Southern Business Review Spring 2005 1 Lloyd W. Fernald, Jr., D.B.A., is professor of management, Management Department, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32817. George T. Solomon, D.B.A., is associate professor of entrepreneurship, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. Ayman Tarabishy, is a doctoral student, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052. A New Paradigm: Entrepreneurial Leadership Lloyd W. Fernald, Jr., George T. Solomon, and Ayman Tarabishy As the 1990’s gave way to the next millennium, the current social, economic, and political environments were constantly being affected by the actions of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial ventures. The current literature in entrepreneurship devotes considerable discussion to the role entrepreneurs play within their businesses and as opinion leaders in their markets and the general economy. Often described as innovators, paradigm pioneers, and visionaries, entrepreneurs are confronted with the issue of developing leadership qualities in order to grow their businesses and to transform them to a level of profes- sionalism. Since the 1980’s, an increased level of entre- preneurial activity has spawned, not only because of the electronic age but due to a plethora of new materials, products, financial networks, joint venture possibilities, and paradigmatic changes in politics, economics, and societies. It appears a whole new remodeling of the ways in which business, communica- tion, and government are conducted has emerged. Thus, it is imperative for anyone involved in entrepreneurial ventures, especially the entrepreneur, to fully comprehend the impor-tance of sound leadership practices. This article attempts to reveal those characteristics common to both successful leaders and entrepreneurs who operate in dynamic, changing environments. It also attempts to show the characteristics entrepreneurs use to cope with their need to excel and explore new vistas. In essence, it seeks to demonstrate a new style of evolving leadership, entrepre- neurial leadership, which offers a break from the past and movement into the future. Literature Review Entrepreneurship is a relatively new, sometimes controversial, and burgeoning field of management research. Leadership has been studied since around 500 BC. New to the field is the subject of entrepreneurial leadership. Both entrepreneurship and leadership will be briefly discussed in turn. Entrepreneurship Selection of the appropriate basis for defining and understanding entrepre- neurs created a challenging problem for entrepreneurial research. More than ten years ago, the field of research was described as young, i.e., in its formative stage (Paulin, Coffey, & Spaulding, 1982;
Transcript
Southern Business Review Spring 2005 1
Lloyd W. Fernald, Jr., D.B.A.,is professor of management,Management Department,College of BusinessAdministration, University ofCentral Florida, Orlando, FL 32817.
George T. Solomon, D.B.A., isassociate professor ofentrepreneurship, TheGeorge WashingtonUniversity, Washington, DC 20052.
Ayman Tarabishy, is adoctoral student, TheGeorge WashingtonUniversity, Washington, DC 20052.
A New Paradigm:Entrepreneurial Leadership
Lloyd W. Fernald, Jr., George T. Solomon, and Ayman Tarabishy
As the 1990’s gave way tothe next millennium, thecurrent social, economic, andpolitical environments wereconstantly being affected bythe actions of entrepreneursand entrepreneurial ventures.The current literature inentrepreneurship devotesconsiderable discussion to therole entrepreneurs play withintheir businesses and asopinion leaders in theirmarkets and the generaleconomy. Often described as
innovators, paradigm pioneers,and visionaries, entrepreneursare confronted with the issueof developing leadershipqualities in order to grow theirbusinesses and to transformthem to a level of profes-sionalism.
Since the 1980’s, anincreased level of entre-preneurial activity hasspawned, not only because ofthe electronic age but due to aplethora of new materials,products, financial networks,joint venture possibilities, andparadigmatic changes inpolitics, economics, andsocieties. It appears a wholenew remodeling of the ways inwhich business, communica-tion, and government areconducted has emerged. Thus,it is imperative for anyoneinvolved in entrepreneurialventures, especially theentrepreneur, to fullycomprehend the impor-tanceof sound leadership practices.
This article attempts toreveal those characteristicscommon to both successfulleaders and entrepreneurs whooperate in dynamic, changingenvironments. It also attemptsto show the characteristics
entrepreneurs use to cope withtheir need to excel and explorenew vistas. In essence, it seeksto demonstrate a new style ofevolving leadership, entrepre-neurial leadership, whichoffers a break from the pastand movement into the future.
Literature Review
Entrepreneurship is arelatively new, sometimescontroversial, and burgeoningfield of management research.Leadership has been studiedsince around 500 BC. New tothe field is the subject ofentrepreneurial leadership.Both entrepreneurship andleadership will be brieflydiscussed in turn.
Entrepreneurship
Selection of theappropriate basis for definingand understanding entrepre-neurs created a challengingproblem for entrepreneurialresearch. More than ten yearsago, the field of research wasdescribed as young, i.e., in itsformative stage (Paulin,Coffey, & Spaulding, 1982;
2 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review
Perryman, 1982; Peterson &Horvath, 1982; Sexton,1982). Even now, nogenerally accepted definitionof an entrepreneur exists, andthe literature is replete withcriteria ranging from creativityand innovation to personaltraits such as appearance andstyle. Models of the entre-preneur are almost as plentifulas the number of researchersstudying entrepreneurs(Churchill & Lewis, 1986;Cunningham & Lischeron,1991).
Krackhardt (1995) statedthat research on entrepre-neurship has definedentrepreneurship in two ways,the entrepreneurial firm andentrepreneurial people. Entre-preneurial firms are small(Aldrich & Austen, 1986),fast-growing (Drucker, 1985),organic, and network-basedrather than mechanistic andbureaucratic (Birley, 1986). Instudying work flow leadership,a form of firm-level entre-preneurship, Sayles andStewart (1995) definedentrepreneurship as havingthree components:
(1) it is activity that seizesprofit opportunitieswithout regard toresources currentlycontrolled (Stevenson &Jarillo, 1990);
(2) it expands existingresources throughenhanced learning,synergies, or boot-strapping (Burgelman,1983; Leibstein, 1968;Stewart, 1989; Venkatara-
man, McMillan &McGrath, 1992); and
(3) it promotes change andinnovation leading to newcombinations of resourcesand new ways of doingbusiness (Burgelman,1983; Schumpeter,1943).
Entrepreneurial people takeadvantage of opportunities toacquire added value. Thisdefinition sees entrepreneur-ship as a behavioral char-acteristic of employees andmanagers in a firm, not as acharacteristic of the firm itself.
Stevenson, Roberts, andGrousbeck (1989) argued thatentrepreneurship is anapproach to management.They distinguished between“promoters,” individualswhose strategic direction isdriven by the perception ofopportunity, and “trustees,”who are driven by theresources they currentlycontrol. One could argue fromthis that “promoters” areactually leaders while“trustees” are managers.Others, however, have writtenthat both management andleadership skills playimportant roles in determiningthe growth rate of a smallbusiness. The skills requiredinclude
(1) seeing and clearlycommunicating a cleardirection for the future,
(2) leading and motivatingothers,
(3) recognizing shortcomingsin the team and supple-menting those skills, and
(4) having the business skillsfrom an educational andexperience viewpoint(Eggers, Leahy, &Churchill, 1994).
Over the years, severalschools of thought on entre-preneurship have beengenerated that combinepsychological traits withmanagement/leadership skills.With respect to entrepre-neurial activities, mostimportant to entrepreneurs are
(1) seeking opportunities,
(2) needing to achieve setgoals,
(3) being independence-minded,
(4) taking risks, and
(5) innovating (Lepnurm &Bergh, 1995).
McClelland (1961) believedthat entrepreneurial behaviorwas embedded in an indivi-dual’s personality, the resultof one’s upbringing. Stewart(1989) documented the “firein the belly” of employees whoare always “running hot”within the firm. Thus, entre-preneurial behavior appears tobe internal, similar to what isoften described as charact-eristic of leaders.
Southern Business Review Spring 2005 3
Leadership
Zaleznik (1977) hasreported that managers andleaders are different. Theydiffer in what they attend toand how they think, work,and interact. Also, managersand leaders have differentpersonalities and experiencedifferent developmental pathsfrom childhood to adulthood.Further, managers perceive lifeas a steady progression ofpositive events, resulting insecurity at home and at work.Leaders are “twice born.”They endure major events thatlead to a sense of separate-ness, or perhaps estrangement,from their environments(James, 1985). As a result,they turn inward in order tore-emerge with a createdrather than an inherited senseof identity. This condition maybe necessary for the ability tolead. Finally, managers appearto be narrowly engaged inmain-taining their identitiesand self-esteem throughothers. Leaders have self-confidence growing out of theawareness of who they are andthe visions that drive them toachieve (Zaleznik, 1990).
Although research showsthat certain traits alone do notguarantee leadership success,evidence that effective leadersare different from other peoplein certain key respects exists.Key leader characteristics are
(1) drive, which includesachievement motivation,ambition, energy, tenacity,and initiative;
(2) leadership motivation;
(3) honesty and integrity;
(4) self-confidence;
(5) cognitive ability; and
(6) knowledge of the business.
The key leader characteristicshelp the leader acquirenecessary skills, formulate anorganizational vision and aneffective plan for pursuing it,and take the steps needed toimplement the vision intoreality (Kirkpatrick and Locke,1991).
It is not necessarily theindividual possessing the mostformal authority who is theleader in an organization, largeor small. The leader is anyonewho exerts influence overothers. Specific traits,characteristics, and personalattributes that will predictsuperior performance in anygiven role, team, andorganization can be identifiedand defined.
Entrepreneurial Leadership
On the surface, one canassociate entrepreneurs withleadership functions such asproviding vision to thedevelopment of a newproduct, service, or organiza-tion. A leader has to beentrepreneurial as well. It hasbeen written that entrepre-neurial leadership deals withconcepts and ideas, and theseare often related to problemsthat are not of an organiza-
tional nature (El-Namaki,1992). Instead, they tend tobe individual characteristics orbehaviors. These includevision, problem solving,decision-making, risk taking,and strategic initiatives. Ashort discussion of eachfollows. Vision. Only in the firstdecade of the 20th century hasthe role of vision in the strate-gic management process andthe possible relationshipbetween vision and creativity,leadership, and entrepreneur-ship been given muchattention. A vision is formu-lated by explicitly identifying adomain for competitive be-havior, a set of sources ofcompetitive strength, and aprofile for resource capability.A vision implies a capabilityconstruct. This capabilityconstruct is determined bymany factors includingmanagerial vision, competenceand capacity, logistic andtechnological profiles, as wellas the financial resourceaccess of the firm. A goodvision is realistic and feasible.It provides a challenge for thewhole organization andmirrors the goals of itsconstituents. Visions may bekilled by fear of mistakes,inability to tolerate ambiguity,and lack of challenge.
