartial (Ling et al., 1991). Similarly, Farh and Cheng (2000) also suggest that moral is one of the components of paternalistic leadership theory. Moreover, Chinese employees indeed expect their leaders to be considerate and benevolent (Cheng 2004; Cheng et al., 2000, 2003). Leaders’ apathy towards the wellbeing of their followers seriously affects Chinese followers’ work morale (Yu, 1991). Hence moral and benevolence could be considered by both Chinese leaders and followers to be crucial to effective leadership and employee engagement. However, due to divergent cultural orientation, there could be certain significant differences in mutual expectations and interactions between American leaders (or followers) and Chinese followers (or leaders). As mutual expectations between leaders and followers are compatible, the leadership effectiveness could be increased and the desired outcomes could be delivered as well. Nonetheless, once the gap of mutual expectations between leaders and followers does exist or even their expectations contradict each other, leaders seem to need to adjust their leadership styles to enhance leadership effectiveness and satisfy their followers. Thus further examination on the interactions between Chinese (or American) leaders and American (or Chinese) followers seems necessary.

Due to high power distance and collectivism, Chinese followers might work very well with transformational leaders; whilst, in order to keep close relationship with people and maintain harmonious in the organization, they might feel uncomfortable to challenge their leaders’ authority in public. Similarly, transactional leadership might be also effective for Chinese leaders and followers. Chinese managers were much more likely to rely upon their superiors in handling events than were Western managers (Smith & Wang, 1996). Chinese followers, therefore, could expect their leaders to articulate objectives, performance criteria, and specific instructions, and they could also feel more confident to engage in their jobs once what are expected to be done are clearly confined by their transactional leaders.

2.2.4 Value and belief system and leadership