![]() Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 32: 334–343. American Journal of Sociology, 76: 831–846. ![]() On transcending the absurd: An inquiry in the sociology of meaning. Social motivation: Conscious and unconscious processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 484–503. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.): 268–322. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 231–251. Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing response. Volokhonsky.) New York: Vintage Classics. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.): 228–267. Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity. Academy of Management Review, 35: 627–647. Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. ![]() The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 797–819. Differences in managerial discretion across countries: How nation level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Academy of Management Review, 39: 119–137. Becoming ambicultural: A personal question, and aspiration for organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 481–498. Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Dual-process theories in social psychology. O’Brien.) New York: Vintage International. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35: 325–340. Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 83–93. ![]() Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.): 268–316. A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 39: 619–644. Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. I conclude by considering when leaders are most likely to decide to lead according to the logic of absurdity and why doing so may result in leadership of exceptional originality, foolishness, intelligence, and madness. In terms of the decision to lead, a decision maker employing the logic of absurdity acknowledges the likely futility of leading but decides to commit to it nonetheless. I then present the logic of absurdity-a decision-making logic in which decision makers knowingly choose to dedicate themselves to an irrational course of action. These claims of leader irrelevance pose a puzzle: If leaders are relatively insignificant, why would someone commit to leading? Applying decision-making theory, I first consider justifying the decision to lead according to the logics of consequence and appropriateness-the two principal decision-making logics underlying previous work on the motivation to lead. However, considerable research suggests that their impact on organizational performance might actually be minimal. Leaders are often thought to meaningfully influence the performance of the organizations they lead.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |