\u2013 <\/p>\n
Do Similarities or Differences Between CEO Leadership andOrganizational Culture Have a More Positive Effect on Firm Performance?<\/p>\n
A Test of Competing Predictions<\/p>\n
Chad A. HartnellGeorgia State University<\/p>\n
Angelo J. KinickiArizona State University<\/p>\n
Lisa Schurer LambertGeorgia State University<\/p>\n
Mel FugateUniversity of South Australia<\/p>\n
Patricia Doyle CornerAuckland University of Technology<\/p>\n
This study examines the nature of the interaction between CEO leadership and organizational cultureusing 2 common metathemes (task and relationship) in leadership and culture research. Two perspectives,similarity and dissimilarity, offer competing predictions about the fit, or interaction, between leadershipand culture and its predicted effect on firm performance. Predictions for the similarity perspective drawupon attribution theory and social identity theory of leadership, whereas predictions for the dissimilarityperspective are developed based upon insights from leadership contingency theories and the notion ofsubstitutability. Hierarchical regression results from 114 CEOs and 324 top management team (TMT)members failed to support the similarity hypotheses but revealed broad support for the dissimilaritypredictions. Findings suggest that culture can serve as a substitute for leadership when leadershipbehaviors are redundant with cultural values (i.e., they both share a task- or relationship-oriented focus).Findings also support leadership contingency theories indicating that CEO leadership is effective whenit provides psychological and motivational resources lacking in the organization\u2019s culture. We discusstheoretical and practical implications and delineate directions for future research.<\/p>\n
Keywords: leadership, organizational culture, person-environment fit, firm performance<\/p>\n
Researchers and practitioners alike have long espoused theimportant ways in which both leadership and organizational cul-ture affect organizational effectiveness. A common theme acrossboth literatures is that leadership and culture are salient contextualcues, or sources of information about attitudes and behaviors thatare valued, rewarded, and supported in the organization (Ostroff,Kinicki, & Muhammad, 2013). Indeed, both leadership and cultureare related to a host of aggregated attitudes and behaviors (DeRue,Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki,2011), but a dearth of theoretical and empirical research examines<\/p>\n
the interactive effect of leadership and culture on organizationaleffectiveness (Burns, Kotrba, & Denison, 2013). This lack ofattention is surprising because a leader\u2019s effectiveness is a result ofthe interaction between the leader and the social and organizationalenvironment (Dinh et al., 2014; Fiedler, 1996). Hence, \u201cat the veryleast, a senior leader would have to factor the nature of thecompany culture into his or her approach to leadership\u201d (Klimoski,2013, p. 275).<\/p>\n
Klimoski\u2019s (2013) observation underscores the importance forCEOs to recognize aspects of the social context and adapt theirleadership behavior accordingly. Unfortunately, past research of-fers little in the way of clarifying whether leaders shouldbehave similarly or differently from values espoused by anorganization\u2019s existing culture. The overall goal of this study isthus to examine the fit, or the interaction, between CEO lead-ership and organizational culture. Our predictions are basedupon insights from attribution theory (Kelley, 1967), socialidentity theory of leadership (Hogg, 2001), and contingency-based leadership theories (House, 1971, 1996; Kerr & Jermier,1978). These theoretical lenses propose an interactional effectbetween leadership and culture that is based on their respectivelevels of similarity or dissimilarity. Results are theoreticallyand practically insightful because similarity and dissimilarityperspectives offer contrasting views about how leadership and<\/p>\n
This article was published Online First March 7, 2016.Chad A. Hartnell, Department of Managerial Sciences, Georgia State<\/p>\n
University; Angelo J. Kinicki, Department of Management, Arizona StateUniversity; Lisa Schurer Lambert, Department of Managerial Sciences,Georgia State University; Mel Fugate, School of Management, Universityof South Australia; Patricia Doyle Corner, Department of Management,Auckland University of Technology.<\/p>\n
We thank Suzanne Peterson for her assistance in collecting data. We alsothank Mark Griffin and two anonymous reviewers for their insight anddirection throughout the review process.<\/p>\n
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chad A.Hartnell, Department of Managerial Sciences, Georgia State University,Atlanta, GA 30303. E-mail: [email\u00a0protected]<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
Journal of Applied Psychology \u00a9 2016 American Psychological Association2016, Vol. 101, No. 6, 846 \u2013 861 0021-9010\/16\/$12.00 http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/apl0000083<\/p>\n
846<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
culture fit and why they are expected to enhance organizationaloutcomes.<\/p>\n
The similarity perspective suggests that leadership and culturepositively influence firm performance when leaders behave simi-larly to values espoused by an organization\u2019s existing culture. Thesimilarity perspective is based on the notion that CEOs who aligntheir behaviors with an organization\u2019s culture create consistentcues that inform employees about how to direct their attention andeffort. This consistency, in turn, should foster a concentrated efforton the pursuit of common goals and subsequently enhance orga-nizational performance.<\/p>\n
In contrast, the dissimilarity perspective is based on the propo-sition that leadership and culture improve firm performance whenleaders behave differently from values espoused by an organiza-tion\u2019s existing culture. According to this perspective, similaritiesbetween leadership and culture are inefficient because similaritiesconvey redundant information. Theories underlying the dissimilar-ity perspective thus predict that CEOs are expected to be moreeffective when their behaviors provide information and support notprovided by the organizational context (House, 1996). These con-trasting perspectives motivated the current study to examine thefollowing research question: Do similarities or differences in cor-responding dimensions of leadership and culture have a morepositive effect on firm performance? We examine leadership\u2013culture fit by making predictions about an interactional effectbased on levels of similarity and dissimilarity.<\/p>\n
This study contributes to the literature in three ways. We con-tribute to organizational culture research by providing a theoreti-cally grounded framework to examine how the similarity or dis-similarity between organizational culture and CEO leadershipimpact firm performance. Second, we contribute to upper echelonresearch by examining contingency relationships associated withCEO task and relational leadership. This is important because pastresearch linking CEO leadership to outcomes has focused almostexclusively on the positive effects resulting from charismatic(Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001) and transforma-tional leadership (Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin & Veiga, 2008). Al-though these results are informative, these two forms of leadershipdo not completely encapsulate the range of behaviors CEOs ex-hibit to enhance organizational effectiveness (Bass & Bass, 2008;Mintzberg, 1973). Finally, this study takes initial steps towardexamining the effect of similarities and dissimilarities betweenmacro social components (i.e., CEO leadership and culture) withinan organizational system (Ostroff & Schulte, 2007). Results thusinform the broader literature in organizational psychology andPerson-Environment (P-E) fit by specifying how the fit betweentwo different, but salient aspects of an organization\u2019s social-contextual environment affect firm performance.<\/p>\n
There are three important boundary conditions associated withthis study. First, this study is focused on the interaction of lead-ership and culture where leadership and culture \u201cwork in concert toinfluence outcomes\u201d (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). Rather thanspecifying a primary determinant (as in traditional applications ofmoderation), our chief interest is to theoretically specify andempirically examine the point of congruence between CEO lead-ership and culture. We thus examine the influence of differentcombinations of corresponding leadership and culture dimensionson firm performance. Second, this study does not address theemergence of leadership or organizational culture. Researchers<\/p>\n
widely agree that leaders can be culture creators and culture canconstrain leadership behavior (Hartnell & Walumbwa, 2011;Schein, 2010; Trice & Beyer, 1991), but the causal dynamicsbetween leadership and culture or leadership\/culture change isbeyond the scope of this article. Finally, our research is boundedby the study\u2019s context. All firms in the current study are estab-lished firms in the high technology industry, and only a smallpercentage of these CEOs were founders. Founders\u2019 leadershipbehavior is expected to be similar to values espoused within theorganizational culture because they are formative in imprinting theorganization\u2019s values, beliefs, and assumptions (Schein, 2010), butthe similarity between leadership and culture for nonfoundingCEOs remains equivocal. Taken together, the purpose of this studyis to investigate how similarities and differences between CEOleadership and culture influence organizational performance.<\/p>\n
Theoretical Background<\/p>\n
Leadership and culture dimensions are characterized by similarand corresponding metathemes. To lend clarity for the hypotheses,we identify metathemes in leadership research, illustrate the im-portance of task and relational leadership for CEOs, and identifymetathemes in organizational culture research.<\/p>\n
Metathemes in Leadership Research<\/p>\n
Within the leadership literature, task and relational leadershipreflect common thematic dimensions across numerous classicalprograms of leadership research (cf., Bowers & Seashore, 1966).For instance, the Ohio State Leadership Studies narrowed 2,000leadership behaviors into two broad dimensions\u2014initiating struc-ture and consideration (Halpin & Winer, 1957; Stogdill, 1963).Concurrently, a series of University of Michigan studies uncoveredclusters of leader characteristics into production orientation andemployee orientation dimensions (Katz, Maccoby, & Morse,1950). Subsequent research established two types of leadershipbehavior\u2013job-centered and employee-centered leadership (Likert,1961). Contemporary leadership scholars continue to classify lead-ership behaviors into task and relational metathemes (Fiedler,1996; Fiedler & House, 1994; Fleishman et al.,1991; Judge, Pic-colo, & Ilies, 2004; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002). For instance,task and relational dimensions are consistent metacategories intaxonomies of individual leadership (cf., DeRue et al., 2011; Yukl,2011) and team leadership (Burke et al., 2006).<\/p>\n
Task-oriented leaders focus primarily on facilitating task ac-complishment by defining role relationships among group mem-bers, by clarifying expectations and performance standards, and byencouraging the use of standardized rules and regulations to en-hance consistency and predictability (Bass & Bass, 2008).Relationship-oriented leaders, on the other hand, emphasize inter-personal support and positive relationships by encouraging groupmembers\u2019 involvement in decision-making, implementing groupmembers\u2019 suggestions, demonstrating respect for group members,and treating group members as equals (Bass & Bass, 2008). In thisstudy, relational leadership solely reflects an entity-based perspec-tive in which a leader builds interpersonal relationships withfollowers aimed toward accomplishing shared goals (Uhl-Bien,2006). It departs from the focus of Uhl-Bien\u2019s (2006) relationalleadership theory in that it does not incorporate a social construc-tionist view of relational leadership as an organizing process.<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
847EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE ON PERFORMANCE<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Although other important types of leader behavior are includedin modern leadership taxonomies, we focus on task and relationalleadership because they constitute enduring and consistent themesacross numerous leadership taxonomies. Furthermore, studyingtask and relational leadership among CEOs contributes to leader-ship knowledge by examining a bandwidth of CEO behavior thatgoes beyond studies of charismatic or transformational leadership.<\/p>\n
The Importance of CEO Task andRelational Leadership<\/p>\n
Contrary to the myth that CEOs spend the majority of their timeformulating strategies and visions, Bass and Bass (2008) noted thatsenior leaders spend \u201cmuch more of their time in implementingstrategies\u201d (p. 685). Strategy implementation involves aligningemployees\u2019 goals and incentives with the organization\u2019s strategy(Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2015). It also includes building con-sensus among senior leaders on a strategy to clarify work roles,clearly defining goals, and motivating others to accomplish thestrategic objectives (Finkelstein, Hambrick, & Cannella, 2009).Implementing strategies thus requires functional leadership behav-iors such as task and relational leadership.<\/p>\n
