The Shift to Inspiring Leadership in Developing European Union Countries

Abstract

The study intends to analyze how the shift to inspiring leadership in EU modern organizations reflects in the preferred leadership among employees from post-soviet Baltic countries: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The main research question investigates employees’ perception of an ideal leader in developing EU countries. This perception is important for the employees’ work performance and sustainable economic growth. The study intends to compare Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian employees’ preferences for leader’s traditional roles (task-oriented behavior and relations-oriented behavior) and modern “more emotional and inspiring” views (charisma and social responsibility). 221 employees participated in the cross-sectional quantitative survey with self-administered internet based questionnaires. 124 Lithuanians, 40 Latvians, 57 Estonians filled in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behaviors ( Yukl, 2012 ), Transformational Leadership Inventory ( Podsakoff et al., 1996 ) and a scale from Servant Leadership Questionnaire ( Barbuto, Wheeler, 2006 ) was used. Results of this study suggest that charisma is the most preferred characteristic of a leader. Relations-oriented behavior is also a significant factor in predicting an ideal leadership. Employees do not perceive task-oriented behavior and leader’s social responsibility as essential dimensions for an ideal leadership. Some significant differences in leadership preferences are revealed among countries. The study is based on under-estimated follower-centric perspective and examines interactive predictive value of different leadership dimensions to employees’ preferences. Data reveals that the shift to inspiring leadership have already occurred in the perception of employees from post-soviet Baltic countries. The comparison of three Baltic countries gives the insight about the challenges for management in still developing EU members.

Keywords: Preferred leadershipEuropean UnionBaltic countries

Introduction

Since the beginning of the systematic scientific study of leadership in 1930 researchers from all over the world tried to solve the puzzle what makes people effective in leadership positions (van Knippenberg, & Sitkin, 2013). Probable theoretical answers with strong empirical evidence could be grouped into two broad categories: old (traditional) and new (modern) leadership schools (Avolio et al., 2009). The shift from traditional to modern view in leadership could be recorded from the debut of Transformational leadership theory (Hernandez et al., 2011). Transformational leaders were seen as charismatic examples who inspire others (Bass, 1999). They were different from traditional leaders whose role was more instrumental (House, & Podsakoff, 1994). Nowadays European Union modern organizations talk about inspiring leadership. However, problem statement in this study is to analyze how the shift to inspiring leadership in EU reflects in the preferred leadership among employees from post-soviet Baltic countries: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Leadership preferences are important for the employees’ work performance and sustainable economic growth. Employees’ perception of the leader can predict organizational performance (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). If employees perceive the leader as near to an ideal, they are more willing to show extra efforts, to perform beyond expectations. Follower-centric perspective in leadership gains more and more evidence (Oc, & Bashshur, 2013). Therefore, the main research question is what is employees’ perception of an ideal leader in developing EU countries.

Post-soviet Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) are quite young members of European Union and results of leadership research in developing cultural context could be different in comparison with old cultures (Lee et al., 2014). Moreover, Huettinger (2008) states that confirmation of similarities between three Baltic countries needs further research. So, purpose of the study is to compare Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian employees’ preferences for leader’s traditional roles (task-oriented behavior and relations-oriented behavior) and modern “more emotional and inspiring” views (charisma and social responsibility).

Task-oriented behavior and relations-oriented behavior represent behavioral theory (Yukl, 2012). Charisma and social responsibility are parts of transformational and servant leadership theories (Brewer, 2010; Bass, 1999). Four dimensions from different leadership theories involve both behavioral and trait components. Integration of them could explain leadership in more details (Derue et al., 2011).

Research methods

Findings

Group comparisons, correlational and linear regression analyses were used for data analysis. First of all, comparison of perceived ideal leadership in groups by gender, education level and country are introduced (Table 2 ).

Male and female employees perceive ideal leader quite similar. However, Lithuanians were stricter for an ideal leader in comparison with Estonians and Latvians. Employees with lower than university education had higher expectations for an ideal leader too. There were also significant correlations between perception of an ideal leader and work experience (r=0.181; p=0.007).

