The Romance of Leadership and The Evaluation of Organizational Performance

Meindl, James R.; Ehrlich, Sanford B.

doi:10.5465/255897

Cited by 115 publications

(211 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

203

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature on effective leadership has largely included an element of responsibility (Doh and Stumph 2005;Yukl et al 2002). Responsibility in this sense most often is synonymous with accountability and dependability (as in being accountable for performance and being dependable in achieving promised performance) (Bass and Bass 2008;Meindl and Ehrlich 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meindl et al (1985) tackled the concept of "Romance of Leadership" in which they argued that the attribution perspective that views leadership as a symbol and associates positive and negative outcomes to it results in giving greater status and profile to leaders. Similarly, Meindl and Ehrlich (1987) showed that performance evaluation is stronger when outcomes are attributed to leadership factors, which reinforces the phenomenological value of leadership. In other words, society itself provides different lenses through which leaders are viewed; in some societies, people romanticize leaders and in others they do not.…”

Section: Cultural Practices Vis-à-vis Power Distancementioning

confidence: 81%

“…Overall, this research stream (e.g. Meindl et al, 1985;Meindl and Ehrlich, 1987;Chen and Meindl, 1991) emphasizes that some societies strongly attribute outcomes (either positive or negative) to leaders. In this sense, and because of the culturally contingent base of attribution (Krull et al, 1999), leaders in those countries are seen as having higher power distance and a greater profile.…”

Section: Cultural Practices Vis-à-vis Power Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategizing in a focused context: managerial discretion in the Arab world

Youssef¹,

Christodoulou

2017

JSMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to broaden the national-level construct of managerial discretion and to investigate the effect of cultural practices on executive discretion. Design/methodology/approach Based on a sample of six Arabian countries and using a panel of prominent cross-cultural scholars who provided 262 discretion scores for the sample countries, the authors replicate and extend the national framework of Crossland and Hambrick (2011) in a new cultural context. The cultural dimensions were measured using survey responses of middle managers based on House et al.’s (2004) cultural practices scale. Findings The authors extend the national-level framework of managerial discretion and find that an encompassing array of cultural practices plays a crucial role in shaping the degree of discretion provided to CEOs. The authors empirically demonstrate that power distance, future and performance orientation, along with gender egalitarianism and assertiveness have positive relationships with managerial discretion. However, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and humane orientation negatively affect the degree of discretion provided to CEOs. Originality/value The study fills a gap in the literature regarding the national-level framework of managerial discretion. The results indicate that executives can take idiosyncratic and bold actions to the extent to which the cultural environment allows them to do so. Also, the authors discover new national-level antecedents of managerial discretion that have not been considered in earlier studies and confirm the context dependency of this concept.

show abstract

“…Kotter, 1995), the reality is that empirical evidence about it is rare, inconsistent and virtually impossible to integrate into a coherent set of conclusions and recommendations (Ford & Ford, 2012). As a result, much that is said about change leadership borders on the mythology and romance of hero worship (Meindl, 1995;Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987;Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). If we are to make the kind of difference in theory and practice that we seek, it behoves us to look more rigorously at both our thinking and our research on change leadership.…”

Section: Myths Of Change Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%