Qualitative evidence indicates that task and relational leadershipmay be just as important for CEO effectiveness as they are forleaders at lower levels of the organization. In a qualitative study ofseveral dozen CEO failures, Charan and Colvin (1999, p. 70)revealed that CEOs were fired because they were \u201cnot gettingthings done, being indecisive, not delivering on commitments.\u201dFinkelstein (2003) documented similar findings in a study of\u201cspectacularly failing\u201d CEOs. Failing CEOs neglected task lead-ership when they used financial statements as public relations toolsrather than monitoring and controlling devices to improve opera-tions. Failing CEOs also failed to employ relational leadershipwhen they used intimidation and elimination as tactics to getsubordinates on board with their initiatives (Finkelstein, 2003).<\/p>\n
The importance of task and relational leadership for CEOs isfurther evident in Mintzberg\u2019s (1973) work on executive roles.Mintzberg (1973) notes that senior leaders enact two key roles \u2014informational and interpersonal. An informational role includesobtaining, communicating, and disseminating information. Thisrole is consistent with task leadership because information is usedto identify and articulate goals, initiate structure, and communicateexpected results. Executives\u2019 interpersonal roles involve maintain-ing social networks and motivating and training subordinates toperform, a notion that parallels relational leadership.<\/p>\n
Metathemes in Organizational Culture Research<\/p>\n
Organizational culture is composed of shared values and normsthat inform employees about how they should perceive, think, feel,and behave in relation to organizational problems (Ostroff et al.,2013; Schein, 2010). Culture is a source of social control becauseit reflects shared learning that produces normative expectationsabout behavior (O\u2019Reilly & Chatman, 1996). Norms influenceemployee behavior to ensure unit survival and to increase thecoordination and predictability of members\u2019 actions toward desir-able organizational ends (Feldman, 1984). Organizational culturefurther exerts social control through its influence on other compo-nents of the organization\u2019s social system. For instance, culture is<\/p>\n
the underlying logic that informs more surface level manifestationsof the organizational social system, such as organizational climateand human resource (HR) practices (Ostroff et al., 2013; Zohar &Hofmann, 2012). All told, culture is a salient social contextualfactor that helps employees make sense of their environment anddirects their attention to facets of organizational functioning thatare valued, rewarded, and supported.<\/p>\n
From a theoretical standpoint, values and norms tend to coalescearound task- and relationship-oriented themes because organiza-tions must solve fundamental problems related to external adap-tation and internal integration (Schein, 2010). Problems related toexternal adaptation, for instance, focus organizational membersexternally on task-oriented functions such as meeting, anticipating,and being responsive to customers\u2019 dynamic needs and prefer-ences, as well as monitoring competitors\u2019 behaviors (Cameron,Quinn, DeGraff, & Thakor, 2006; Schein, 2010). Problems relatedto internal integration focus organizational members internally onrelationship-oriented processes that facilitate integration such ascoordination, participation, and communication (Cameron et al.,2006; Schein, 2010).<\/p>\n
Consistent with the theoretical themes underlying organizationalculture as well as the metathemes found in the leadership literature,the predominant organizational culture frameworks contain culturedimensions with broad thematic similarities that focus on task-oriented values and relationship-oriented values. For instance, theCompeting Values Framework (CVF; Cameron & Quinn, 1999;Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) introduces market and clan cultures.Market cultures are externally focused on enhanced goal achieve-ment, competition with competitors, and market-based results asmeans to boost competitiveness (Cameron et al., 2006). Clancultures are internally focused on people-oriented processes tofacilitate coordination and collaboration among employees to ac-complish organizational goals (Cameron et al., 2006). Denison\u2019sOrganizational Culture Survey (Denison & Mishra, 1995) identi-fies a mission culture as focusing on goal accomplishment throughclarifying organizational goals and structuring employees\u2019 roles toattain the organization\u2019s strategic direction. Involvement culturesvalue employee participation and developing positive interper-sonal relationships through empowering followers, developingtheir capabilities, and building a team orientation. Finally, theOrganizational Culture Profile (O\u2019Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell,1991), classifies cultures as having an outcome orientation (i.e.,akin to market and mission cultures) and respect for people com-ponent (i.e., similar to clan and involvement cultures). Takentogether, the three most commonly used taxonomies of organiza-tional culture all emphasize task-oriented and relationship-orientedvalues as major dimensions of culture.<\/p>\n
We define task cultures as those with shared values that stressthe importance of structuring tasks, clearly articulating expecta-tions, and achieving goals (Cameron et al., 2006; O\u2019Reilly et al.,1991). Such cultures influence organizational members to plan,focus on tasks, and achieve goals aggressively and competitively.Relationship cultures, in contrast, are defined as those with sharedvalues that emphasize developing people in an effort to buildemployee cohesion and collaboration (Cameron et al., 2006;O\u2019Reilly et al., 1991). Relationship cultures influence organiza-tional members to engage in teamwork, participate actively ingenerating ideas as well as making decisions, and communicateopenly with each other.<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
848 HARTNELL ET AL.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Hypotheses<\/p>\n
Leadership\u2013Culture Fit From theSimilarity Perspective<\/p>\n
As mentioned earlier, the similarity perspective underscores thebenefits of similarity, or affinity, between leadership and culture.According to the similarity perspective, fit occurs when levels ofcorresponding leadership and culture dimensions converge, ormatch. That is, levels of leadership and culture are aligned suchthat they both signal to employees that achieving tasks or devel-oping relationships are valued, encouraged, rewarded, and sup-ported.<\/p>\n
Positive effects of similarity. Two theoretical perspectivesexplain why leadership-culture similarities are expected to posi-tively impact firm performance: attribution theory and the socialidentity theory of leadership. Attribution theory is predicated onthe assumption that people make attributions about behavior andperformance by considering the consistency across environmentalstimuli (Heider, 1958). Kelley (1967, 1973) notes that consistencyacross stimuli is expected to make attributions about cause-effectrelationships more straightforward. In the present context, consis-tency between the social contextual cues contained in leader be-havior and organizational culture send unambiguous signals toemployees about behavior that is expected, rewarded, and sup-ported. A consistent set of contextual cues is expected to foster aclearer understanding of valued performance standards, enablingemployees to more efficiently focus their efforts. In contrast,inconsistent signals from leadership and culture may confuse em-ployees, create role ambiguity, and foster various forms of conflict,thereby resulting in decreased firm performance. In summary,consistencies between leadership and culture are expected to pro-vide clear behavioral expectations to employees resulting in moreintegrated effort and better performance than organizations inwhich leadership and culture send inconsistent cues.<\/p>\n
The second theoretical perspective pertains to the social identitytheory of leadership. The social identity theory of leadershippurports that followers attribute higher status to prototypical lead-ers\u2014 or leaders who conform to the distinctive and enduringcharacteristics of the collective\u2014and view them as more attractivebecause they affirm the collective\u2019s core values (Hogg, 2001).Prototypical leaders thus wield more influence on followers\u2019 atti-tudes and behaviors than leaders who are less prototypical of theunit. In support, extant research indicates that followers tend to bemore accepting of and receptive to prototypical leaders than lead-ers who do not embody values and beliefs that define the collective(Giessner, van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, 2009; Ullrich, Christ, &van Dick, 2009; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Insum, attribution theory and the social identity theory of leadershipsupport the contention that similar levels of corresponding leader-ship and culture dimensions are beneficial for organizational per-formance.<\/p>\n
Negative effects of dissimilarity. The theory of cognitivedissonance (Festinger, 1957) and the social identity theory ofleadership explain the negative effects of dissimilar social cues onfirm performance. Festinger\u2019s theory of cognitive dissonance(1957) proposes that inconsistent information creates psychologi-cal discomfort that motivates people to reconcile the perceivedinconsistencies. In this context, discrepant signals between distinc-<\/p>\n
tive social contextual cues\u2014leadership and organizational cul-ture\u2014may result in a gap between espoused and enacted values.This gap may create confusion among employees about whatbehavior is valued, rewarded, and supported, and, consequently,attenuate firm performance. In support, Simons\u2019 (2002) model ofbehavioral integrity suggests that perceived misalignment betweenwords and actions results in lower levels of employee trust, per-formance, cooperation, and citizenship behavior.<\/p>\n
Consistent with Simons\u2019 predictions, discrepancies betweenleadership behavior and cultural norms are expected to fosteruncertainty and ambiguity among employees about how theyshould perceive, think, feel, and behave in relation to organiza-tional events, resulting in a reduction in firm performance. Forexample, CEOs whose task leadership underemphasizes task-oriented expectations relative to the organization\u2019s culture mayresult in tension for employees because their leaders inadequatelyequip them or insufficiently clarify policies and procedures, hin-dering their ability to stay focused and execute tasks to fulfill thenormative task-oriented expectations derived from the organiza-tion\u2019s culture. In contrast, task leadership that overemphasizestask-oriented expectations relative to the firm\u2019s culture may unin-tentionally instigate stress and strain among employees becausethe leaders come across as micromanaging\u2014 overemphasizingconformity to policies and overcommunicating performance ex-pectations relative to the norms set forth by the organizationalculture. These task-oriented leadership behaviors may be per-ceived as excessive and contribute to role overload and roleambiguity, impeding employees\u2019 psychological resources avail-able to enhance organizational performance.<\/p>\n
Likewise, CEOs that underemphasize or overemphasize relationalleadership behaviors relative to the relational norms set forth by theorganization\u2019s culture may send confusing signals to employees.CEOs that underemphasize relational leadership behaviors in com-parison with the organization\u2019s relationship culture may convey toemployees that their CEOs do not personally value or directly rewardsocial behaviors such as friendliness, participation, and collaboration.CEO relational leadership that overemphasizes relational behaviorsand expectations relative to the organization\u2019s culture may be inter-preted by organizational members as patronizing, politically moti-vated, and insincere. Inconsistent signals that result from CEO lead-ership behaviors that underemphasize or overemphasize task orrelational behavior relative to the corresponding culture may thuscreate ambiguity for employees in interpreting and responding appro-priately to the social contextual cues.<\/p>\n
Although inconsistent signals may mitigate performance bycausing uncertainty and ambiguity, the social identity theory ofleadership suggests that the lack of similarity between leadershipand social contextual cues has relational repercussions that dimin-ish firm performance. Leaders who underemphasize or overem-phasize tasks or relationships relative to the organization\u2019s culturemay signal that they are not representative of their organization\u2019scentral values and beliefs. Ullrich et al. (2009) reported thatleaders whose behaviors are misaligned with their unit\u2019s normsand values lack the endorsement of unit members. Leaders who arenot perceived to be prototypical of the unit may thus lack theinfluence, trust, and status needed to direct employee behaviortoward enhancing organizational outcomes (Giessner et al., 2009;van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Taken together, theabove discussion leads to the following predictions:<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
849EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE ON PERFORMANCE<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Hypothesis 1: When levels of task leadership and task cultureare similar, firm performance will be higher than when levelsof task leadership and task culture are dissimilar.<\/p>\n
Hypothesis 2: When levels of relational leadership and rela-tionship culture are similar, firm performance will be higherthan when levels of relational leadership and relationshipculture are dissimilar.<\/p>\n
Leadership\u2013Culture Fit From theDissimilarity Perspective<\/p>\n
