Research Plan
Lynn Pregitzer
Pepperdine University
EDOL 766 – Research Design and Analysis
Alex Liu, Ph.D.
January 16, 2011
.
The Relationship Between Leader Compensation and Group Serving Behavior
Several well-known chief executive officers and Wall Street investment bankers in the past years have acted irresponsibly. They’ve squandered away constituents’ life savings and kept spending millions of dollars for unnecessary extravagances while their companies were on the verge of bankruptcy. The leader’s self-centered approach to managing was chastised by the President of the United States and drew disgust from the public.
This was clearly demonstrated during the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy hearing at Capitol Hill. Lehman Brothers was an international financial firm with over $600 billion of assets in various types of instruments. The collapse of the firm affected thousands of workers, investors and other companies such as AIG. Nevertheless, the chief executive officer, Richard Fuld, Jr., was paid $500 million the year of the bankruptcy and $300 million in the years prior.
This research will explore whether the high levels of executive compensation is a factor in the inability for leaders to have consideration for others. The consideration of others will be measured by characteristics associated with group serving behavior versus self-serving behavior. Research that began in 1957 with the Ohio State Leadership studies have explored nine dimensions of leadership and concluded that “Consideration” and “Initiating Structure” were the two common characteristics of leaders. This paper will explore whether pay is a moderating factor on “Consideration” or a leader’s orientation towards the people. Past studies have shown that a positive relationship between a leader is important to effective group dynamics.
The purpose of the study is to extend the knowledge and research around leadership and power. The results are important to understanding the level at which compensation remediates a leader’s ability to lead according to situational and environmental forces. Theories have conjectured that high executive compensation equates to a powerful leader whereby creating an environment where leaders lead based on internal beliefs which are often self-serving. This was illustrated in a 2006 study by researchers at Stanford, New York and Northwestern University where the leader’s ability to takes another’s perspective into consideration was diminished as their power base grew. I believe this research takes the postpositivist worldview as a causal relationship will be drawn between executive compensation and group serving behavior characteristics.
The main prediction is that the higher the compensation the less a leader will exhibit group serving behaviors. These behaviors can be measured by the degree to which a leader will share or hoard recognition, information, pay, and even office space.
A multi-dimensional approach will be used for this study. The measures used in Leader power and leader self-serving behavior: The role of effective leadership beliefs and performance information (Rus, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010) will be given to the GAP cohort. A sampling of the questions for Effective Leadership Behavior and Leader Self-Serving Behavior are exhibited below(Rus, et al., 2010).
1. To be effective, a leader should pursue his or her own goals even if this would come at the expense of his or her group’s goals.
2. A leader concerned with his or her personal outcomes is effective.
3. An effective leader fully takes advantage of perks such as a company car, a larger office, and company stock options.
4. A leader is effective if he or she invests little time and effort into group tasks.
5. To be effective, a leader should always pursue group goals even if this would come at the expense of his or her personal goals.
6. A leader concerned with group outcomes is effective.
7. An effective leader gives up perks such as a company car, a larger office, and company stock options.
8. A leader is effective if he or she invests time and effort beyond the call of duty into group tasks.
9. I have negotiated a bonus for myself that was substantially higher than the bonus my subordinates received.
10. I have used my leadership position to obtain benefits for myself.
11. I have pursued my personal interests, even if those interests were not serving my group’s interests.
12. I did not put my own position at risk, even when I thought that this could have helped promote my group’s goals.
13. Instead of giving credit to my subordinates for jobs requiring a lot of time and effort, I took the credit myself.
14. Although I was partly to be blaimed, I did not take personal responsibility for my group’s failure to meet a goal.
15. I have shifted the blame for a mistake of mine onto one of my subordinates.
16. I did not work overtime, although this would have helped my group meet its goals.
References
Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader power and leader self-serving behavior: The role of effective leadership beliefs and performance information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 922-933. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.007
No comments:
Post a Comment