Problem solving. Task-oriented leadership gets bestresults with purely technical,fact-based problems. Con-sideration-oriented leadershipcopes more effectively withemotional, personal, andinterpersonal problems.
4 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review
Effective leadership mustsolve, or face, problemsquickly and forcefully,regardless of their nature.
Decision making. Man-agers are more likely to seekassistance from subordin-atesin solving problems than whenmaking decisions. As a generalrule, whether leaders aredirective or supportive, theyknow they must makedecisions that commit theorganization to critical actions.If a leader avoids this respon-sibility, subordinates willpoorly judge him or her andthe organization will sufferaccordingly.
Risk taking. Balancingrisk is a necessity of leader-ship. Leaders must weigh themultitudinous factorsinvolved, while understandingthat no one can predict thefuture with certainty. Inabilityto deal with uncertainty pre-cludes an organization fromachieving its goals.
Strategic initiatives.Leaders must have a visionand plan for beyond a year ortwo in order to achieve long-term success (El-Namaki,1992).
Entrepreneurial leadershiphas been coined by those whorealize a change in leadershipstyle is necessary in order forAmerica’s businesses, largeand small, to be competitivewith the rest of the world.Knowdell, Branstead, andMoravec (1994) have notedthat corporations now undergoparadigm shifts rather thanlinear change. One suchparadigm shift is from a“producer mentality” that
seeks instructions to an“entrepreneurial mentality”that seeks results. This haslead to structural changes inorganizations and new ways ofdoing business. The develop-ment of the MacIntoshcomputer is, perhaps, theprime example. Other similar“skunk works,” or entrepre-neurial projects, are increasingin number throughout corpor-ate America.
One might questionwhether entrepreneurialleadership is truly a new styleof leadership, an escape frommanagement, or both. Sincethe 1980’s, the concern hasbeen that major businesscorporations have lost theircompetitiveness through anemphasis on managementrather than leadership. Asurvey of 90 top executivesand entrepreneurs revealedthat the four basic compe-tencies common to all leadersare management of attention,meaning, trust, and self-esteem (Bennis, 1988).Bennis’s research indicatedthat potential entrepreneursare much more likely to havehad business-owning fathersor relatives and to have ownedtheir own firms at some stageof their careers. While nodifferences were foundbetween subgroups in terms oftheir needs for achievement ortheir locus of control, thelikely entrepreneurs werefound to have a greater needfor autonomy, more creativetendencies, and a highercalculated risk-takingorientation than othermanagers. In all, factors in the
family background or personalprofile of managers that mayattract them to entrepreneur-ship have some potential fordetecting entrepreneurs amongmanagers (Cromie &O’Donaghue, 1992).
It is argued that theorganizational archetype of thefuture will be entrepreneurial.Its leadership, strategies, andstructure will reflect entre-preneurial thinking withassociated characteristics, e.g.,a problem-solving and action-orientation. The characteristicsand behaviors that spellsuccess in entrepreneurialfirms and small businessesnow are being considered asvital for success, even for largetransnational corporations.That even large companies areinterested in this phenomenonis reflected in the popularity ofwhat has been coined as“Intrapreneurship” by Pinchot(1985). Intrapreneurship issaid to exist in situations inwhich individuals utilizeentrepreneurial thinking toinitiate and implement newideas within large corporations(Chittipeddi & Wallet, 1991).
Based on these prescrip-tions, and a myriad of othersources too numerous tomention here, the similaritiesbetween what is known asleaders and what is known asentrepreneurs are consider-able. Regardless of the amountof study each has been given,particularly with respect toleaders, much learning is stillneeded. Yukl (1994) reportedthat, although the leadershipliterature includes more than5,000 studies, the confused
Southern Business Review Spring 2005 5
state of the field can beattributed primarily to thesheer volume of publications,the disparity of approaches,confusing terms, many trivialstudies, and the preference forsimplistic explanations. Thissame charge has been levied atthe research involvingentrepreneurship (Vesper,1996; Sexton & Kasarda,1992; Zimmerer & Scar-borough, 1996).
Nevertheless, much isknown about both leaders andentrepreneurs. As discussedearlier, both leaders andentrepreneurs have beenstudied relative to their traits,skills, and behavioralcharacteristics. Numerousstudies have been conductedin an attempt to define asuccessful leader or entrepre-neur (Welsh & White, 1983).The general agreement is thata leader influences otherstoward the attainment of avision and goals (Zaleznik,1990; Stoner, 1995). Asuccessful entrepreneur,likewise, influences those whocan help achieve a desired goalor vision, whether theentrepreneur is a banker orother financial lender or thosewho can help to manufactureor distribute a product orservice. Many also agree thatleaders are visionary. Theyknow what they want andwhere they want to go. Theyhave a vision of their goals(Locke & Kirkpatrick, 1995;Hajek, 1995). This is beststated in a quote fromTheodore Hesburgh:
[t]he very essence ofleadership is that youhave a vision. It’s gotto be a vision youarticulate clearly andforcefully on everyoccasion. You can’tblow an uncertaintrumpet (Brainyquote.com, 2005).
Successful entrepreneurs alsoenvision the need for aproduct or service and howthat product or service is to beprovided.
In summary, based on areview of the literature, bothleaders and entrepreneurs aresuccessful largely to the extentthat they provide
“Successful” is a key adverband a vital factor in thisreview. Clearly, many leadersand entrepreneurs fail.Whenever possible, theauthors have made an effort toinclude only those behavioralcharacteristics shared byleaders and entrepreneurs thatlead to successful attainmentof visions and goals.