The dissimilarity perspective of leadership\u2013 culture fit positsthat dissimilarities in levels of corresponding leadership and cul-ture dimensions provide several benefits to the organization and itsmembers that enhance firm performance. The benefits ofleadership\u2013 culture dissimilarities are based on propositions de-rived from House\u2019s (1996) path-goal theory and substitutes forleadership theory. Taken together, these two theoretical perspec-tives predict that firm performance will improve when levels ofcorresponding leadership and culture dimensions are dissimilarsuch that leadership is high when culture is low or leadership islow when culture is high. We now consider the detailed argumentsunderlying each theoretical perspective.<\/p>\n
Positive effects of dissimilarity. An assumption implicit inleadership contingency theory is that leaders provide the \u201crightamount\u201d of leadership behaviors to enhance effectiveness (Lam-bert, Tepper, Carr, Holt, & Barelka, 2012). Path-goal theory sug-gests that the \u201cright amount\u201d of leadership is attained when leadersprovide information and support not provided by the context(House, 1996). This conclusion is consistent with McGrath\u2019s(1962, p. 5) argument that leaders should \u201cdo, or get done, what-ever is not being adequately handled for group needs.\u201d CEOs whoengage in task leadership when there is a lack of a task-orientedfocus within the organizational culture enhance firm performancethrough clarifying and communicating goal-oriented expectationsand directing employees\u2019 attention toward valued organizationalobjectives. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests thatthese behavioral signals are likely to be an important source ofsocial learning because CEOs are credible role models who areexpected to reward similar behavior. Hence, task leadership isparticularly important in a culture with low levels of task-orientedcues because it reduces ambiguity by providing directive informa-tion that clarifies how followers\u2019 should allocate their effort anddirect their attention. In this context, task leadership is expected topromote goal achievement and firm performance.<\/p>\n
CEOs who employ relational leadership when the firm\u2019s culturedoes not underscore the importance of people-oriented processessignal their personal beliefs that participation, collaboration, andcoordination are essential to improving firm performance. CEOrelational leadership is likely to engender positive relationshipswith employees, particularly in environments where supportive,fair, and participative behaviors are not the norm. Employees whobenefit from unexpected positive social exchanges with their CEOare thus expected to be more motivated to reciprocate throughworking toward valued organizational ends, such as improved firmperformance.<\/p>\n
Organizational culture also is a prominent source of socialcontrol that influences what followers do and how they do it<\/p>\n
(O\u2019Reilly & Chatman, 1996). Employees in task-oriented cultures,for example, have been taught to prioritize issues of firm survival(i.e., external adaptation) through emphasizing achievement, re-sults, competition, and aggressiveness (Cameron et al., 2006).These normative expectations streamline employees\u2019 effort andattention toward enhancing firm performance and improving theorganization\u2019s competitive position in the marketplace. In support,meta-analytic evidence indicates that task-oriented cultures (i.e.,market culture) are positively associated with firm performance(Hartnell et al., 2011). High task cultures are likely to be particu-larly effective when CEOs engage in low levels of task leadershipbecause they provide clear cues to employees that they shouldallocate their effort and energy toward enhancing firm perfor-mance. We thus expect that in the absence of directive, task-oriented guidance from their leaders, task-oriented values andnormative expectations will play a key role in aligning followers\u2019effort with behaviors that enhance firm performance.<\/p>\n
Likewise, a high relationship culture juxtaposed with low CEOrelational leadership is expected to provide performance-relatedbenefits. Low CEO relational leadership may prompt followers tosearch for positive relationships and social interactions amongtheir colleagues to facilitate internal integration, particularly infirms with high relationship cultures. A relationship culture cuesthe importance of positive relational dynamics, an open exchangeof information, and collaborative decision-making. In the absenceof supportive behaviors from the CEO, relational norms are likelyto engender high-quality exchanges among top management team(TMT) members because they are the primary source of socialsupport and information. This process is expected to positivelyimpact firm performance because TMT members will share re-sources and work together collaboratively to make decisions andattain their goals. In support, Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, and Dino(2005) reported that positive relationships and high levels ofinformation exchange among TMT members (i.e., TMT behavioralintegration) enhanced firm performance. Low relational leadershipin the context of a high relationship culture is thus expected toenhance firm performance.<\/p>\n
Negative effects of similarity. Substitutes for leadership the-ory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) argues that leadership is ineffectivewhen it is accompanied by organizational characteristics with asimilar emphasis. Substitutes are organizational characteristics\u201cwhich render relationship and\/or task-oriented leadership not onlyimpossible but also unnecessary\u201d (Kerr & Jermier, 1978, p. 396).Substitutes for leadership theory contends that redundancies be-tween leadership and aspects of the organizational context mayresult in decreased leader effectiveness. For example, a culture thatemphasizes competition and goal accomplishment may render taskleadership unnecessary. Likewise, organizations with collabora-tive, supportive, and participative cultures may not benefit fromrelational leaders who similarly foster trust, support, and commu-nication. Substitutes for leadership theory thus supports the dis-similarity perspective that leadership and culture are more effec-tive when they are not redundant. In support, Schneider (1987)argues that consistent environmental cues within an organizationconvey similar signals that may result in excess homogeneity andmyopic perspectives, resulting in negative organizational out-comes. We now consider more specifically how redundancies incorresponding dimensions of leadership and culture may attenuatefirm performance.<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
850 HARTNELL ET AL.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
High levels of task leadership may be unnecessary and evendeleterious for employee motivation in task-oriented cultures. Taskcultures provide clear contextual signals to convey the importanceof high performance (Hartnell et al., 2011). CEOs that furtheremphasize task-oriented expectations with high task leadership arelikely to be perceived as controlling or overbearing. Task-orientedleaders who continually monitor behavior (particularly amongTMT members), clarify what employees should be doing, andreinforce performance expectations may inhibit followers\u2019 auton-omy and distract them from getting work done. Constrained au-tonomy may impair followers\u2019 self-efficacy, motivation, and com-mitment, and diminish their cognitive and affective resourcesfocused on accomplishing organizational goals. As a result, highlevels of CEO task leadership may impede followers\u2019 performancewhen an organization\u2019s culture emphasizes task-oriented values.<\/p>\n
High levels of CEO relational leadership and relationship cul-ture may also produce redundancies that attenuate firm perfor-mance. Employees in relationship-oriented cultures are expected toprioritize issues of internal integration through building positiverelationships among coworkers and building strong team dynam-ics. A focus on internal processes emphasizes the importance ofcohesion, participation, communication, and collaboration amongorganizational members (Cameron et al., 2006). These processesbuild trust and loyalty among organizational members, resulting inhigh levels of employee satisfaction and commitment (Hartnell etal., 2011).<\/p>\n
In the context of high relationship cultures, high levels of CEOrelational behavior may overemphasize the role of relationshipswithin the organization to the exclusion of focusing effort onenhancing firm performance. That is, high levels of relationalleadership and relationship culture may collectively reinforce thatsocial integration, or satisfaction with and attraction to the group(O\u2019Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989), is a valued end in itself. Assuch, high levels of relational leadership and relationship culturemay create an environment in which employees are satisfied andcommitted, but are less focused on task-oriented functions thatmore directly impact firm profitability and performance. In sup-port, meta-analytic results indicate that clan cultures may have amore distal relationship with firm performance such that they arepositively associated with positive employee attitudes but are notrelated directly with measures of firm performance (Hartnell et al.,2011). High levels of CEO relational leadership combined with ahigh relationship culture may thus result in a weaker relationshipwith firm performance than when levels of relational leadershipand relationship culture are dissimilar.<\/p>\n
Based on tenets of path-goal theory and substitutes for leader-ship, we propose the following hypotheses:<\/p>\n
Hypothesis 3: When levels of task leadership and task cultureare dissimilar, firm performance will be higher than whenlevels of task leadership and task culture are similar.<\/p>\n
Hypothesis 4: When levels of relational leadership and rela-tionship culture are dissimilar, firm performance will behigher than when levels of relational leadership and relation-ship culture are similar.<\/p>\n
In summary, our arguments for similarity (H1 and H2) are indirect contradiction to the arguments for dissimilarity (H3 and H4).<\/p>\n
Stated differently, the similarity and dissimilarity hypotheses arecompeting hypotheses that cannot be supported simultaneously.<\/p>\n
Method<\/p>\n
Sample and Procedure<\/p>\n
The data used in this sample were drawn from CEOs and theirTMT members who were members of a technology consortiumdedicated to providing peer networking opportunities and industryinformation sharing. The consortium consisted of a rolling member-ship of CEOs and their organizations who participated at variouspoints during the longitudinal data collection. A subset of membersfrom this association participated in three prior studies (Ou, Waldman,& Peterson, in press; Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012; Reina, Zhang,& Peterson, 2014). Eighty percent of the CEOs used in this study areunique to this article and did not participate in the other studies. Inaddition, data were collected several months after the published stud-ies, eliminating any potential data overlap. Respondents in this studyare thus part of the same larger consortium but constitute a uniquesample. This study further differentiates from the previously pub-lished studies in that we include data obtained from CEOs and theirfull TMT as opposed to only the CEOs and their corresponding chieffinancial officers (CFOs).<\/p>\n
The technology consortium provided access to 205 CEOs in thesoftware and hardware industries. One-hundred twenty CEOsagreed to participate, representing a 58.5% response rate. Partici-pating CEOs identified their TMT members and provided theircontact information. All participants were assured of confidential-ity and were told that only aggregated results would be shared withparticipating organizations. Data were obtained from 338 out of382 TMT members, representing an 88.5% participation rate.Responses from at least 50% of each organization\u2019s TMT wererequired to ensure that samples were representative of their respec-tive organizations (cf., Ling et al., 2008). This criterion resulted ina final sample of 119 CEOs or firms and 337 TMT members.<\/p>\n
The average age of CEOs was 48.7 years, 82% male, 82%Caucasian, and 18% founded the company. CEOs\u2019 average tenurewas 4.2 years and 73% served as their company\u2019s chief executivefor at least 3 years. The vast majority of participating organizationswere privately held (92%). The average TMT size (i.e., number ofCEO direct reports) was 3.2 members, and the number of TMTresponses per organization averaged 2.8.<\/p>\n
Data were collected from different sources to mitigate commonmethod bias concerns. TMT members rated their CEO\u2019s leadershipbehavior. CEOs and their respective TMTs assessed the organiza-tion\u2019s culture. The technology consortium, with the approval ofeach firm\u2019s CEO, provided an objective measure of firm perfor-mance (Return on Assets [ROA]) 9 months prior to and 9 monthspost survey administration.<\/p>\n
Measures<\/p>\n
Task leadership. Five items from the initiating structure sub-scale of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQXII; Stogdill, 1963) were used to assess task leadership. The fiveitems were chosen based on the strength of their factor loadings inan extant study validating the LBDQ XII (Schriesheim & Stogdill,1975). TMT members rated the extent to which the CEO \u201cLets<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
851EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE ON PERFORMANCE<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
