The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Tierney, P., & Farmer, S.M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277-293.

Employee creativity is a critical component of an organization’s ability to be innovative. This creativity, also known as creative performance, refers to an employee’s ability to generate novel and practical ideas or solutions. One effective way that supervisors can increase creative performance is by enhancing their employees’ belief in their own ability to be creative. This belief in one’s own ability to generate creative ideas or solutions is called creative self-efficacy.

Factors Influencing Creative Self-Efficacy

Listed below are two broad factors that play a role in increasing creative self-efficacy in employees.

• Perceived Creativity Expectations. This refers to the degree to which an employee perceives expectations for creative performance from their supervisor. If employees believe that their supervisors have high creative expectations of them, then they are more likely to have high creative self-efficacy. This relationship exists because when employees know that their supervisors believe in their creative abilities, employees strive to meet those creative expectations and, in turn, gain more confidence in their creative abilities over time.
• Formal Job Creativity Requirements. This refers to the degree to which a job requires the employee to create novel solutions to problems that they encounter on the job. Unlike perceived creativity expectations, when a job’s formal creativity requirements are increased, employees experience a decrease in creative self-efficacy. This relationship may exist because greater formal job demands, in general, tend to lessen an employee’s feelings of self-efficacy as well as his overall job performance.

Why is it Important to Promote Creative Self-Efficacy?

It is important to promote creative self-efficacy in employees because increases in creative self-efficacy are related to increases in creative performance. Hence, supervisors should strive to increase creative self-efficacy in their employees by using the factors described above because creative self-efficacy gives employees the confidence they need to be creative problem-solvers.

Practical Implications

To some degree, organizations can shape creative self-efficacy and creative performance in their employees. Jobs vary greatly in how much creativity they require. For jobs that require a great deal of creativity, supervisors should be provided with leadership training on how to increase creative self-efficacy in their employees.

Supervisors should be mindful when adding more creativity requirements into their employees’ jobs because these additional formal demands can decrease employees’ confidence in their ability to be creative problem-solvers. When additional creativity requirements must be added, supervisors should also provide employees with additional training in creativity skill development in order to meet these new job requirements.

Interpretation by:

Mackenzi Harmon

DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: De Pater, I., Van Vianen, A., Bechtoldt, M., & Klehe, U. (2009). Employees’ challenging job experiences and supervisors’ evaluations of promotability. Personnel Psychology, 62 (2). 297-325.

Understanding why certain employees are promoted is critical at both an individual and organizational level. At the individual level, it is important to understand what factors affect career advancement. At an organizational level, a thorough understanding of what factors lead to employee success in a higher position is imperative for succession planning and managing employees. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the various factors that contribute to promotion can be beneficial at both the individual and organizational level.

What Makes an Employee “Promotable”?

Many factors influence whether or not an employee will be promoted in an organization including:

• Job performance – Promotion decisions are often made based on job performance. That is, if employees are successfully completing tasks outlined as part of their current position, it is assumed that they will also have the skills necessary to successfully complete tasks in the next position “up the ladder”.
• Challenging experiences – The type of task that is completed is often another important consideration in promotion decisions. As employees engage in more challenging and complex tasks, their likelihood of success in higher positions increases.
• Promotability evaluations – Many organizations conduct promotability evaluations in order to determine if a supervisor believes an individual could adequately perform at a higher level in the organization. These evaluations can include supervisors’ perceptions of current job performance and work experience.

Each of these factors must be examined simultaneously in order to determine if an employee is ready for a promotion. Job performance alone is not a good indicator, as many times one’s current performance will not be predictive of their success in a more complex position.

Therefore, examining current performance in conjunction with how current tasks overlap (or don’t) with those of the higher position is imperative.  This is because tasks required for a higher position are often more challenging and complex and employees who volunteer for those complex tasks may be more qualified and motivated to take on the tasks that would be required by a higher position.

Ultimately, the decision is based upon the individual’s knowledge, skills, and abilities, to determine whether he or she has the potential to succeed in a more complex position.

Practical Implications

In today’s competitive and ever-changing business environment promotion decisions are important not only to organizations for succession planning, but also essential to individuals interested in career development and advancement. Therefore, several considerations should be taken to ensure success.

• Organizations – To ensure employees are ready for promotion, it is important to evaluate not only the level of current individual performance, but also the types of tasks the individuals are partaking in to determine if they qualify for a higher position.
• Individuals – Individuals wishing to advance their career should be encouraged to take on complex tasks that are a good fit for their current skills and abilities.  During this time, staying connected to the organization and working closely with a supervisor will help to avoid any negative effects (i.e. reduced quality of work, decreased productivity, etc.), as the employee works to increase overall contribution and performance.

Ultimately, the decision for promotion will be up to the supervisor. Many times this decision is important for both the individual and the organization as a whole. Therefore, various factors should be taken into consideration before a final verdict is reached.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Andrews, J., Cameron, H., & Harris, M. (2008). All change? Managers’ experience of organizational change in theory and practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(3), 300-314.

Managing organizational change is much more complex than traditionally taught in management courses. The unique environment and culture of each organization presents challenges to practicing organizational change theories outside of a classroom setting.

Traditional change management courses present various challenges with generic solutions, however, the complexity in each organizational setting often presents unique challenges. Research on organizational change has identified some common issues that can help the change managers anticipate challenges and effectively overcome them in almost any situation

Common issues surrounding implementing and managing organizational change:

Asking those involved with implementing organizational change about their experiences identifies a number of potential problems which affect the success of a change implementation program. The most common issues identified are:

• Politics involved in coordinating different teams/departments in the organization.

Many times change initiated by one part of an organization will have effects in other parts. The politics between different parts of an organization can either help or hinder the change process. Understanding which areas are likely to be change proponents or opponents is essential.

• Ingrained organizational cultures and norms that may be resistant to change.

Many times there are aspects of organizational culture that are openly resistant to change. Successfully navigating an organization’s culture involves identifying the norms and aspects that will be most resistant to change implementation initiatives.

• Resistance and obstacles to change stemming from colleagues or subordinates.

Not only are different areas of an organization resistant to change efforts, but many times one’s own coworkers and direct subordinates will be resistant to change. A key to successful change implementation will be assisting those closest to implications to come to terms with accepting the changes.

• Emphasis on the speed in which a change should be implemented.

One of the most difficult issues surrounding organizational change is the expectation that it be implemented quickly. Often times, the quicker a change is implemented, the more difficult it is for those affected to adjust. The conflict between management’s needs (quick implementation) and the needs of organization membership (more time to adjust) make it difficult to strike an appropriate balance.

• Existing organizational values that conflict with those implied by the need for organizational change.

Often sweeping organizational changes will imply that the values currently held by organization members are somehow “incorrect”, or that the organization will no longer value the same things after the change is implemented. While this may be the case in some instances, many times it is not. Helping others reconcile these differences (real or perceived) will be essential for successful implementation.

How to overcome obstacles to change implementation:

Many organizations miss opportunities to learn from organizational change processes – by failing to monitor or evaluate the outcomes of changes that were implemented. Not taking the time to analyze the strengths/weaknesses of change implementation programs, increases the likelihood for repeated procedural mistakes.

Learning how others experience organizational change and put theories into practice can be helpful, particularly for those new to positions responsible for implementing and managing organizational change.

Two overarching themes are related to overcoming each of the potential issues identified earlier:

• Adopt an advocacy role:

Act as a mentor/advocate for others by sharing your knowledge to help them understand why change is needed and what the implications are.

• Involve stakeholders:

Those affected by change will be more likely to accept its implications if they are given a voice in the implementation process. Including both internal and external stakeholders at all steps of the process will ensure they feel a sense of ownership and support for efforts.

Both of these themes will help others understand the context for why change is needed and help motivate them to move forward with the process despite the challenges associated with it.

Interpretation by:

Kathleen Melcher

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Colbert, A. E., & Witt, L. A. (2009). The role of goal-focused leadership in enabling the expression of conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 790-796.

Conscientiousness is a trait that affects job performance across almost all occupations. This is not surprising, as highly conscientious people tend to be very focused, orderly, planful, diligent, hard working and loyal, all characteristics that are valuable for success in most jobs.

The conscientiousness of job applicants is often assessed using interviews or personality tests during the selection process. However, recent research indicates that selecting the most conscientious applicants does not necessarily mean they will be highly effective performers. Two important factors must also be considered: (1) leadership and (2) how it interacts with a person’s level of conscientiousness to influence job performance.  In other words, conscientiousness often must be enabled by organizational leaders.

Goal-Focused Leadership

The work environment is significantly shaped by supervisors’ leadership behaviors. Supervisors demonstrate goal-focused leadership when they communicate to their subordinates the valued goals of the organization.

