The Power of Followers That do not Follow: Investigating the Effects of Follower Resistance, Leader Implicit Followership Theories and Leader Negative Affect on the Emergence of Destructive Leader Behavior

This study focuses on follower resistance as a potential antecedent of destructive leader behavior and examines leader-related moderators and mediators to help explain the relationship between follower resistance and destructive leader behavior. Drawing from implicit followership theories, we propose that the relationship between follower resistance and destructive leader behavior is moderated by leaders’ Theory X schema. Furthermore, we build on affective events theory to hypothesize that follower resistance increases destructive leader behavior via leaders’ negative affect. We tested our hypotheses in a within-subjects online field experiment. Our study findings demonstrate that follower resistance increases destructive leader behavior and that this relationship is mediated through leaders’ negative affect and moderated by leaders’ Theory X schema. We discuss theoretical implications regarding the impact of (resistant) follower behavior on destructive leadership and offer methodological advances in terms of research design and analytical approaches to deal with endogeneity issues and derive causal inferences. Lastly, we derive practical implications for utilizing follower resistance.

The Relationship between Reinforcement of Employee’s Customer-Centric Behavior and Employee Motivation Factors.

Currently, there is little doubt that factors such as intensifying competition, high job turnovers, increased market diversity and technological advances demand the present organizations to invest in strategies that encourage customer-centric behaviors. To overcome these challenges and ensure employees to be more customer-oriented, the present author suggests integrated solutions based on prior major motivation theories such as Theory X and Y, Maslow's theory and Herzberg's two factor theory. As a result, the present research explains methods that companies can use to ensure that employees are motivated and satisfied, insisting that employee satisfaction and motivation play a huge role in ensuring that the organization is running smoothly and effectively. Also, the present author points out that adopting better employee incentive programs motivate employees to embrace practices that ensure customer satisfaction and company productivity. Organizations that fail to use the most appropriate incentives to drive their employees suffer huge losses.

Leadership and perception of beauty

<p>Many fields explore the origins of leadership qualities, with Galton’s (1874; 1869) ‘nature vs nurture’ contention being the central point of conjecture. Contemporarily, Galton’s (1874; 1869) ‘nature versus nurture’ contention has been re-imagined as ‘personality versus expertise’. Although contemporary literature attempts conflating terminology specific to either personality and behaviour, the phenomena remain distinct (Bass, 1990; Beebe, 2010; Burns, 1978; Cattell, 1943b; Kania & Richards, 2012; Stogdill, 1974; 1948). Moreover, Theory X and Theory Y conflate leaders who maintain willing fellowship and those who can compel others to follow. With regard to personality and expertise literature, as well as McGregor’s (2002) Theory X and Theory Y, Ladkin’s (2008) philosophy-based ‘leading beautifully’ paradigm is discussed. Following which, a new ‘leading beautifully’ model is proposed emphasising willing fellowship’s role in leadership, as well as leaders’ inherent ableness to perceive harmonious forms. It is proposed that all individuals are born potential leaders, psyches expressed through personality which predicts their situation-based leadership (Duke, 1986; Ladkin, 2008). Ultimately, leaders with greater mastery of leadership will become better leaders, but inherently all individuals may lead.</p>

Leadership and perception of beauty

<p>Many fields explore the origins of leadership qualities, with Galton’s (1874; 1869) ‘nature vs nurture’ contention being the central point of conjecture. Contemporarily, Galton’s (1874; 1869) ‘nature versus nurture’ contention has been re-imagined as ‘personality versus expertise’. Although contemporary literature attempts conflating terminology specific to either personality and behaviour, the phenomena remain distinct (Bass, 1990; Beebe, 2010; Burns, 1978; Cattell, 1943b; Kania & Richards, 2012; Stogdill, 1974; 1948). Moreover, Theory X and Theory Y conflate leaders who maintain willing fellowship and those who can compel others to follow. With regard to personality and expertise literature, as well as McGregor’s (2002) Theory X and Theory Y, Ladkin’s (2008) philosophy-based ‘leading beautifully’ paradigm is discussed. Following which, a new ‘leading beautifully’ model is proposed emphasising willing fellowship’s role in leadership, as well as leaders’ inherent ableness to perceive harmonious forms. It is proposed that all individuals are born potential leaders, psyches expressed through personality which predicts their situation-based leadership (Duke, 1986; Ladkin, 2008). Ultimately, leaders with greater mastery of leadership will become better leaders, but inherently all individuals may lead.</p>

The Optimal Capital Structure under the Conditions of Employment: An Application of Theory X and Theory Y

The traditional theories governing the capital structure decisions completely ignore the human side of the enterprise (e.g. attitude to work). The objective of this paper is to identify the optimal mix of Theory X and Theory Y type employees to be employed by an organization in order to maintain (i.e. unaffected by the type of employees at work) the optimal level of capital structure. The classification of an employee into Theory X and Theory of Y is made based on the organizational contribution conditional on motivation rather than merely considering the attitude to work. Internal motivation of an employee (i.e. inherently likes or dislikes) alone cannot be identified as the criterion of recognizing employees under Theory X and Theory of Y. Level of attainment of needs within the organization, psychological state of mind and cultural dimension (i.e. individualism-collectivism) of the individual attached to the organization are the main behavioural criteria that distinguish between Theory X-type and Theory Y-type employees. This paper shows that the optimal capital structure is unaffected by the employment mix at the optimal level of Theory X and Theory Y type employees employed by an organization. The firms’ managers must therefore consider the behavioral aspects of employees (e.g. attitude to risk) when making organizational decisions such as financial decisions. For example, mismatches in the capital structure can be explained by a careful analysis of behavioral aspects of employees. By making necessary adjustments to the current employment mix, the firm could eliminate the mismatches in the firm’s capital structure.