group members know what is expected of them,\u201d \u201cEncourages theuse of uniform policies,\u201d \u201cMaintains definite performance stan-dards,\u201d and so forth. The response scale ranged from 1 (to a verysmall extent) to 5 (to a very large extent). Across TMT members,the reliability of the scale was .82.<\/p>\n
Relational leadership. Relational leadership was measuredusing five items from the consideration subscale of the LBDQ XII(Stogdill, 1963) and focused on the degree to which a leaderdisplayed behaviors such as trust, respect, and liking. The fiveitems that demonstrated the highest factor loadings in Schriesheimand Stogdill\u2019s (1975) validation study were used. Using a responsescale ranging from 1 (to a very small extent) to 5 (to a very largeextent), TMT members rated the extent to which the CEO, \u201cIsfriendly and approachable,\u201d \u201cPuts suggestions made by the groupinto operation,\u201d \u201cTreats all group members as his\/her equals,\u201d andso forth. The alpha reliability of the scale was .90.<\/p>\n
Organizational culture. We assessed two dimensions of or-ganizational culture: task and relationship culture. Both culturedimensions were derived from the Organizational Culture Profile(OCP; O\u2019Reilly et al., 1991). We selected the items that loadedonto four dimensions from O\u2019Reilly et al.\u2019s (1991) factor analysisthat most directly reflected task-focused and relationship-focusedcultures. Task culture was measured with seven items from twoOCP dimensions: outcome orientation and aggressiveness. TheCEO and their TMTs indicated the extent to which the listedvalues were characteristic of their organization\u2019s culture. Theresponse scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Sample value statements for task culture were \u201cA resultsorientation,\u201d \u201cHigh expectations,\u201d and \u201cCompetitiveness.\u201dO\u2019Reilly et al. (1991) reported that \u201cSocial responsibility\u201d loadednegatively on the aggressiveness dimension, but the item wasdropped from this study because it was conceptually distant fromthe other items in the scale which collectively focused on highperformance; moreover, the item failed to load significantly on thetask culture factor. The alpha reliability of the six-item scale fortask culture was .86.<\/p>\n
Relationship culture was assessed using six items from twoOCP dimensions: respect for people and team orientation. TheCEO and their TMTs indicated the extent to which the listedvalues were characteristic of their organization\u2019s culture. Theresponse scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Two items were dropped from the measure because theyfocused on fair treatment of employees rather than an overallorientation toward teamwork and relationships and they did notload significantly onto the relationship culture factor. Value state-ments for relationship culture were \u201cTeam orientation,\u201d \u201cCollab-oration,\u201d \u201cTolerance,\u201d and \u201cA people orientation.\u201d The alpha re-liability of the four-item relationship culture scale was .83.<\/p>\n
Firm performance. An objective measure of firm perfor-mance was collected by accessing the firms\u2019 ROA 9 monthsfollowing survey administration. The time-lagged research designtemporally separates leadership and culture from firm perfor-mance, enabling us to test the combined effect of leadership andculture on firm performance while mitigating the possibility ofreverse causality. ROA was made available by the technologyconsortium and with the CEOs\u2019 permission. ROA was captured asnet income divided by total assets. ROA is a commonly usedperformance measure to assess organizational performance (Agle,Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999; Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, &<\/p>\n
Courtright, 2015) and was noted by members participating in thetechnology consortium as a particularly relevant industry bench-mark.<\/p>\n
Control variables. Prior firm performance was controlled byaccounting for firms\u2019 ROA 9 months prior to survey administra-tion. We also controlled for firm size, consistent with researchlinking organizational attributes to firm performance (cf., Carpen-ter, Geletkanycz, & Sanders, 2004; Ling et al., 2008). We con-trolled for CEO founder status and CEO tenure because CEOs whoare founders or have longer tenure may have a greater degree ofmanagerial discretion and thus have more influence on firm out-comes. Industry was effectively controlled via the sample becauseall participating firms were from the high-technology industry.<\/p>\n
Aggregation Statistics<\/p>\n
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the organiza-tion as the independent variable, was conducted to assess if greatervariability existed in ratings between firms than within firms.ANOVA indicated that respondents\u2019 ratings were significantlydifferent between organizations (p \ufffd .01). We also calculatedinterrater agreement values (rwg(j); James, Demaree, & Wolf,1984) and intraclass correlation coefficients, ICC (1) and ICC (2),to assess whether sufficient within-unit agreement and between-unit variability existed to justify aggregating task and relationalleadership, as well as task and relationship culture to the firm level.<\/p>\n
We calculated aggregation statistics from organizations in thesample with at least two respondents. Twelve organizations with aTMT size of two had one TMT member respondent. These orga-nizations were omitted from the calculation of aggregation statis-tics for task and relational leadership (n \ufffd 1), but were includedfor task and relationship culture because CEOs (in addition to theirTMTs) rated culture (n \ufffd 2). In sum, groups with only onerespondent were omitted from the calculation of aggregation sta-tistics but included in the study\u2019s analyses and results. Checks foraggregating TMT members\u2019 ratings of task leadership, rwg \ufffd .89;ICC (1) \ufffd .55; ICC (2) \ufffd .79; p \ufffd .01, and relational leadership,rwg \ufffd .79; ICC (1) \ufffd .70; ICC (2) \ufffd .88; p \ufffd .01, yieldedacceptable values. CEOs and their TMT members\u2019 ratings of taskculture, rwg \ufffd .87; ICC (1) \ufffd .58; ICC (2) \ufffd .84; p \ufffd .01, andrelationship culture, rwg \ufffd .81; ICC (1) \ufffd .42; ICC (2) \ufffd .74; p \ufffd.01, similarly demonstrated sufficient agreement to merit aggrega-tion to the organizational level.<\/p>\n
The proportion of variance because of unit membership [that is,ICC (1)] in this study is higher than average values reported in theextant literature for two reasons. First, ICC (1) values are fre-quently assessed among team members within organizations withmultiple teams. The variance in ratings between teams is expectedto be less than the variance between organizations because teamsshare a similar organizational context. Second, high levels ofagreement about leadership and culture are expected to existwithin an organization\u2019s upper echelon because TMTs are directlyinvolved in the strategic components of organizational functioning.In support, Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, and Srinivasan (2006)reported ICC (1) values for TMT-rated CEO leadership and CEObehaviors across organizations ranging from .55 to .85 (with amedian value of .65), levels consistent with those in this study andwell above ICC (1) values reported for studies of multiple teamswithin an organization.<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
852 HARTNELL ET AL.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Analyses<\/p>\n
Prior to conducting statistical analyses, we checked for multi-variate outliers by computing studentized residuals, Cook\u2019s D, andleverage. Five cases were identified with excessive values for allthree fit statistics and were removed. Omitting the multivariateoutliers resulted in a sample of 114 organizations and 324 TMTmembers for all analyses.<\/p>\n
Although we received complete data regarding prior and sub-sequent firm performance (provided by the technology consor-tium), 27% of the CEOs failed to provide descriptive data relatingto the control variables (i.e., firm size, CEO tenure, & CEOfounder status). Following \u201cstate of the art\u201d techniques to addressmissing data that are less subject to bias than listwise and pairwisedeletion (Enders, 2010; Newman, 2009; Schafer & Graham, 2002),we utilized multiple imputation to account for the missing descrip-tive data among CEOs. Hirschfeld, Cole, Bernerth, & Rizzuto(2013, p. 459) describe multiple imputation as a \u201cprocess that pro-duces m imputed data sets, each of which includes \u2018filled in\u2019 valuesbased on a random draw from a distribution of probable missingvalues.\u201d We obtained estimates of the missing values by creating 25imputed datasets in SPSS Missing Values Analysis software. Theimputed datasets were generated using the Markov Chain MonteCarlo (MCMC) algorithm. Analyses were computed on all 25 im-puted data sets. SPSS generated a pooled set of parameter estimates,SEs, and t-values from the 25 imputed data sets (Rubin, 1987), whichwere used to generate the final reported estimates.<\/p>\n
The interactive effects of leadership and culture on firm perfor-mance were analyzed using hierarchical regression in SPSS. Sub-sequent firm performance was regressed on the control variables(prior firm performance, CEO tenure, firm size, and founder sta-tus) in the first step, followed by leadership and culture in thesecond step, and the leadership\u2013 culture interaction term in thethird step. Values for task and relational leadership, as well as taskand relationship culture, were mean-centered prior to estimatingregression equations to enhance interpretability and reduce multi-collinearity (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).<\/p>\n
Results<\/p>\n
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables aresummarized in Table 1. The correlation between task and relation-ship culture was negative and high; we thus used confirmatory<\/p>\n
factor analyses (CFA) to test for discriminant validity. We com-pared baseline models in which the two dimensions of culture weremodeled as separate constructs with alternative models in whichboth constructs were constrained to be equal (cf., Prussia & Kin-icki, 1996). We followed the same procedure to test the discrim-inant validity between the two leadership dimensions and betweenthe conceptually congruent dimensions of leadership and culture(e.g., task leadership\u2014task culture and relational leadership\u2014relationship culture). Chi-square difference tests (Bollen, 1989)revealed significant differences between the two-factor models andthe one-factor models such that the constrained one factor modelsproduced uniformly worse fit than the baseline two-factor mod-els. More specifically, the chi-square difference test was sig-nificant between the culture measures \ufffd\ufffd2(1) \ufffd 146.34, p \ufffd.001; between the leadership measures \ufffd\ufffd2(1) \ufffd 89.84, p \ufffd.001; and between the leadership and culture measures, taskleadership\u2013task culture, \ufffd\ufffd2(1) \ufffd 223.01, p \ufffd .001; relationalleadership\u2013relationship culture, \ufffd\ufffd2(1) \ufffd 263.40, p \ufffd .001). Inaddition, the change in CFI (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) for allfour measurement models exceeded .01 between the baselinemodels and the constrained models, lending evidence towardconstructs\u2019 discriminant validity.<\/p>\n
Predictions based on our reasoning about leadership-culturesimilarity, H1 and H2, are in direct contradiction to the dissimi-larity predictions, H3 and H4. Hypotheses concerning taskleadership-culture (H1 and H3) were tested on a single moderatedregression equation involving task leadership, task culture, andtheir product term. These results are presented next and will befollowed by the results of the equation testing relational leadershipand relational culture (H2 and H4).<\/p>\n
Task Leadership and Task Culture<\/p>\n
Table 2 shows the regression results concerning task leadershipand task culture. Of the control variables, only prior firm perfor-mance was a significant predictor of subsequent firm performance.Collectively, the control variables accounted for 44.7% of thevariance in subsequent firm performance. The unstandardized re-gression coefficients shown in Table 2 indicate that the interactionbetween task leadership and task culture was significant and neg-ative (b \ufffd \ufffd.011, p \ufffd .01).<\/p>\n
We plotted the simple slopes of task leadership at low and highvalues (\ufffd1 SD) of task culture as shown in Figure 1. Using the<\/p>\n
Table 1Descriptive Statistics and Correlations<\/p>\n
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9<\/p>\n
1. Prior firm performance .06 .02 \u20142. CEO tenure 4.21 2.26 \ufffd.06 \u20143. Firm sizea 2.23 .82 .40\ufffd\ufffd .00 \u20144. Founder statusb 1.82 .39 \ufffd.09 \ufffd.06 \ufffd.15 \u20145. Task leadership 3.61 .62 \ufffd.11 .01 \ufffd.10 .00 (.82)6. Relational leadership 3.42 .84 .23\ufffd .01 .03 .01 \ufffd.60\ufffd\ufffd (.90)7. Task culture 3.74 .65 .21\ufffd .12 .15 \ufffd.06 .20\ufffd .03 (.86)8. Relationship culture 3.39 .60 \ufffd.05 \ufffd.17 \ufffd.08 .00 \ufffd.10 \ufffd.01 \ufffd.83\ufffd\ufffd (.83)9. Subsequent firm performance .07 .02 .64\ufffd\ufffd .04 .16 .08 \ufffd.10 .20\ufffd .19\ufffd \ufffd.01 \u2014<\/p>\n
Note. Reliabilities are reported in parentheses on the diagonal; N \ufffd 114.a Firm size (number of employees): 1 \ufffd 1\u2013200; 2 \ufffd 201\u20131,000; 3 \ufffd 1,001\u20135,000; 4 \ufffd 5,000\ufffd. b CEO founder status: 1 \ufffd founder; 2 \ufffd nonfounder.\ufffd p \ufffd .05. \ufffd\ufffd p \ufffd .01 (two-tailed).<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
853EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE ON PERFORMANCE<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