Goal-focused leadership influences the extent to which conscientious behavior is expressed in the workplace. Effective goal-focused leaders provide cues that shape expectations about work behavior. Workers higher in conscientiousness pick up on conscientiousness-valued cues provided by leaders, which allow them to express their natural personality tendencies toward achievement striving, diligence, planning, persistence, etc. On the other hand, people who are low in conscientiousness (i.e., more impulsive, less persistent, less detail-oriented) may not pick up on the same cues as well as their more conscientious coworkers.

Highly conscientious workers tend to receive higher performance ratings than low conscientious workers when goal-focused leadership is present. However, when goal-focused leadership is not present, employees low and high in conscientiousness tend to receive similar, average performance ratings.

Goal Congruence: Leadership-Person Interaction

One of the factors that partially explains why goal-focused leadership results in more conscientious employees receiving superior performance ratings is the effect of that type of leadership on aligning the goals of employees with the goals of their organization. Conscientious employees pay attention to the goal-focused messages delivered by their supervisors and act in accordance with them. Such goal matching does not appear to occur with less conscientious employees. As with performance, when goal-focused leadership is low, levels of employee-organization goal matching are similar for both low-level and high-level conscientiousness employees.

Practical Implications

Considering the above points, some recommendations can be drawn for best implementing these findings in the workplace:

• Measure applicant conscientiousness as part of the hiring process. Although conscientiousness by itself may not be enough to increase performance, instituting greater goal-focused leadership can result in more productive outcomes if the employees being lead are more conscientious.  One of the best ways to measure conscientiousness is with reliable, validated personality inventories that were developed to assess that trait.
• Promote a goal-focused leadership style among supervisors/managers. Supervisors should be encouraged to communicate goals that are clear, specific, concise, realistic, and aligned with the performance needs of the organization.
• As part of goal-focused leadership, ensure that employees’ work goals are consistent with those of the organization.  Use employee surveys, focus groups, or even just informal discussion to assess to what extent goal-focused leaders are getting their messages across to workers.

It should be acknowledged that, while not true in all cases, in many instances a lack of clear goals may leave many employees confused over their roles and expectations. Clearly communicating valued goals can enable conscientious employees to act on their work-related dispositional tendencies, which allows them do what they do best.

Interpretation by:

Don Johnson

DeGarmo Group

The following article is a summary of the research and practice implications from: DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of Applied psychology, 94, 859 – 875.

Organizations spend billions of dollars on leadership development each year in hopes of reaping benefits of superior leadership (e.g., productive employees, strategic growth, higher profits). While most of these billions are spent on programs conducted outside of the leaders’ day-to-day jobs, informal on-the-job experiences and challenges prove to be the most educational and enriching for leaders.

Up for a Challenge?

The on-the-job experiences that provide opportunity for growth are those that challenge leaders, stretching them beyond their current knowledge base. Such developmental challenges involve:

• Unfamiliar responsibilities – handling new responsibilities and job duties
• Creating change – making changes in processes and employees’ behavior to solve problems and improve the organization
• High levels of responsibilities – managing important and complex projects and initiatives
• Working across boundaries – managing and influencing people or processes over which one does not have direct authority
• Managing diversity – leading people with different backgrounds, gender, ethnicity, and cultures

However, there comes a point when a developmental challenge can be too much for a leader to mentally process. At this point, the challenge results in diminishing returns due to the leader’s limited capacity to process the event/situation and overarousal and mental strain caused by anxiety and uncertainty of how to handle the challenge.

Leaders may vary in the amount and type of challenge they can handle; however, after a certain point, a leader will not gain any leadership skill development.

Feedback Availability

Although there may be situations that are too challenging for a leader to gain any developmental benefits, by making feedback readily available to the leader, the likelihood of such experiences still being productive will increase. Feedback provides support, reflection, and information helpful for the leader to handle a challenge and turn it into a learning experience.

Implications for Practice

In order for leaders to develop their leadership skills most effectively and efficiently, organizations need to provide the opportunity for them to be challenged on the job. While seemingly practical and informative alone, only so much can be gained from leadership training outside of the everyday workplace if it is not accompanied with on-the-job experiences and challenges.

Experiences on the job allow leaders to stretch their limits and learn. The key is to know leaders’ limits. By closely monitoring and supporting them through challenging experiences, leaders will continue to expand their leadership abilities and lead their organization to the next level.

Interpretation by:

Lexy Adkins

The DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Avolio, B.J., & Hannah, S.T. (2009). Leader developmental readiness. Industrial Organizational Psychology, 2, 284-287.