These characteristics areintended to provide sufficientinformation to support a basisfor the argument that thebehavioral characteristics ofleaders and entrepreneurs aremore similar than different. Inaddition, it provides a basisfor viewing entrepreneurialbehavior as another type ofleadership. This is particularlyevident in view of the fact thatchanges in the workplace aredemanding a new style ofleadership. A flatter organi-zational hierarchy with itsshrinking management ranksand less bureaucracy, coupledwith the push for greaterspeed, better customerresponsiveness, and on-goinginnovation, will require such.Every employee will berequired to think and to actlike an owner/entrepreneur(Turknett, 1995).
Methodology
Characteristics possessedby both entrepreneurs andleaders were collected fromvarious sources such asjournal articles, dissertationsand theses, books, andmagazine articles. Thesecharacteristics were listed andthen compared, resulting in alist of common characteristics.
No scale was attached tothese characteristics. Theexistence of the characteristicsand the degree to which theyexist in any individual can be
6 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review
most reliably determined byan in-depth, structuredinterview by an experiencedand trained psychologist.Nevertheless, the number oftimes each characteristic was noted in the review of litera-ture was used to compare thecharacteristics of leaders andentrepreneurs.
Results
Table 1 identifies char-acteristics that are associatedwith successful entrepreneursand leaders and the number oftimes those characteristicshave been noted in theliterature. Risk-taker,
achievement-orientated, andcreative are the most highlycited characteristics amongentrepreneurs whereasvisionary, able to motivate,charismatic, able tocommunicate, honest andsound, and trustworthy arethe most highly cited char-acteristics among leaders. Bycomparing the characteristicsof entrepreneurs and leaders,a model can be developed thatspecifies the personal char-acteristics reflected in thosewho practice entrepreneurialleadership.
Characteristics that arecommon to both entrepreneursand leaders are presented inTable 2.
Table 2 reveals that thecharacteristics common toboth entrepreneurs andleaders are visionary, risk-taker, achievement-orientated,able to motivate, creative,flexible, persistent, andpatient.
Discussion
Table 1 is the result of agenerally exhaustive search forentrepreneur and leadercharacteristics. Nevertheless,only 136 sources wereincluded in this study. Theauthors believe that thenumbers associated with eachof the characteristics would
Table 1Characteristics of Entrepreneurs and Leaders*
Visionary (29)*Cites for these characteristics may be obtained from the authors.
Southern Business Review Spring 2005 7
Table 2Common Characteristics
Entrepreneur Leader
Able to motivate 3 15
Achievement orientated 15 7
Creative 10 5
Flexible 2 6
Patient 1 3
Persistent 3 2
Risk-taker 24 6
Visionary 6 29
change, perhaps considerably,if more sources were included.At the same time, the authorsbelieve that it is likely that thesame characteristics found inTables 1 and 2 would remainin a future study.
Some of the characteristicsnoted appear consistent withanecdotal reports. Forexample, entrepreneurs aregenerally known as risk-takers, high achievers, andcreative in their abilities toproduce unique goods andservices. Anecdotal evidencesuggests the most successfulleaders are visionaries.Additionally, they arecharismatic, able to communi-cate, have reputations of beinghonest, and are trusted byothers. Conversely, whileanecdotal evidence suggeststhat such characteristics asautonomous, highly tolerant ofambiguity, passionate, andpersistent are generally foundin entrepreneurs, the studydata support such, but reflect
a remarkably small number ofsources. So as with leaders, itwould appear from anecdotalevidence that characteristicssuch as achievement-oriented,strategic thinker, and com-mitted to mission would havebeen more evident than thedata found in this study.
A more in-depth studywould likely shed light on thisissue. Nevertheless, the studyresults reflect actual citationsin the entrepreneurship andleadership journals. The dataprovided are considered morevalid in describing entrepre-neurs and leaders than that ofanecdotal evidence.
Table 2 is interesting aswell. Eight common char-acteristics were found inentrepreneurs and leaders.Risk-taker clearly led all otherentrepreneurial characteristics,and visionary was thestrongest characteristic inleaders. These findings arewell-supported by anecdotalevidence. Other characteristics
common to entrepreneurs andleaders are not surprising,with the possible exceptionthat the numbers were smallerthan the authors anticipated.
Table 2 offers researchersseveral questions. When thenumber of cites is small, suchas with “Patient,” should it bediscarded as a commoncharacteristic? Could othercharacteristics be added tothis table? Most importantly,does possessing the commoncharacteristics found in thisstudy predict an individualwhose performance wouldexhibit entrepreneurialleadership and successfullycontribute to an organization’ssuccess?
Conclusions
The findings of this study,i.e., the common characteris-tics shared by bothentrepreneurs and leaders,represent an attempt to bothreveal the commonality of
8 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review
these two populations and toprovide a base for furtherstudies on entrepreneurialleadership. The lists shown inTables 1 and 2 include thosecharacteristics often found ina successful leader orentrepreneur. This informationmay be helpful to individualsconsidering the entre-preneurial life or seeking otherleadership positions.
Clearly, much remains tobe done in clarifying the roleand characteristics of to-morrow’s leaders. Neworganizational designs, newthinking patterns, and newinformation systems willrequire new leadership styles.Entrepreneurial leadershipoffers one answer. Thequestion remains as towhether entrepreneurialleadership will consist of thecharacteristics found commonto both the successfulentrepreneur and leader in thisstudy.
