Citation
The effects of self-monitoring and vested interest on perceptions of charismatic leadership

Material Information

Title:
The effects of self-monitoring and vested interest on perceptions of charismatic leadership
Creator:
Fowler, Melanie R
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
85 leaves : illustrations ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Introspection ( lcsh )
Charisma (Personality trait) ( lcsh )
Leadership ( lcsh )
Charisma (Personality trait) ( fast )
Introspection ( fast )
Leadership ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 81-85).
Thesis:
Psychology
General Note:
Department of Psychology
Statement of Responsibility:
by Melanie R. Fowler.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
54514117 ( OCLC )
ocm54514117
Classification:
LD1190.L645 2003m F68 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE EFFECTS OF SELF-MONITORING AND VESTED INTEREST ON
PERCEPTIONS OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
by
Melanie R. Fowler
B.A., Indiana State University, 2001
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Psychology
2003


This thesis for the Master of Arts
degree by
Melanie R. