Individual Attributes and Leadership Style: Predicting the Use of Punishment and its Effects

1
Individual Attributes and Leadership Style
Predicting the Use of Punishment and its
Effects

• Leanne E. Atwater, Shelley D. Dionne, John F.
  
• Camobreco, Bruce J. Avolio, and Alan Lau
• Presented by
• Paula Chapman Mark Hamilton

2

• Punishment?

3
Forms of Punishment

• Contingent Punishment (CP) based upon specific
  standards for the subordinates poor performance
  or unacceptable behavior
• Non-contingent Punishment (NCP) delivered
  arbitrarily

4
Predictors of Punishment

• Self-esteem (SE) situationally influenced by
  ones interaction with others
• Moral reasoning (MR) how one interprets the
  meanings of events which they are exposed
• Physical fitness (PF) physical power over others

5
Background Information

• Two Casual Models
• Model 1
• Contingent Punishment Model
• Model 2
• Non-contingent Punishment Model

6
Casual Models

• Model 1
• SE will be negatively related to CP
• MR will be positively related to CP
• PF will be positively related to CP
• PF will be positively related to SE
• CP will be positively related to leader
  effectiveness

• Model 2
• SE will be negatively related to NCP
• MR will be negatively related
• to NCP
• PF will be positively related to NCP
• PF will positively relate to SE
• NCP will be negatively related to leader
  effectiveness

7
Research Objectives

• To examine the attributes of leaders that
  influence their use of contingent and
  non-contingent punishment
• To examine the results of using punishment on
  leader effectiveness

8
Methodology

• This study was conducted at an all-male military
  college
• Educational philosophy of the college
• to provide high quality undergraduate education
  within a system of military training and
  discipline
• Central theme and focus is to develop leadership

9
Methodology

• Sample size
• 452 male cadets
• - 225 male cadet leaders
• - 227 male subordinates

10
Methodology

• Punishment
• - Leadership behavior surveys (Podsakoff et al.,
  1982)
• Self-esteem
• - Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)
• Moral Reasoning
• - Defining Issues test (DIT) (Rest, 1986)
• Physical Fitness
• - Standard series of tests

11
Results

• Leaders who had higher levels of physical fitness
  and moral reasoning were more likely to use
  contingent punishment
• Leaders who had lower self-esteem were more
  likely to use non-contingent punishment
• Non-contingent punishment negatively impacted
  leader effectiveness
• Contingent punishment positively impacted leader
  effectiveness

12
Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships and
path coefficients for casual Model 1
13
Figure 2. Hypothesized relationships and
path coefficients for casual Model 2
14
Implications

• The leaders use of contingent punishment
  contributes positively to ratings of leader
  effectiveness
• High levels of self-esteem are important in
  minimizing the use of arbitrary punishment (NCP)
• High levels of physical fitness appear to
  contribute to ones use of contingent punishment
• Moral reasoning was positively related to the use
  of contingent punishment

15
Implications

• The two types of punishment did not share any
  common predictors, and had the opposite effects
  on leader effectiveness
• These two types of punishment are very different
• in terms of the types of individuals most likely
  to use them
• their impact on the leaders perceived
  effectiveness

16
Limitations and Future Research

• Limitations
• Lack of cross-validation
• All-male sample
• Future research
• Examine the followers characteristics and the
  impact of follower responses on leader behavior

17
Summary

• Self esteem had no significant effect on
  Contingent Punishment with respect to leadership
  effectiveness
• Poor self esteem was the biggest factor
  promoting Non-contingent punishment
• Moral Reasoning and physical fitness were the
  largest contributing factors to Contingent
  punishment