Some will argue thatentrepreneurs are not neces-sarily “good” or successfulleaders. Such doubters canfind support in the literaturefor the iconoclastic char-acteristics found in manyentrepreneurs that areinconsistent with “good”leadership characteristics. Fordoubters, the term “entrepre-neurial leadership” is seen asan oxymoron, a combinationof terms that are contradictoryto what they have beenaccustomed in the past.Successful entrepreneurs,however, have provided therisk-taking, achievementorientation, and creativity that
have lead to the birth andgrowth of numerous majorfirms in the U.S. and globallyand continue to do so. Entre-preneurial thinking is beingincreasingly demanded in eventhe largest corporations.
More research in this areais essential. Future studiesmay rank preferences of thecharacteristics of leaders andentrepreneurs to permit a rankorder or other statisticalanalyses of the characteristicsof leaders and entrepreneurs,helping to further define thecharacteristics needed forentrepreneurial leadership.
References
Aldrich, H. & Austen, E. R.(1986). Even dwarfsstarted small: Liabilities ofage and size and theirstrategic limitations.Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 8: 165-198.
Bennis, W. (1988). Ten traitsof dynamic leaders.Executive Excellence: 8-9.
Birley, S. (1986). The role ofnetworks in the entre-preneurial process. Journalof Business Venturing,1:107-117.
ship and strategicmanagement: Insightsfrom a process study.Management Science,29(2): 1349-1363.
Chittipeddi, K. & Wallet, T. A.(1991). Entrepreneurshipand competitive strategyfor the l990’s. Journal ofSmall Business Manage-ment: 94-98.
Churchill, N. C. & Lewis, V.(1986). Entrepreneurialresearch: Directions andmethods. In D. L. Sexton& R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Theart and science of entre-preneurship (pp. 333-365), Cambridge:Ballinger.
Cromie, S. & O’Donaghue, J.(1992). Research note:Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations. InternationalSmall Business Journal:66-73.
Cunningham, J. B. & Lischer-on, J. (1991). Definingentrepreneurship. Journalof Small Business Manage-ment, 6: 45-60.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innova-tion and entrepreneurshipin the American corpora-tion. New York: Harper &Row.
Eggers, J. H., Leahy, K. T., &Churchill, N. C. (1994).Entrepreneurial leadershipin the development ofsmall businesses. 14th
Annual Entrepreneurial
Southern Business Review Spring 2005 9
Research Conference,Babson College, MA.
El-Namaki, M. S. S. (1992).Creating a corporatevision. Long RangePlanning: 25-29.
Hajek, M. (1995). What isleadership? Leading theWorld in Aviation/Aerospace Education.Titusville, FL: Embry-Riddle AeronauticalUniversity.
James, B. G. (1985). Businesswargames. Cambridge,MA: Abacus Press.
Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E.A. (1991). Leadership: Dotraits matter? Academy of Management Executive:48-60.
Knowdell, R. L., Branstead, E.,& Moravec, M. (1994).From downsizing torecovery. Palo Alto, CA:CPP Books.
Leibstein, H. (1968). Entre-preneurship and economic development. AmericanEconomic Review, 58: 72-83.
Lepnurm, R. & Bergh, C.(1995). Small business:Entrepreneurship orstrategy? The Center for
Entrepreneurship Review:4.
Locke, E. A. & Kirkpatrick, S.A. (1995). Promotingcreativity in organizations.In C. M. Ford & D. A.Gioia (Eds.), Creativeaction in organizations,Thousand Oaks: SagePublications.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). Theachieving society.Princeton, NJ: vanNostrand.
Paulin, W. L., Coffey, R. E., &Spaulding, M. E. (1982).Entrepreneur research:Methods and directions.In C. A. Kent, D. L.Sexton & K. H. Vesper(Eds.), The encyclopedia ofentrepreneurship (pp. 352-373), Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.
Perryman, R. (1982). Com-mentary on research in thefield of entrepreneurship.In C. A. Kent, D. L.Sexton, & K. H. Vesper(Eds.), The encyclopedia ofentrepreneurship (pp. 377-378), Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.
Peterson, R. & Horvath, D.(1982). Commentary onresearch in the field ofentrepreneurship. In C. A.Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Theencyclopedia of entrepre-neurship (pp. 374-376),Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intra-preneurs innovate.Management Today: 54-61.
Sayles, L. R. & Stewart, A.(1995). Belated recog-nition for work flowentrepreneurs: A case ofselected perception andamnesia in managementthought. Entrepreneurship:Theory and Practice,19(3): 7-23.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1943).Capitalism, socialism anddemocracy. London:George Allen & Unwin.
Sexton, D. L. (1982).Research needs and issuesin entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, &K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Theencyclopedia of entrepre-neurship (pp. 383-389),Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Sexton, D.& Kasarda, J.(1992). The state of the artof entrepreneurship.Boston: PWS-Kent.
Stevenson, H. H. & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm ofentrepreneurship: Entre-preneurial management.Strategic ManagementJournal, 11: 17-27.
Stevenson, H. H., Roberts, M.J., & Grousbeck, H. I.(1989). New businessventures and the entre-preneur. Homewood, IL:Richard D. Irwin.
10 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review
Stewart, A. (1989). Teamentrepreneurship. New-bury Park, CA: Sage.