estimated regression coefficients, we calculated predicted valuesfor four points representing the four possible combinations of taskleadership and culture: low leadership, low culture; high leader-ship, high culture; high leadership, low culture; low leadership,high culture. For each predicted value, we used the standard errorsto construct 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the predictedpoints. The point estimates and confidence intervals are reported inTable 3.<\/p>\n
Similarity perspective predictions. Hypothesis 1 (H1) pre-dicted that firm performance will be higher when levels of taskleadership and task culture are similar (e.g., task leadership and<\/p>\n
task culture are both high or are both low) than when levels of taskleadership and culture are dissimilar (e.g., high task leadership andlow task culture or low task leadership and high task culture).Contrary to H1, Figure 1 shows that firm performance was lowerwhen task leadership and task culture were both high and both lowthan when levels of task leadership and task culture were dissim-ilar. The point estimates and nonoverlapping confidence intervalsin Table 3 confirmed that firm performance was lower in organi-zations with high task leadership\u2013 high task culture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .049;95% CI: [.041. .057]) than in organizations with high taskleadership\u2013low task culture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .072; 95% CI: [.066, .078]) orlow task leadership\u2013 high task culture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .093; 95% CI: [.085,.101]. Likewise, organizations with low task leadership\u2013low taskculture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .062; 95% CI: [.056, .068]) exhibited lower firmperformance than organizations with low task leadership\u2013 hightask culture. The 95% CIs between low task leadership\u2013low taskculture and high task leadership\u2013low task culture, however, over-lap suggesting that the difference in firm performance betweenthese two leadership\u2013 culture combinations was not statisticallysignificant. Taken together, results indicate that firm performancewas not higher when levels of task leadership and culture weresimilar than when they were dissimilar. Hypothesis 1 was notsupported.<\/p>\n
Dissimilarity perspective predictions. Support for Hypoth-esis 3 (H3) regarding dissimilarity would be evidenced byhigher performance when levels of task leadership and taskculture are dissimilar (i.e., high task leadership\u2013low task cultureand low task leadership\u2013 high task culture), rather than whentask leadership and culture are similar (i.e., task leadership andculture are both high or both low). Returning to Figure 1,dissimilarities in task leadership and task culture were associ-ated with higher firm performance than when task leadershipand culture were both high or both low. Likewise, point esti-mates and nonoverlapping 95% CIs in Table 3 indicate low taskleadership\u2013 high task culture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .093; 95% CI: [.085, .101])resulted in significantly higher firm performance than whentask leadership and culture were both high (Y\u0302 \ufffd .049; 95% CI:<\/p>\n
Table 2Coefficient Estimates for Task Leadership and Task Culture on Subsequent Firm Performance (Return on Assets [ROA])<\/p>\n
Variable<\/p>\n
DV \ufffd Subsequent firm performance<\/p>\n
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3<\/p>\n
b SE t b SE t b SE t<\/p>\n
Control variablesConstant .019 .012 1.637 .021 .012 1.745 .025 .012 2.141\ufffd<\/p>\n
Prior firm performance .617 .073 8.469\ufffd\ufffd .602 .075 8.045\ufffd\ufffd .523 .079 6.641\ufffd\ufffd<\/p>\n
CEO tenure .001 .001 1.131 .001 .001 1.000 .001 .001 .964Firm size \ufffd.002 .002 \ufffd1.024 \ufffd.003 .002 \ufffd1.103 \ufffd.002 .002 \ufffd.891Founder status .008 .005 1.623 .008 .005 1.617 .008 .005 1.729<\/p>\n
PredictorsTask leadership \ufffd.002 .003 \ufffd.719 \ufffd.004 .003 \ufffd1.511Task culture .002 .003 .904 .002 .002 .743<\/p>\n
InteractionTask leadership \ufffd Task culture \ufffd.011 .004 \ufffd2.739\ufffd\ufffd<\/p>\n
R2 .447\ufffd\ufffd .453\ufffd\ufffd .490\ufffd\ufffd<\/p>\n
Change R2 .006 .037\ufffd\ufffd<\/p>\n
Note. N \ufffd 114.\ufffd p \ufffd .05. \ufffd\ufffd p \ufffd .01 (two-tailed).<\/p>\n
Figure 1. The interactive effect of task leadership and task culture onsubsequent firm performance (Return on Assets [ROA]).<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
854 HARTNELL ET AL.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
[.041, .057]) or both low (Y\u0302 \ufffd .062; 95% CI: [.056, .068]),lending support for Hypothesis 3. Table 3 further reveals thatfirm performance was higher when task leadership was high andtask culture was low (Y\u0302 \ufffd .072; 95% CI: [.066, .078]) thanwhen task leadership and culture were both high (Y\u0302 \ufffd .049;95% CI [.041, .057]), but performance was not significantlydifferent when both task leadership and task culture were low(Y\u0302 \ufffd .062; 95% CI: [.056, .068]). Given the modest sample size(n \ufffd 114), we computed a 90% confidence interval and foundthat the difference in firm performance between high taskleadership\u2014low task culture (90% CI: [.067, .077]) and lowtask leadership\u2013low task culture (90% CI: [.057. .067]) wassignificant at p \ufffd .10. Taken together, three of the four taskleadership\u2013 culture combinations fully supported Hypothesis 3.Hypothesis 3 is thus partially supported.<\/p>\n
Relational Leadership and Relationship Culture<\/p>\n
Table 4 shows the hierarchical regression results pertaining torelational leadership and relationship culture. After accounting forthe variance explained by the control variables (R2 \ufffd .447),relational leadership and relationship culture did not have signif-icant direct effects on subsequent firm performance but the inter-action between relational leadership and relationship culture wassignificant and negative (b \ufffd \ufffd.009, p \ufffd .01).<\/p>\n
We plotted the simple slopes of relational leadership at low andhigh values of relationship culture, shown in Figure 2, and calcu-lated predicted values and their confidence intervals for testinghypotheses. Results are reported in Table 5.<\/p>\n
Similarity perspective predictions. Parallel with the hy-potheses for task leadership and culture, Hypothesis 2 (H2)posited that similar levels of relational leadership and relation-ship culture (e.g., relational leadership and relationship cultureare both high or both low) will result in higher firm perfor-mance than when levels of relational leadership and culture aredissimilar (e.g., high relational leadership and low relationshipculture or low relational leadership and high relationship cul-ture). Contrary to the hypothesized prediction, a visual inspec-tion of Figure 2 indicates that similar levels of relational lead-ership and relationship culture resulted in lower firmperformance than dissimilar levels of relational leadership andrelationship culture. The point estimates and nonoverlappingconfidence intervals (shown in Table 5) between similar levelsof relational leadership and culture, high relational leadership\u2013high relationship culture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .061; 95% CI [.055, .067]) orlow relational leadership\u2013low relationship culture, (Y\u0302 \ufffd .058;<\/p>\n
95% CI [.052, .064]) and dissimilar levels of relational leader-ship and culture, high relational leadership\u2013low relationshipculture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .081; 95% CI [.075, .087]) or low relationalleadership\u2013 high relationship culture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .075; 95% CI [.069,.081]), support the visual evidence in Figure 2. That is, firmperformance was significantly lower when relational leadershipand relationship culture were similar than when levels of rela-tional leadership and culture were dissimilar. H2 was not sup-ported.<\/p>\n
Dissimilarity perspective predictions. Hypothesis 4 (H4)predicted that when levels of relational leadership and relation-ship culture are dissimilar (i.e., high relational leadership\u2013lowrelationship culture and low relational leadership\u2013 high relation-ship culture), firm performance will be higher than when levelsof relational leadership and culture are similar (i.e., relationalleadership and culture are both high or both low). The resultsillustrated in Figure 2 and shown in Table 5 indicate thatsubsequent firm performance was highest when levels of rela-tional leadership and culture were dissimilar. Firm performancewas higher when organizations had high relational leadership\u2013low relationship culture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .081; 95% CI [.075, .087]) or lowrelational leadership\u2013 high relationship culture (Y\u0302 \ufffd .075; 95%CI [.069, .081]) than when relationship leadership and culturewere both high (Y\u0302 \ufffd .061; 95% CI [.055, .067]) or when bothwere low (Y\u0302 \ufffd .058; 95% CI [.052, .064]). Hypothesis 4 is thusfully supported.<\/p>\n
In sum, we found no support for the similarity perspective\u2019s twopredictions (H1 and H2) but results partially supported the taskleadership\u2013 culture hypothesis (H3) and fully supported the rela-tional leadership\u2013 culture hypothesis (H4).<\/p>\n
Post Hoc Analyses<\/p>\n
Schein (2010) posited that CEO founders should have a strongerimprint on an organization\u2019s culture than nonfounders. We testedthis supposition by examining the moderating effect of CEOfounder status on the link between corresponding leadership andculture dimensions. After accounting for the control variables (i.e.,prior firm performance, CEO tenure, firm size) and direct effects(i.e., task leadership and founder status), results revealed thatfounder status did not have a significant moderating influence onthe association between task leadership and task culture (b \ufffd .07,nonsignificant [ns]). Likewise, founder status did not moderate theassociation between relational leadership and relationship culture(b \ufffd \ufffd.02, ns) after controlling for prior firm performance, CEO<\/p>\n
Table 3Confidence Intervals for Predicted Points Representing the Task Leadership\u2013Task Culture Interaction<\/p>\n
Task Leadership Task Culture Y\u0302 95% Confidence interval Hypotheses<\/p>\n
Similarity perspective predicted points Similarity perspective hypothesis: Task leadership and cultureLow task leadership, low task culture .062 [.056, .068] H1: Task similarities task dissimilarities\u2013unsupportedHigh task leadership, high task culture .049 [.041, .057]<\/p>\n
Dissimilarity perspective predicted points Dissimilarity perspective hypothesis: Task leadership and cultureHigh task leadership, low task culture .072 [.066, .078] H3: Task dissimilarities task similarities\u2013partially supportedLow task leadership, high task culture .093 [.085, .101]<\/p>\n
Note. N \ufffd 114. Y\u0302 \ufffd point estimate.<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
855EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE ON PERFORMANCE<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
tenure, firm size, and the direct effects (i.e., relational leadershipand founder status).1<\/p>\n
Discussion<\/p>\n
This study examined the extent to which similarities or differ-ences between CEO leadership and organizational culture collec-tively influence firm performance. Drawing upon task and rela-tionship metathemes underlying leadership and organizationalculture research, competing hypotheses were developed regarding<\/p>\n
the predictive validity of the similarity and dissimilarity perspec-tives of leadership\u2013 culture fit. Results provide general support fordissimilarity predictions and lack of support for similarity. Thesefindings contribute to leadership, organizational culture, and P-Efit research and have several implications for theory and practice.<\/p>\n
Theoretical Implications<\/p>\n
The first theoretical implication pertains to the need to contex-tualize the effects of leadership and organizational culture on firmperformance. The preponderance of research to date has focusedon the bivariate relationship between leadership and culture (Ber-son, Oreg, & Dvir, 2008; Dickson, Resick, & Hanges, 2006;Ogbonna & Harris, 2000; Xenikou & Simosi, 2006) or on theirindividual relationships with firm performance (Wilderom, vanden Berg, & Wiersma, 2012). Far less consideration has beengiven to the interactive effect of leadership and culture and itsimpact on organizational effectiveness (Burns et al., 2013). Wenow consider the ensuing theoretical implications for the leader-ship and culture literatures, respectively.<\/p>\n
Contextualizing CEO leadership\u2019s effects. CEOs lead theirorganizations within the context of an existing organizational culture(Klimoski, 2013). Contrary to the view that CEOs\u2019 leadership behav-ior should align with the organization\u2019s culture, our findings do notsupport either of the two predictions generated from the similarityperspective of leadership\u2013 culture fit. In fact, results indicate thatCEOs are least effective when high levels of task or relational behav-iors are accompanied by high levels of corresponding culture values.This pattern of relationships suggests that organizational culture canbe a substitute for leadership. Because culture provides employeeswith relational- and task-oriented cues about how to behave, thesevalues and norms can attenuate the need for corresponding leadershipbehaviors. Stated differently, CEO leadership that reinforces the cur-rent organizational culture may generate redundant resources and<\/p>\n
1 Additional details regarding all analyses are available upon request.<\/p>\n
Table 4Coefficient Estimates for Relational Leadership and Relationship Culture on Subsequent Firm Performance (Return on Assets [ROA])<\/p>\n
Variable<\/p>\n