Organizations need leaders to move them in the right direction. Strong leaders can be developed, but how can organizations know when a person is ready for leadership development? Organizations must start by enhancing their capabilities for leadership development by focusing on individual’s “developmental readiness”.

What is developmental readiness?

Developmental readiness (DR) is a person’s ability and motivation to add new knowledge/information into the long-term memory. There are five factors that are generally related to one’s leadership developmental readiness.

• The nature of one’s goals:

People who are learning goal-oriented see themselves as continuously improving through learning and are more likely to use/solicit feedback for developmental purposes, while those who are performance goal-oriented are more likely to view themselves as having less flexibility for development and avoid challenging opportunities where they may face failure or negative feedback.

• The level of someone’s confidence in their developmental ability:

How confident a person is in their ability to improve (or develop) a particular skill or ability influences the way information related to development is interpreted and used, which can partly determine how engaged a person will be in leader development.

• The level of self-awareness a person has:

How clear people’s views of themselves are can affect how well they are able to incorporate developmental experiences and feedback. The greater the clarity a person has, the better the ability to find meaning in developmental opportunities and feedback.

• The level of self-complexity a person has:

Higher levels of complexity are indicative of greater cognitive and affective associations, and better ability to process and refine developmental information.

• The possession of second-order thinking:

Having an awareness of personal cognitive strengths and weaknesses allows a leader to reflect on experiences and focus on how they are being interpreted.

How can organizations use DR for development?

Leadership is contextualized, meaning the organization’s environment has an effect on the DR of its individuals. The environment in which DR occurs can aid or retard an individual’s development.

Those responsible for developing leaders must be able to adapt their techniques/modes of development to the individual through providing individual consideration.

Interpretation by:

Kathleen Melcher

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C.D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 62-76.

Phrases like “being on the same page” or “seeing eye to eye” indicate a level of agreement in understanding among two or more people. Understanding is especially important when the parties in question are teams and their leaders. A lack of mutual understanding between leaders and teams can result in maladaptive actions that impede performance and development.

Perceptual Distance

Perceptual distance refers to the amount of disagreement between what a leader perceives versus what a team perceives. The greater the perceptual distance between a leader and his or her team, the more likely each side will have different ideas about what is being done or should be done.

Different expectations or pursuing conflicting courses of action can lead to negative feelings for both team members and leaders. Such discrepancies can also result in teams and leaders failing to recognize or capitalize on catalysts, which are events or things that stimulate teams to break out of a stale routine or ineffective performance pattern. Examples of catalysts include performance appraisals and being aware of group processes, such as conflict, within one’s team.

Goal Accomplishments and Perceptual Distance

When leaders have a higher sense of goal accomplishment than their team, there is a negative effect on performance. Interestingly, performance tends to be much lower when teams have a higher sense of goal accomplishment than do their leaders. Performance is best when the perceptual distance between leaders’ and teams’ ideas on goal accomplishment is small, and both have a high sense of goal attainment.

Constructive Conflict and Perceptual Distance

Constructive conflict is conflict centered on developing productive solutions to challenges by using debate and discussion. This type of “good” conflict exhibits a similar set of relationships with perceptual distance for teams and leaders as does goal accomplishment. That is, performance is more negatively impacted when team members’ believe they have enough constructive criticism while their supervisor thinks they don’t use enough constructive criticism.

Implications for Practice

Based on these results, human resource professionals should:

• Have a clear set of explicit work goals (e.g., meeting a deadline) that are mutually understood by both teams and their leaders.
• Develop a common idea of low, medium, and high performance that teams and leaders both can independently recognize.
• Encourage more sharing of ideas between supervisors and teams on how to increase performance.

Overall, ensuring that supervisors and their teams work together on having similar conceptions of goal achievement and constructive conflict can pay off in improved production and development.

Interpretation by:

Don Johnson

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from:

Experience is the key to learning how to be an effective leader. The problem with leadership development is ensuring that potential leaders are provided experiences – for how can one learn from experience if there are no experiences to learn from?

Decades of research on leadership (how it’s developed and what is most effective) has illuminated a set of common “facts” about how/why experience is essential.

“Facts” about learning experiences.