Zimmerer, T. W. &Scarborough, N. M.(1996). Entrepreneurshipand new ventureformation. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Southern Business Review Spring 2005 21
J. Michael McDonald, Ph.D.,is director of GraduateStudies, College of BusinessAdministration, GeorgiaSouthern University,Statesboro, GA 30460-8050.
Carl W. Gooding, Ph.D., isprofessor of management,College of Business,Jacksonville State University,Anniston, AL, 36205.
Leadership and Upward Influence:A Survey of Business School Deans
J. Michael McDonald and Carl W. Gooding
An empirical study of howbusiness school deans use“upward” influence tactics asa leadership tool to get thingsdone has never appeared inthe research literature onmanagement. The purpose ofthis study is to examine whattypes of influence tacticsbusiness school deans usewith their superiors. Themethodology includesexamining how frequentlydeans used various upwardinfluence tactics and howeffective those tactics wereconsidered to be.
Additionally, the researchersseek to compare the tacticsused by business school deansto those used by managers ingeneral. Do business schooldeans use the same upward
influence tactics as othermanagers? Are those tacticsused as frequently by deans asby other managers? Are thetactics used by deans viewedas effective for managers?
While some might arguebusiness school deans are nodifferent than other managersin terms of their leadershipstyles and patterns ofbehavior, the researchershypothesize otherwise.Business managers generallyhave clearly defined goals towork toward such asprofitability, return oninvestment, cost reduction,productivity, and qualityimprovements. Academicdeans, however, work inenvironments in which thegoals are less clearly definedand much more subject tobudgetary constraints andphilosophical differences.Business school deans, inparticular, often report tosuperiors whose backgroundsare not in business. Thosesuperiors frequently do notshare the same goals, values,points of view, or needs (e.g.,AACSB accreditation) asbusiness deans. Hence, it isincumbent upon the businessdean to learn how to lead
“upward.” In a very realsense, the business schooldean is leading upward asresources are negotiated. Tobe effective, the dean ofbusiness must understand thatupward power (and influence)is partly based on the abilityand willingness to useinfluence tactics. To negotiatefor limited resources, aneffective dean will, bynecessity, have to appreciatethe upward influence nature ofleadership.
Literature Review
Power and Upward Influence
Leadership, influence, andpower are inextricably linked.In fact, some scholars thinkthat understanding power andthe use of influence might bethe most important conceptsin all of leadership (Burns,1978; Gardner, 1990; Hinkin& Schriesheim, 1989). Whilethe concepts “power” and“influence” are often usedsynonymously, for this study,power is defined as thecapacity to cause change.Influence is the degree ofactual change in a target
22 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review
person’s attitude, values,beliefs, or behaviors (Hughes,Gannett, & Curphy, 2002). Inone sense, power is thepotential that a leader has toinfluence others. The leaderthen uses influence tactics,methods, and actual behaviorsto affect change in others.Several authors note thatsuccessful managers expandtheir power by learning how“to influence someone higherin the formal hierarchy ofauthority in the organization”(Kanter, 1983; Yukl & Falbe,1990; Kotter, 1985; 1990).Early research (Pelz, 1959)suggests that upward influenceis a key factor in the effective-ness of managers. Othersobserve that the ability toinfluence superiors can be“acquired, enhanced, orreduced” by a manager’sbehavior (Case, Dosier,Murkison, & Keys, 1988;Bartolome & Laurent, 1986).
Research has demon-strated that leaders’effectiveness with subordin-ates depends heavily on theirabilities to develop upwardinfluence with superiors (Pelz,1959; Bartolume & Laurent,1986). Likewise, influencewith superiors depends on theability of a leader to accom-plish things throughsubordinates (Uyterhoeven,1972; Ruello, 1973).Consequently, the more theleader enters into a set ofreciprocal relationships, themore a resulting cycledevelops. As the leaderbecomes more effective ininfluencing the superior,he/she will become more
effective with subordinates.The reverse is equally true; asthe leader gains influence withsubordinates, influence will beenhanced with the superior.
In terms of using upwardinfluence tactics effectively,several empirical studies offerstrong support for the ideathat the most effective leadersin organizations understandthe nature of influence,understand what influencetactics are available to them,and know “how” and “when”to use those tactics (Case etal., 1988; Kaplan, 1986;Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988;Mowday, 1978; Schilit &Locke, 1982; Yukl & Falbe,1990).
It is difficult to findempirical data supportingthese conclusions. Numerousarticles have been published intrade-oriented publicationslike the Chronicle of HigherEducation, Selections (Gradu-ate Management AdmissionsCouncil–GMAC), and variousAACSB publications such asBiz Ed. While these articles doprovide guidance andinteresting, anecdotal, case-oriented advice, none has anempirical, research-orientedfocus (Tyson, 2003; Bijoux,2003; Schmotter, 1998).
One empirical study foundin the literature that examinedleadership among businessdeans basically examinedclique formation (Hartman,Lundberg, & Lee, 1997). Inthis study of 18 deans atAACSB schools, the predictability in what causesdeans to form communicationcliques was very limited. This
study attempted to identifywhich factors might causebusiness deans to forminformal networks. Theprimary focus of this studywas how business schooldeans form communicationcliques as a way of dealingwith changes in AACSBguidelines. Location (i.e.,proximity to another college)and opinion similarity onAACSB issues were the mostimportant factors related toclique formation.