DV \ufffd Subsequent firm performance<\/p>\n
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3<\/p>\n
b SE t b SE t b SE t<\/p>\n
Control variablesConstant .019 .012 1.637 .020 .012 1.623 .025 .012 2.154\ufffd<\/p>\n
Prior firm performance .617 .073 8.469\ufffd\ufffd .607 .076 8.007\ufffd\ufffd .526 .077 6.789\ufffd\ufffd<\/p>\n
CEO tenure .001 .001 1.131 .001 .001 1.148 .001 .001 1.247Firm size \ufffd.002 .002 \ufffd1.024 \ufffd.002 .002 \ufffd.953 \ufffd.002 .002 \ufffd1.008Founder status .008 .005 1.623 .008 .005 1.615 .007 .005 1.606<\/p>\n
PredictorsRelational leadership .001 .002 .618 .001 .002 .608Relationship culture .001 .003 .355 \ufffd.001 .003 \ufffd.290<\/p>\n
InteractionRelational leadership \ufffd<\/p>\n
Relationship culture \ufffd.009 .003 \ufffd3.058\ufffd\ufffd<\/p>\n
R2 .447\ufffd\ufffd .450\ufffd\ufffd .495\ufffd\ufffd<\/p>\n
Change R2 .003 .045\ufffd\ufffd<\/p>\n
Note. N \ufffd 114.\ufffd p \ufffd .05. \ufffd\ufffd p \ufffd .01 (two-tailed).<\/p>\n
Figure 2. The interactive effect of relational leadership and relationshipculture on subsequent firm performance (Return on Assets [ROA]).<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
856 HARTNELL ET AL.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
unnecessary guidance that fails to enhance firm performance. Relat-edly, the concept of oversupply in needs\u2013supplies relationships (Cable& Edwards, 2004) similarly suggests that resources beyond employ-ees\u2019 needs or expectations have little beneficial effect on attitudes andeffort.<\/p>\n
Results broadly support predictions derived from the dissimilarityperspective of leadership\u2014 culture fit. That is, firms are most effec-tive when levels of CEO leadership and culture are dissimilar. Thesefindings align with House\u2019s path-goal theory (House, 1971, 1996) andfunctional leadership theory (McGrath, 1962) by demonstrating thatCEO leadership is effective when it provides psychological and mo-tivational resources lacking in the organization\u2019s culture. These resultsare further consistent with proponents of behavioral complexity whocontend that leaders who can identify when a leadership style iscontextually appropriate are more likely to achieve and maintaineffective outcomes (Lawrence, Lenk, & Quinn, 2009).<\/p>\n
Although one of the dissimilarity perspective hypotheses was fullysupported (H4), one dissimilarity hypothesis was partially supported(H3). Results indicate that dissimilarity between task leadership andtask culture (high task leadership-low task culture) result in higherfirm performance than when task leadership and culture focus con-certedly on task-oriented functioning, but not when leadership andculture do not attend to task-oriented functioning. These results sug-gest that there may be an adverse impact of excess amounts of CEOtask leadership on a TMT. High levels of CEO task leadership canhave undesirable (i.e., negative) effects on organizational outcomesbecause it constrains followers\u2019 autonomy and managerial discretion.Indeed, empirical evidence indicates that leaders who employ taskleadership in amounts that exceed employees\u2019 needs negatively im-pact employee attitudes such as trust in the leader, job satisfaction, andaffective commitment (Lambert et al., 2012). Furthermore, the samestudy reports that excess amounts of relational leadership do notimpact employee attitudes adversely (Lambert et al., 2012), a findingthat concurs with this study\u2019s observation that high levels of relationalleadership are more effective when accompanied by low relationshipculture.<\/p>\n
Another contribution to the leadership literature pertains to ourexamination of CEO leadership behaviors that go beyond thevisioning behavior captured by charismatic and transformationalleadership theories. Although research reveals a positive link be-tween both charismatic (Waldman et al., 2001) and transforma-tional leadership (Ling et al., 2008) and firm performance, scantresearch considers the role of CEO task and relational leadership.The omission of task and relational leadership in upper echelonsresearch is a notable omission in need of future research because<\/p>\n
groups need functional leadership (cf., Morgeson, DeRue, &Karam, 2010) and CEOs are ultimately responsible for the execu-tion of corporate strategies.<\/p>\n
In addition, the examination of interaction effects between CEOleadership and other social contextual factors may help explaininconsistent results linking task and relational leadership with firmperformance. Wang, Tsui, & Xin (2011) reported that CEO taskleadership was positively associated with firm performance whilerelationship leadership was nonsignificant. In contrast, our resultsdemonstrate the reverse; only relational leadership was correlatedwith firm performance. These conflicting results may be explainedby additional moderators or mediators, and this study suggests thatorganizational culture is one potential moderator to be consideredin future research. More generally, our results underscore the needto investigate how the alignment between CEOs\u2019 leadership be-havior and social contextual features within an organization influ-ence organizational effectiveness.<\/p>\n
Contextualizing culture\u2019s effects. Beyond culture being acontext in which leaders lead, an organizational culture\u2019s effective-ness depends on the CEO\u2019s leadership behavior. Previous meta-analytic findings concluded that task cultures (i.e., market) are directlyassociated with firm performance whereas relationship cultures (i.e.,clan) are not (Hartnell et al., 2011). The correlations reported in Table1 are consistent with those findings such that task cultures (r \ufffd .19,p \ufffd .05) are but relationship cultures (r \ufffd \ufffd.01, ns) are not signifi-cantly correlated with firm performance. This study builds on themeta-analytic research by providing evidence that the magnitude ofculture\u2019s impact on firm performance is conditional on other featuresof an organization\u2019s social contextual environment, such as CEOleadership behavior. Future research is needed to investigate thealignment between culture and other social contextual cues, such asorganizational climate and HR practices, to further investigate theconditions in which culture influences organizational effectiveness(Ostroff et al., 2013).<\/p>\n
Implications for P-E fit. The final theoretical implication per-tains to the P-E fit literature. This study compared levels of twosocial-normative features of the organizational environment, leader-ship and culture, and their impact on organizational effectiveness.This comparison is consistent conceptually with the P-E fit principleof \u201cgeneral compatibility\u201d (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). The prin-ciple of general compatibility provides an avenue to examine thecompatibility of components within an organizational system. Forexample, Lambert (2011) applied the general compatibility definitionof fit to investigate the fit between an employee\u2019s pay and work\u2014salient facets of employees\u2019 psychological contract appraisals\u2014 on<\/p>\n
Table 5Confidence Intervals for Predicted Points Representing the Relational Leadership\u2013Relationship Culture Interaction<\/p>\n
Relational Leadership Relationship Culture Y\u030295% Confidence<\/p>\n
interval Hypotheses<\/p>\n
Similarity perspective predicted points Similarity perspective hypothesis: Relational leadership and cultureLow relational leadership, low relationship culture .058 [.052, .064] H2: Relationship similarities relationship dissimilarities\u2013unsupportedHigh relational leadership, high relationship culture .061 [.055, .067]<\/p>\n
Dissimilarity perspective predicted points Dissimilarity perspective hypothesis: Relational leadership and cultureHigh relational leadership, low relationship culture .081 [.075, .087] H4: Relationship dissimilarities relationship similarities\u2013SupportedLow relational leadership, high relationship culture .075 [.069, .081]<\/p>\n
Note. N \ufffd 114. Y\u0302 \ufffd point estimate.<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
857EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE ON PERFORMANCE<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
their attitudes and behaviors. Although pay and work are not com-mensurate in what they measure, they are frequently compared interms of intrinsic calculations of equity between pay and performance(Lambert, 2011). Likewise, corresponding leadership and culture di-mensions (i.e., task leadership\u2014task culture or relational leadership\u2014relationship culture) are both prominent features of the social contextthat employees compare to evaluate the consistency of environmentalcues intended to direct their attention, attitudes, and effort. Our resultsthus inform theoretical path models linking leadership, culture, cli-mate, and HR practices (Ostroff et al., 2013) by suggesting that theinteractive relationships among variables may lend additional insightinto the effects on organizational outcomes beyond traditional linkagemodels. Future research may consider assessing system fit (Ostroff &Schulte, 2007), or the alignment among multiple components of anorganization\u2019s social context, through identifying distinct configura-tions and documenting their influence on organizational effectiveness(Ostroff, 2012).<\/p>\n
Although this study\u2019s pattern of results suggest that dissimilaritiesbetween task and relational leadership and culture enhance perfor-mance, not all dissimilarities between leadership and culture lead tocomplementarities that increase positive organizational outcomes.Leadership\u2014 culture dissimilarities may only result in complementa-rities that enhance organizational performance when the contextualcues efficiently meet what the group needs to be effective. Teamprocess theory, for example, is based on the proposition that task-oriented processes (i.e., action processes) and relationship-orientedprocesses (i.e., interpersonal processes) are needed for effective teamfunctioning (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Hence, we postu-lated that dissimilarities in corresponding leadership and culture di-mensions are beneficial because the organizational system needseither leadership or culture to emphasize task-oriented or relationship-oriented cues to foster unit effectiveness. Furthermore, dissimilarleadership\u2013 culture cues are effective to the extent that they avoidredundancies, increase efficiency, and signal to employees that tasksand relationships are instrumental to enhance organizational perfor-mance. Person and environment factors, however, may be importantboundary conditions that illuminate when dissimilarities betweenleadership and culture enhance organizational functioning. For in-stance, dissimilarities between high empowering leadership and a lowempowering climate would not be expected to increase performanceif employees do not possess the abilities to take on more responsibil-ities or have the environmental resources to utilize the empowerment.Hence, consistent with McGrath\u2019s (1962) functional leadership the-ory, organizational performance may only increase when social con-textual cues avoid redundancies and collectively meet needs that arenot being adequately handled by the group. Future research is neededto further explicate when dissimilarities in social contextual cues arebeneficial or deleterious to organizational performance.<\/p>\n
Managerial Implications<\/p>\n
This study\u2019s findings reveal a couple of important managerialimplications. First, CEOs need to be aware of the organization\u2019sculture and adjust their leadership styles accordingly, particularlybecause it is easier to change one\u2019s leadership behavior than tochange an organization\u2019s culture. Cultures that do not value em-ployee empowerment, prosocial employee interactions, and cohe-siveness, benefit from relationship-oriented leadership to buildpositive interpersonal relationships, employee cooperation, collab-<\/p>\n
oration, and support. When a culture lacks a high performance-based orientation focused on achieving goals or surpassing com-petitors, our results suggest that organizational performance wouldbenefit by leaders exhibition of task-oriented leadership to clarifyroles, deliver feedback, focus organizational efforts, and executetasks. CEOs should take caution, however, in employing highlevels of task leadership when the culture already fosters a highlycompetitive, task-focused environment. House (1996) warns thatwhen tasks are unambiguous, employees resent and resist taskleadership because they perceive it to be overbearing.<\/p>\n
Another important managerial implication is that effective CEOleadership behavior at one point in time may not be as effective inthe future. In nascent organizations, CEO leadership is an impor-tant input into creating and embedding organizational culture(Schein, 2010). Consequently, organizations may naturally drifttoward similarities between leadership and culture because cultureis a reflection of its founder. As organizations grapple withchanges in the competitive landscape, identify new ways to com-pete, and integrate internal efforts to meet changing customer andmarket demands, organizations may benefit more from differencesbetween leadership and culture. CEOs may thus need to adjusttheir leadership style over time to complement the organization\u2019sculture to remain effective. Founding CEOs, in particular, mayhave a challenging time modifying their leadership style giventheir identity and their significant investment in time and effort tolaunch a viable business. This suspicion is partly justified byevidence indicating that CEOs\u2019 founding status is negatively re-lated with firm performance in larger and older firms (Jayaraman,Khorana, Nelling, & Covin, 2000). It is thus important for CEOsto utilize upward feedback to assist in identifying their dominantleadership style and pursue leadership training and development tohelp them modify their behaviors.<\/p>\n