• Leadership is learned from experience: Research has shown that natural ability has little to do with becoming a leader when compared to experience.
• Early experiences are indispensable: Early work experience (short & long-term assignments and contact with other very good/poor supervisors) are essential.
• The challenges present are what make an experience effective: The unexpectedness, complexity, and pressures are a few of the challenges that make experiences effective.
• Experiences teach different lessons: Depending on what challenges are presented, people are able to learn different ways to handle them.
• Experiences can (and should) include “developmental” aspects: Feedback and coaching can enhance the learning experience, particularly when someone is having problems with presented challenges.
• Getting people the experience(s) they need is essential: Making experiences available is crucial, but matching developmental needs must also be intentional and a priority.
• Learning takes time and is ever-changing: There will be successes, delays, stops & starts, and learning from experiences is most likely when people are willing and encouraged to embrace the “lessons”.

Why don’t more organizations use this info?

There are a few reasons why more organizations aren’t using this knowledge to develop their leaders more effectively.

First, is the assumption that people either have leadership ability or they don’t, which can lead to the dismissal of those who don’t immediately succeed at challenges – believing there is a lack of leadership ability.

Secondly, results are achieved in the (relatively) short-term, while development is a longer-term objective. Pressure exists to provide challenging opportunities to those with “proven” success, instead of to those who may get greater benefit from the experience.

Additionally, the cost of experience-based leadership development is more difficult to calculate as compared to tracking the costs associated with training programs, consulting fees, or tuition, and therefore the ROI is more difficult to demonstrate for “experiences”.

Many organizations think they are including experience needs in their development opportunities. Job rotation and special projects are common techniques, but their focus is often on meeting business objectives (completing the assignments or learning different job responsibilities) and less on actually learning from the experiences.

“Experiences” can be a part of development.

Imperfect as they may be, there are some strategies organizations can use to try to ensure that “learning” is an integral component of providing experiences.

• Go with the flow: Work with others’ points of view and interject how experiences have contributed to current leaders’ success to make it easier for them to understand the need for truly meaningful experiences in leadership development.

• Make development a part of strategy: Identify the organization’s strategic initiatives, and the leadership challenges that will likely be present for them. Then the skills needed for those challenges can be developed by providing needed experiences (e.g., projects or mentors).

• Use business initiatives for development: Moving leadership development away from typical HR processes and toward a business initiative almost ensures it will remain a top priority, instead of becoming a routine “procedure” full of forms and other paperwork.

• Create a “leadership developer” role: Put someone in charge of understanding the organization’s potential leaders, their strengths and weaknesses, and the experiences that can be offered. Give this person the ability to take advantage of experiences as they arise, by influencing which leadership candidates may be best suited for different activities.

• Concentrate on learning from experiences: The emphasis (and record keeping) should be on whether someone learned/gained anything from different experiences, not just on the fact that they had them.

• Make “mastery” of job demands a criteria: There are a variety of ways to overcome challenges. Instead of the “one best way”, focus on if the skills or demands were mastered through a variety of ways.

Practical applications

Many HR departments already have processes in place (e.g., talent management or coaching) that could be redirected to focus on mastering skills learned through different experiences. The key is to make sure they are being utilized appropriately, focused on experience-based learning, and not treated as standard operating procedures which often lose their meaning and importance.

Rethinking an organization’s current development processes and the emphasis of them may be necessary to ensure that the opportunity (and requirement) to learn from experiences is a primary focus.

Interpretation by:

Kathleen Melcher

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 65-76.

We all have them. Some people organize them. Some people lead them. Some people simply attend them. Most of us dread them: meetings.

In the workplace, it is common for people to describe meetings as notorious time-wasters. So why do we still schedule and attend meetings? Do we still have a glimmer of hope that we can make them effective? Most advice in the popular media on meeting effectiveness is simply the writer’s opinion, based on their experiences and preferences. So what actually leads us to perceive a meeting as effective?

Meeting Design Characteristics

There are several design characteristics that a meeting can possess. These include having:

• An agenda provided before the meeting in written form or provided at the meeting in written or verbal form.
• Minutes recorded to clarify the main conclusions and follow-up that is necessary.
• Punctuality of the start and end time of the meeting.
• Facilities that provide appropriate comfort and minimal distractions.
• A chairperson or leader who directs the pace of the meeting and keeps discussion on topic.

These characteristics serve to provide the components necessary to maximize the effectiveness of meetings. But do all of these characteristics equally lend to the perception of meeting effectiveness?

Which Design Characteristics Matter Most?

Although all of the listed design characteristics have a positive relationship with perceived meeting effectiveness, two in particular stand out: (1) use of an agenda, and (2) proper meeting facilities.