Research Methods
Based on the work of Keysand Case (1990), ten upwardinfluence tactics identified insimilar surveys were used.Preliminary field interviewsconducted among severalbusiness deans (or retireddeans), yielded two additionalupward influence tactics.These two tactics (“developingand showing support of otherpeople” and “showing confid-ence and support for my boss”)were added to the survey.
Then a survey identifyingthe twelve upward influencemethods (i.e., tactics) wasdesigned. The actual orderingof these methods was randomto avoid affecting the resultingrankings.
The surveys were admini-stered to a group of businessschool deans attending a meet-ing of the Southern BusinessAdministrators Association.This group meets semi-annually to discuss issues ofimportance to business schoolleaders. While most of thedeans present were from
Southern Business Review Spring 2005 23
AACSB schools, not all ofthem were. The deans repre-sented a cross-section ofschools from large to small,from private to public, andmostly from the SoutheasternU.S. A 100 percent responserate was obtained from the 53deans participating in theconference.
The survey asked thedeans to rank twelve influencemethods (tactics) from one totwelve in terms of frequencyof use. For example, if a deanused the tactic of “presentinga rational explanation” withhis/her boss more than he/sheused any other tactic, he/shewas to rank that tactic asnumber one. Then, the deanwas asked to identify thesecond most frequently usedtactic. These rankings of“frequencies of use” weresummed and divided by thetotal number of deans res-ponding. The result of thiswas a rank ordering that couldbe compared to the Case et al.(1988) study of managers.
This same ranking proce-dure was used to identify howeffective the deans found eachinfluence tactic. Similar proce-dures were used to sum theindividual rankings and amean response was calculated.The resulting sum totals andmean rankings are shown inTable 1.
Survey Results
As the results show inTable 2, the most frequentlyused tactic for deans influ-encing their own bosses was to“present a rational explana-
tion” for what was needed.This is consistent withresearch with other types ofleaders and in other types ofsettings, be it in the not-for-profit or for-profit sectors. Infact, most of the influenceliterature suggests that direct,simple, rational, logicalexplanation for why somethingis needed tends to be the mosteffective tactic with any“direction” of influence, i.e.,with subordinates, peers,customers, etc.
The next most frequentlyused tactic was, surprisingly,to “tell, argue, or talk withoutsupport.” The ranking of thistactic was surprising since itwas assumed that the deans asa group would be less likely tobe this forceful so quicklywithout exhausting othertactics; however, in defense ofdeans, other surveys suggestthat managers in general tendto quickly move into the“telling-arguing” tactic if theirfirst tactic does not achieveresults (Case et al., 1988). Asseen in Table 1, the third mostfrequently used tactic was to“use other people as a plat-form to present ideas.” Thistactic, while used morefrequently by the deans, is thesixth most used tactic bymanagers in general (Case etal., 1988). Since the third,fourth, and fifth mostfrequently used tactics by thedeans also involved peopleissues, it might be thatbusiness deans place a muchgreater emphasis on humanrelations and collegialbehavior than do managers inother settings. The deans in
this study ranked “threatening”the boss as the least frequentlyused tactic. This is consistentwith other studies of upwardinfluence. The dean in anacademic environment haslearned to be “collegial” (ifnothing else) with his/hersuperior, even when thedean’s requests are turneddown.
One particularlyinteresting result from thissurvey of deans is that all 53ranked “threatening the boss”as the least used of any of thetactics. This does suggest thatbusiness deans are slightlydifferent from the managers inthe Case et al. (1988) study.(Their study found that“offering to trade favors orconcessions” with their bosseswas the least used upwardinfluence tactic.)
The effectiveness of theinfluence methods/tactics areshown in Table 2 as well.Consistent with other surveys,the deans ranked “presentinga rational explanation” to yourboss as the most effectivetactic; however, after thistactic, the effectivenessrankings do not match thefrequency rankings on items“b” through “h.” For example,while the deans ranked“telling, arguing, or talkingwithout support” as theirsecond most frequently usedtactic, they ranked it fifth interms of effectiveness. Like-wise, “presenting a completeplan to your boss” wasseventh in frequency, yetsecond in terms of effective-ness.
24 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review
Discussion
The biggest differencebetween deans and executivesappears to be the time devotedto “presenting completeplans.” Industry managers ranked “presenting a completeplan” as their third most usedtactic, while deans ranked itseventh. Industry managersranked “presenting anexample of parallel situations”as the fourth most frequentlyused, while deans ranked iteighth. Clearly, the deans inthis study do differ from other
leaders in terms of theirfrequency of presentingcomplete plans and examplesfrom parallel situations. Thismay be an area in which deanscould become more effectiveas leaders.
For example, a surprisingfinding in this survey waslearning how quickly businessdeans shift to a tactic of“telling, arguing, or talkingwithout support.” Since theresearchers were able tosummarize the data from thesurveys and feed it back to thedeans before they adjourned
from their meeting, it wasinteresting to hear one dean’sexplanation: “I suppose we allknow what we ought to bedoing, but sometimes we’reonly human and fail to do it.”
These survey resultssuggest that most deans ofbusiness schools are like theircounterparts in industry.Clearly, followup researchneeds to be done with a largersample. An interestingpossibility would be tocompare deans of business schools to their peer deans in
Table 1Influence Methods*
To Influence your boss … How frequently doyou use this tactic?
How effective is thistactic?