Limitations<\/p>\n
As with any study, consideration should be given to two poten-tial limitations. First, this study\u2019s results may not be generalizablebecause data were collected from firms exclusively in the high-technology industry, an industry well known for rapid technolog-ical advancements and environmental uncertainty. Although thisstudy found little support for the beneficial effects of similaritiesbetween leadership and culture, similarities may have more pro-nounced benefits in stable industries. Furthermore, similaritiesbetween leadership and culture may be more desirable in newlyformed organizations in which consistency is important to inte-grate and coordinate efforts toward organizational goals. Futureresearch is needed to test the extent to which the current findingsare consistent in more stable industries, nascent organizations, andother types of entities such as governmental organizations andnot-for-profit entities.<\/p>\n
Second, organizational culture was measured by TMT membersand the CEO. Although members of the upper echelon are keyinformants who are expected to be more accurate in their appraisalabout organizational values, policies, procedures, and HR practicesthan employees at lower levels of the organization, it would beuseful to replicate this study with a broader sample of employees.Furthermore, given the existence of subcultures (Sackmann, 1992),future research should assess the extent to which the organizationalculture is perceived similarly among employees throughout the<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
858 HARTNELL ET AL.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
organization (Martin, 1992) and assess the extent to which thissimilarity impacts important organizational performance.<\/p>\n
Future Research<\/p>\n
Our findings delineate four directions for future research.First, future research is needed to illuminate other macro,social-contextual characteristics that interact with leadership atthe strategic level to influence firm performance. Doing so willuncover additional factors CEOs should consider when apply-ing contingency-based approaches toward leadership (Avolio,Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). Researchers could begin by con-sidering the impact of other social contextual factors such ashigh performance work systems and organizational climate onCEO leadership and firm performance.<\/p>\n
Second, research is needed to further investigate the effect ofCEO founder status on the leadership\u2014 culture link. This studyincluded a small proportion of organizations with founding CEOs,attenuating the probability of detecting a significant moderatingeffect on the link between leadership and culture. Leadership andculture theory would be strengthened by efforts to design studies toinvestigate the magnitude and duration of CEO founders\u2019 (andtheir successors\u2019) leadership impact on organizational culture.Efforts to illuminate factors that attenuate founding and nonfound-ing CEOs\u2019 leadership influence on an organization\u2019s culture wouldalso shed valuable insight into the dynamics undergirding therelationship between leadership and culture.<\/p>\n
Third, future research is needed to investigate the relationshipbetween leadership and culture over time. The interactive effectsof leadership and culture underscore the importance of designinglongitudinal research to explore their dynamic interplay and doc-ument the extent to which reciprocal relationships exist. Longitu-dinal leadership\u2013 culture research will help clarify standing empir-ical questions such as defining whether and when leadership is astronger predictor of culture or vice versa. Much more longitudinalwork is needed to refine and test theory about the interactive,dynamic, and reciprocal relationship between leadership and cul-ture over time.<\/p>\n
Finally, future research is needed to unfold the complexities ofthe relationship between leadership and culture across levelswithin an organization. Does the positive effect of dissimilaritiesand negative effect of similarities between leadership and culturegeneralize to lower levels of management? Frontline employeesmay require more informational consistency than TMT membersto ensure that their attention and effort comply with organizationalpolicies, procedures, and goals. Given the more frequent behav-ioral interactions between lower-level supervisors and their directreports, it would be valuable to know if similarities and dissimi-larities between leadership and culture retain the same form andfunction as one moves down the organization.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
Our results highlight the importance of the interactive effectof leadership and culture on firm performance. We hope thatthis study\u2019s results spur additional interest into better under-standing and articulating the nuances undergirding the interac-tive relationship between leadership and culture. Such researchwill add significant insight into the roles leadership and culture<\/p>\n
play in organizations and their respective influence on organi-zational performance.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters toCEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporateperformance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42,507\u2013525. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2307\/256973<\/p>\n
Agle, B. R., Nagarajan, N. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Srinivasan, D. (2006).Does CEO charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationshipsamong organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and topmanagement team perceptions of CEO charisma. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 49, 161\u2013174. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.5465\/AMJ.2006.20785800<\/p>\n
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership:Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review ofPsychology, 60, 421\u2013 449. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621<\/p>\n
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice\u2013Hall.<\/p>\n
Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. (2015).Collective organizational engagement: Linking motivational anteced-ents, strategic implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 58, 111\u2013135. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.5465\/amj.2013.0227<\/p>\n
Bass, B. J., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory,research, & managerial implications. New York, NY: Free Press.<\/p>\n
Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational cultureand firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615\u2013 633.http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1002\/job.499<\/p>\n
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structuralequation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17, 303\u2013316. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1177\/0049124189017003004<\/p>\n
Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational effec-tiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 11, 238 \u2013263. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2307\/2391247<\/p>\n
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin,S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams?A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288 \u2013307. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.leaqua.2006.02.007<\/p>\n
Burns, G. N., Kotrba, L. M., & Denison, D. R. (2013). Leader\u2013 culture fit:Aligning leadership and corporate culture. In H. S. Leonard, R. Lewis,A. M. Freedman, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbookof the psychology of leadership, change, and organizational develop-ment (pp. 113\u2013128). Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1002\/9781118326404.ch6<\/p>\n
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementaryfit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 89, 822\u2013 834. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/0021-9010.89.5.822<\/p>\n
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing orga-nizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Reading,MA: Addison Wesley.<\/p>\n
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2006).Competing values leadership: Creating value in organizations.Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.4337\/9781847201560<\/p>\n
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upperechelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences oftop management team composition. Journal of Management, 30, 749 \u2013778. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jm.2004.06.001<\/p>\n
Charan, R., & Colvin, G. (1999). Why CEOs fail. Fortune, 69 \u201378.Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit<\/p>\n
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Mod-eling, 9, 233\u2013255. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1207\/S15328007SEM0902_5<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
859EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE ON PERFORMANCE<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multipleregression\/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).New York, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\n
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizationalculture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6, 204 \u2013223. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1287\/orsc.6.2.204<\/p>\n
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011).Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integrative meta-analytictest of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7\u201352. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x<\/p>\n
Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006). Systematic variationin organizationally-shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadershipbased on organizational form. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 487\u2013505.http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.leaqua.2006.07.005<\/p>\n
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu,J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Cur-rent theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quar-terly, 25, 36 \u2013 62. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.leaqua.2013.11.005<\/p>\n
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY:Guilford Press.<\/p>\n
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms.The Academy of Management Review, 9, 47\u201353.<\/p>\n
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.<\/p>\n
Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: Oneview of the future. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241\u2013250.http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2307\/2393716<\/p>\n
Fiedler, F. E., & House, R. J. (1994). Leadership theory and research: A reportof progress. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Key reviews inmanagerial psychology (pp. 97\u2013116). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wi-ley.<\/p>\n
Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail: And what you can learnfrom their mistakes. New York, NY: Penguin Books.<\/p>\n
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategicleadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams,and boards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin,A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description ofleader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leader-ship Quarterly, 2, 245\u2013287. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/1048-9843(91)90016-U<\/p>\n
Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2009). License tofail? How leader group prototypicality moderates the effects of leaderperformance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. The LeadershipQuarterly, 20, 434 \u2013 451. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.leaqua.2009.03.012<\/p>\n
Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the Leader BehaviorDescriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior:Its description and measurement (Monograph No. 88., pp. 39 \u201351).Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Re-search.<\/p>\n
Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational cultureand organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of thecompeting values framework\u2019s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 96, 677\u2013 694. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/a0021987<\/p>\n
Hartnell, C. A., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Transformational leadership andorganizational culture: Toward integrating a multilevel framework. In N. M.Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook oforganizational culture and climate (Vol. 2, pp. 225\u2013248). London,United Kingdom: Sage. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.4135\/9781483307961.n13<\/p>\n
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York,NY: Wiley. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/10628-000<\/p>\n
Hirschfeld, R. R., Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., & Rizzuto, T. E. (2013).Voluntary survey completion among team members: Implications of<\/p>\n
noncompliance and missing data for multilevel research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 98, 454 \u2013 468. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/a0031909<\/p>\n
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2015). Strategic manage-ment: Competitiveness and globalization (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.<\/p>\n