Providing an agenda in advance of the meeting can allow attendees to prepare for the meeting, resulting in more effective contributions. When using an agenda, it’s also important that it be completed. Agenda completion suggests to the attendees that they got the most out of the time they invested. It can also serve as an indicator of good meeting management.

Using proper meeting facilities is a critical component in making a meeting effective. Seating arrangement, lighting, room temperature, and refreshments should all be considered to maximize attendee comfort, and minimize distractions which ultimately lead to more effective meetings.

The Role of Attendee Involvement

Attendee involvement has a direct effect on perceptions of meeting effectiveness – the more involvement there is, the higher the attendees meeting effectiveness.

Attendee involvement also mediates the relationship between the design characteristics and perceptions of meeting effectiveness: the use of design characteristics affects the level of attendee involvement, which in turn affects the perception of meeting effectiveness.

This mediating relationship is particularly apparent for the following design characteristics:

• Agenda use/completion
• Punctuality
• Proper meeting facilities

These characteristics lead to greater attendee involvement, which in turn leads to greater perceptions of effectiveness.

Other Things to Consider

While these design characteristics lead to greater effectiveness for meetings, there are two additional characteristics to consider: size and duration.

The size of the meeting is important to consider because large meetings are generally associated with less attendee involvement, therefore more likely to be perceived as ineffective.

The duration of a meeting can affect perceptions of meeting effectiveness, especially when the meeting is lengthy and the agenda is not completed. In these instances, longer meetings are perceived as less effective than shorter meetings.

Practical Implications

Meetings have the potential to be very effective in reaching organizational goals. With the current economic downturn and the negative perceptions surrounding most meetings, many companies are cutting back on the number of meetings they hold, as they require substantial staff time.

For those meetings that remain, it is important for organizers to consider the factors that lead to the highest levels of attendee involvement and perceptions of effectiveness.

Particularly, organizers should incorporate, follow, and complete an agenda and provide proper meeting facilities.

Interpretation by:

Lexy Adkins

DeGarmo Group

The following is a summary of the research and practice implications from: Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307-324.

There can be too much or too little of a good thing when it comes to assertiveness in managers. Recent research has found ratings of managerial leadership are highest at a moderate level of managerial assertiveness, with low and high assertiveness being associated with lower ratings. This summary will review possible work-related costs that may explain this effect.

Assertiveness Defined

Assertiveness is defined as speaking up for oneself and acting in one’s own interests (i.e., values, goals, and preferences). Assertiveness is thought of in terms of a continuum, ranging from being submissive to hostile. It is a relatively unique characteristic in that assertiveness can be a problem if it is too high or too low; other characteristics (such as intelligence or charisma) are usually only considered problematic if they are too low.

Aspects of Leadership

The research examined how perceptions of managerial assertiveness affected ratings of four leadership aspects:

• Motivation
• Social Influence
• Managing Conflict
• Team Work

A pattern was found that showed extreme ratings of assertiveness negatively affected the ratings of each of these aspects.

Assertiveness Costs: The Buddy and the Boss

The differences in leadership ratings may be based on different social and instrumental costs associated with varying degrees of assertiveness. When managers exhibit low levels of assertiveness, they may be more well-liked but be perceived as weak and not able to get the job done; this weakness can be thought of as the instrumental cost of being too passive or submissive. On the other hand, managers who are extremely aggressive may be thought of as highly effective in terms of getting work accomplished but suffer a social cost in that they are not well accepted as leaders because they are personally disliked.

Implications for Practice

Managers with a generally moderate level of assertiveness may be viewed more positively as a leader compared to low or high assertiveness managers. Moderate managers have the ability to accomplish the instrumental tasks at work without being socially abrasive. Some suggestions for encouraging managers to be moderately assertive include:

• Using skills training and coaching to teach managers how to be more (or less) assertive
• Regularly emphasizing the importance of moderate assertiveness to help ensure managerial behavior doesn’t revert back to previous unsatisfactory levels
• Changing managers’ norms about what is considered acceptable assertiveness

A key to improving perceptions of managerial leadership is changing managers’ expectations about what level of assertiveness is appropriate when their expectations are not congruent with how much assertiveness is actually necessary. This can be done through changing norms and skills using training or coaching. For those people who will not change their assertiveness if needed, other methods may be necessary in areas such as hiring or promotion to reduce the number of these individuals in managerial roles.

Interpretation by:

Donnie Johnson

DeGarmo Group