SumTotal
MeanRanking
SumTotal
MeanRanking
a. Presenting a rational explanation 84 1.6 64 1.2
b. Telling, arguing, or talking without support 117 2.2 296 5.6
c. Using other people as a platform 137 2.6 202 3.8
d. Developing and showing support of other people (e.g.,employees, staff, faculty, alumni, etc.)
219 4.1 370 6.9
e. Showing confidence and support for my boss 286 5.4 425 8.0
f. Using persistence and repetition 347 6.5 219 4.1
g. Presenting a complete plan 391 7.4 150 2.8
h. Presenting an example of parallel situation 455 8.6 213 4.0
i. Listening, offering advice, or soliciting advice 463 8.7 447 8.4
j. Offering to trade favors or concessions 478 9.0 569 10.7
k. Using manipulative techniques 552 10.4 544 10.3
l. Threatening 636 12.0 625 11.8
* The “Sum Total” was calculated by adding all individual rankings of the 53 deans. The “Mean” was calculatedby dividing the “Sum Total” by the number of deans responding (N = 53).
Southern Business Review Spring 2005 25
Table 2Influence Methods
To Influence your boss … How frequently do youuse this tactic?
How effective is thistactic?
Deans Managers* Deans Managers*
a. Presenting a rational explanation 1 1 1 1
b. Telling, arguing, or talking without support 2 2 5 2
c. Using other people as a platform 3 6 3 6
d. Developing and showing support of other people (e.g.,employees, staff, faculty, alumni, etc.)
4 7 7 7
e. Showing confidence and support for my boss 5 N/A+ 8 N/A+
f. Using persistence and repetition 6 5 6 5
g. Presenting a complete plan 7 3 2 3
h. Presenting an example of parallel situation 8 4 4 4
i. Listening, offering advice, or soliciting advice 9 N/A+ 9 N/A+
j. Offering to trade favors or concessions 10 10 11 10
k. Using manipulative techniques 11 8 10 9
l. Threatening 12 9 12 8
* Case et al., 1988+
not available from the Case et al. (1988) study. Rank ordering of the Case et al. research is not exactly parallelto the deans survey because in this study’s field interviews, several deans mentioned that “showing confidenceand support for my boss” and “listening and offering advice” were important methods. These tactics were notused in the Case et al. study.
other disciplines to see whatsimilarities and differencesmight exist. A reasonableargument can be made thatinfluence tactics are learnedbehaviors, and anything thatcan be learned, can be“unlearned” or changed.Hopefully, a dean who wantsto be as effective as possiblewill want to learn how todevelop more influence in alldirections.
References
Bartolume, F. & Laurent, A.(1986). The manager:Master and servant ofpower. Harvard BusinessReview, 64 (6): 77-81.
Bijoux, T. (2003, March-April). Diving into thedean pool. Biz Ed: 36-41.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership.New York: Harper & Rowe.
Case, T., Dosier, L., MurkisonG., & Keys, B. (1988). Howmanagers influence superi-ors: A study of upwardinfluence tactics. Leader-ship and OrganizationalDevelopment Journal, 9(4): 25-31.
26 Spring 2005 Southern Business Review
Gardner, J. W. (1990). Onleadership. New York: FreePress.
Hartman, S., Lundberg, O., &Lee, D. (1997, October).Factors related to theformation of a communica-tion clique among businessdeans. The InternationalJournal of OrganizationalAnalysis, 5 (4): 388-400.
Hinkin, T. R. & Schriesheim,C. A. (1989). Develop-ment and application ofnew scales to measure theFrench and Raven bases ofpower. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74: 561-567.
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C.,& Curphy, G. J. (2002).Leadership. New York:McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). Thechange masters. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.
Kaplan, R. E. (1986). Traderoutes: The manager’snetwork of relationship.Organizational Dynamics,(Spring): 37-52.
Keys B. & Case, T. (1990).How to become aninfluential manager.Academy of ManagementExecutive, 4 (4): 38-51.
Kipnis, D. & Schmidt, S. M.(1988). Upward influencestyles: Relationship withperformance evaluations,salary, and stress.Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 33: 528-542.
Kotter, J. R. (1985, Septem-ber). Power and influence:Beyond formal authority.Macmillan ExecutiveSummary Program: 1-8.
Kotter, J. R. (1990, May-June). What leaders reallydo. Harvard BusinessReview: 103-111
Mowday, R. T. (1978). Theexercise of upwardinfluence in organizations.Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 23: 137-156.
Pelz, D. C. (1959). Influence:Key to effective leadershipin the first line supervisor.Personnel, 29: 209-217.
Ruello, S. H. (1973, July).Transferring managerialconcepts and techniquesto operating management.Advanced ManagementJournal.
Schilit, W. K. & Locke, E.(1982). A study of upwardinfluence in organizations.Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 27: 304-316.
Schmotter, J. W. (1998). Aninterview with Dean D.Joseph White. Selections,(Winter): 22-27.
Tyson, G. (2003). As uncertain-ty persists, deans talkdollars. Selections, (Spring):24-28.
Uyterhoeven, H. (1972).General managers in themiddle. Harvard BusinessReview, 50 (92): 75-85.
Yukl, G. & Falbe, C. M.(1990). Influence tacticsin upward, downward,and lateral influenceattempts. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75:132-140.
Non-Profit OrganizationU.S. Postage
PaidPermit No. 286Statesboro, GA
SOUTHERN BUSINESS REVIEWP. O. Box 8109Statesboro, GA 30460-8109
A Unit of the University System of GeorgiaAffirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