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality andSocial Psychology Review, 5, 184 \u2013200. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1207\/S15327957PSPR0503_1<\/p>\n
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader-effectiveness. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 16, 321\u2013338. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2307\/2391905<\/p>\n
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and areformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323\u2013352. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/S1048-9843(96)90024-7<\/p>\n
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-groupinter-rater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 69, 85\u201398. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/0021-9010.69.1.85<\/p>\n
Jayaraman, N., Khorana, A., Nelling, E., & Covin, J. (2000). CEO founderstatus and firm financial performance. Strategic Management Journal,21, 1215\u20131224. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1002\/1097-0266(200012)21:12\ufffd1215::AID-SMJ1463.0.CO;2-0<\/p>\n
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? Thevalidity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36 \u201351. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/0021-9010.89.1.36<\/p>\n
Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. C. (1950). Productivity, supervision,and morale in an office situation. Detroit, MI: The Darel Press, Inc.<\/p>\n
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192\u2013240). Lincoln, NE:University of Nebraska Press.<\/p>\n
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psy-chologist, 28, 107\u2013128. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/h0034225<\/p>\n
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaningand measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22,375\u2013 403. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/0030-5073(78)90023-5<\/p>\n
Klimoski, R. (2013). Commentary: When it comes to leadership, contextmatters. In M. G. Rumsey (Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadership (pp.267\u2013287). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n
Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person-environment fit. In S.Zedek (Ed.), Handbook of industrial\/organizational psychology (Vol. 3,pp. 3\u201350). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.<\/p>\n
Lambert, L. S. (2011). Promised and delivered inducements and contribu-tions: An integrated view of psychological contract appraisal. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 96, 695\u2013712. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/a0021692<\/p>\n
Lambert, L. S., Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Holt, D. T., & Barelka, A. J.(2012). Forgotten but not gone: An examination of fit between leaderconsideration and initiating structure needed and received. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 97, 913\u2013930. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/a0028970<\/p>\n
Lawrence, K. A., Lenk, P., & Quinn, R. E. (2009). Behavioral complexityin leadership: The psychometric properties of a new instrument tomeasure behavioral repertoire. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 87\u2013102.http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.leaqua.2009.01.014<\/p>\n
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.<\/p>\n
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The impactof transformational CEOs on the performance of small- to medium-sizedfirms: Does organizational context matter? Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 93, 923\u2013934. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/0021-9010.93.4.923<\/p>\n
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally basedframework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of ManagementReview, 26, 356 \u2013376.<\/p>\n
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
860 HARTNELL ET AL.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for lead-ership training. Washington, DC: Civil Service Commission, Office ofCareer Development.<\/p>\n
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY:Harper & Row.<\/p>\n
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership inteams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures andprocesses. Journal of Management, 36, 5\u201339. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1177\/0149206309347376<\/p>\n
Newman, D. A. (2009). Missing data techniques and low response rates:The role of systematic nonresponse parameters. In C. E. Lance & R. J.Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urbanlegends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and socialsciences (pp. 7\u201336). New York, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\n
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organizationalculture and performance: Empiricial evidence from UK companies.International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 766 \u2013788.http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1080\/09585190050075114<\/p>\n
O\u2019Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work groupdemography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 34, 21\u201337. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2307\/2392984<\/p>\n
O\u2019Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control:Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Be-havior, 18, 157\u2013200.<\/p>\n
O\u2019Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People andorganizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessingperson-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487\u2013516.http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2307\/256404<\/p>\n
Ostroff, C. (2012). Person\u2013 environment fit in organizational settings. InS. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford handbook of organizational psychol-ogy (Vol. 1, pp. 373\u2013 408). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Muhammad, R. S. (2013). Organizationalculture and climate. In I. B. Weiner, N. W. Schmitt, & S. Highhouse(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizationalpsychology (pp. 643\u2013 676). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.<\/p>\n
Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2007). Multiple perspectives of fit in organi-zations across levels of analysis. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.),Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 3\u2013 69). New York, NY: Erlbaum.<\/p>\n
Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., & Peterson, S. J. (in press). Do humble CEOsmatter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. Journal ofManagement. Advance online publication.<\/p>\n
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership:Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. PersonnelPsychology, 65, 565\u2013596. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1744-6570.2012.01253.x<\/p>\n
Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (1996). A motivational investigation ofgroup effectiveness using social-cognitive theory. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81, 187\u2013198. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/0021-9010.81.2.187<\/p>\n
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectivenesscriteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analy-sis. Management Science, 29, 363\u2013377. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1287\/mnsc.29.3.363<\/p>\n
Reina, C. S., Zhang, Z., & Peterson, S. J. (2014). CEO grandiose narcis-sism and firm performance: The role of organizational identification.The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 958 \u2013971. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.leaqua.2014.06.004<\/p>\n
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. NewYork, NY: Wiley. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1002\/9780470316696<\/p>\n
Sackmann, S. A. (1992). Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organi-zational knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 140 \u2013161.http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2307\/2393536<\/p>\n
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the stateof the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147\u2013177. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/1082-989X.7.2.147<\/p>\n
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,40, 437\u2013 453. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x<\/p>\n
Schriesheim, C. A., & Stogdill, R. M. (1975). Differences in factor struc-ture across three versions of the Ohio State leadership scales. PersonnelPsychology, 28, 189 \u2013206. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01380.x<\/p>\n
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment betweenmanagers\u2019 words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science,13, 18 \u201335. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1287\/orsc.13.1.18.543<\/p>\n
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modelingthe multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integra-tion. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 69 \u2013 84. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.5465\/AMJ.2005.15993139<\/p>\n
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior DescriptionQuestionnaire, Form XII. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research,The Ohio State University.<\/p>\n
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1991). Cultural leadership in organizations.Organization Science, 2, 149 \u2013169. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1287\/orsc.2.2.149<\/p>\n
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the socialprocesses of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17,654 \u2013 676. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.leaqua.2006.10.007<\/p>\n
Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for proceduralfairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not.Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235\u2013244. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/a0012936<\/p>\n
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrificeand leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypi-cality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25\u201337. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1037\/0021-9010.90.1.25<\/p>\n
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Doesleadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability underconditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 44, 134 \u2013143. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2307\/3069341<\/p>\n
Wang, H., Tsui, A. S., & Xin, K. R. (2011). CEO leadership behaviors,organizational performance, and employees\u2019 attitudes. The LeadershipQuarterly, 22, 92\u2013105.<\/p>\n
Wilderom, C. P. M., van den Berg, P. T., & Wiersma, U. J. (2012). Alongitudinal study of the effects of charismatic leadership and organi-zational culture on objective and perceived corporate performance. TheLeadership Quarterly, 23, 835\u2013 848. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.leaqua.2012.04.002<\/p>\n
Xenikou, A., & Simosi, M. (2006). Organizational culture and transfor-mational leadership as predictors of business unit performance. Journalof Managerial Psychology, 21, 566 \u2013579. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1108\/02683940610684409<\/p>\n
Yukl, G. (2011). Contingency theories of effective leadership. In A. Bry-man, B. Jackson, K. Grint, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Sage handbook ofleadership (pp. 284 \u2013296). London England: Sage.<\/p>\n
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy ofleadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 15\u201332. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1177\/107179190200900102<\/p>\n
Zohar, D., & Hofmann, D. A. (2012). Organizational culture and climate.In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford handbook of organizational psy-chology (Vol. 1, pp. 643\u2013 666). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.<\/p>\n
Received November 10, 2014Revision received November 30, 2015<\/p>\n
Accepted December 17, 2015 \ufffd<\/p>\n
Thi<\/p>\n
sdo<\/p>\n
cum<\/p>\n
ent<\/p>\n
isco<\/p>\n
pyri<\/p>\n
ghte<\/p>\n
dby<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
Am<\/p>\n
eric<\/p>\n
anP<\/p>\n
sych<\/p>\n
olog<\/p>\n
ical<\/p>\n
Ass<\/p>\n
ocia<\/p>\n
tion<\/p>\n
oron<\/p>\n
eof<\/p>\n
its<\/p>\n
alli<\/p>\n
edpu<\/p>\n
blis<\/p>\n
hers<\/p>\n
.T<\/p>\n
his<\/p>\n
arti<\/p>\n
cle<\/p>\n
isin<\/p>\n
tend<\/p>\n
edso<\/p>\n
lely<\/p>\n
for<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
pers<\/p>\n
onal<\/p>\n
use<\/p>\n
ofth<\/p>\n
ein<\/p>\n
divi<\/p>\n
dual<\/p>\n
user<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
isno<\/p>\n
tto<\/p>\n
bedi<\/p>\n
ssem<\/p>\n
inat<\/p>\n
edbr<\/p>\n
oadl<\/p>\n
y.<\/p>\n
861EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE ON PERFORMANCE<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u2013 Do Similarities or Differences Between CEO Leadership andOrganizational Culture Have a More Positive Effect on Firm Performance? A Test of Competing Predictions Chad A. HartnellGeorgia State University Angelo J. KinickiArizona State University Lisa Schurer LambertGeorgia State University Mel FugateUniversity of South Australia Patricia Doyle CornerAuckland University of Technology This study examines the nature of … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147476"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147476\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/academicwritersbay.com\/answers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}