Finally, results of linear regression analysis (Table 3 ) suggest that charisma is the most preferred characteristic of a leader (both in the model of modern view and integrated model). Relations-oriented behavior is also a significant factor in predicting an ideal leadership (both in the model of traditional view and integrated model). Employees do not perceive task-oriented behavior and leader’s social responsibility as essential dimensions for an ideal leadership. Significant differences in leadership preferences are revealed among countries (country is represented as a significant predictor for the employees’ perception of an ideal leadership).

Discussion

The leading topic in nowadays old-world business and economics is about the shift to inspiring leadership in developing European Union countries. Three main aspects of the topic were disclosed in the article. First of all, under-estimated follower-centric perspective in leadership was employed. Employees’ perception of the leader was understood as the main predictor of organization’s sustainable growth (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Therefore, leaders were assessed by direct subordinates. Secondly, scientists suggest that perception of a leader is influenced by subordinates’ individual differences (Tziner et al., 2005). The main individual differences of employees (gender, education level, work experience and country) were taken into consideration within data analysis. Thirdly, elements from old (traditional) and new (modern) leadership schools were included into the research model. Behavioral and trait aspects in leadership were analyzed both separately and jointly. Authors of the article strove for additional value of integrated model and examined interactive predictive value of different leadership dimensions to employees’ preferences.

Data revealed that the shift to inspiring leadership have already occurred in the perception of employees from post-soviet Baltic countries. Nowadays subordinates in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as in other EU countries need charismatic leaders (Hoffman et al., 2011). However, relations-oriented behavior is still an important aspect of an ideal leadership as mentioned in other studies (Oc, Bashshur, 2013). Higher employees’ expectations for an ideal leadership are related to Lithuania, lower education level and shorter work experience. Theoretical and practical knowledge provides wider viewpoint and lower requirements for an ideal leadership (Starbuck & Mezias, 1996). These main messages give the insight about the challenges for the development of management in still developing EU members.

Conclusions

• Leader’s charisma and relations-oriented behavior predict employees’ perception of an ideal leadership. Leaders who are seen as charismatic and engaged in relations-oriented behavior are evaluated as more similar to an ideal.

• Perception of an ideal leadership is predicted by country. Latvians and Estonians have lower expectations towards ideal leader in comparison with Lithuanians.

• Employees’ education level and work experience are important for the analysis of the perceived ideal leadership. Higher education level and longer work experience of employees are related to more favorable evaluations of an ideal leadership.

Acknowledgements

The Article was prepared during the project “Postdoctoral Fellowship Implementation in Lithuania”, funded by European Union Structural Funds.

References

1. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
2. Barbuto, J. E. & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Organization Management, 31 (3), 300–326.
3. Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey responses rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61 (8), 1139-1160.
4. Brewer, C. (2010). Servant leadership: a review of literature. Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development, 4 (2), 1–8.
5. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), 9–32.
6. Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52.
7. Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J. & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1165-1185.
8. Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R. & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man or great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 374–381.
9. House, R. J. & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness: Past perspectives and future directions for research, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behaviour – the State of the Science, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, USA, 45-82.
10. Huettinger, M. (2008). Cultural dimensions in business life: Hofstede‘s indices for Latvia and Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Management, 3 (3), 359–376.
11. Lee, K., Scandura, T. A. & Sharif, M. M. (2014). Cultures have consequences: A configural approach to leadership across two cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 692–710.
12. Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence. Leadership Quarterly, 24 (6), 919-934.
13. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22 (2), 259–298.
14. Shamir, B. & Kark, R. (2004). A single-item graphic scale for the measurement of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 115–123.
15. Starbuck, W. H. & Mezias, J. M. (1996). Opening Pandora’s box: studying the accuracy of managers’ perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 99–117.
16. Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (2005). Contextual and rater factors affecting rating behaviour. Group and Organizational Management, 30 (1), 89-98.
17. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83-104.
18. van Knippenberg, D. & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the Drawing Board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7 (1), 1-60.
19. Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, November, 66–85.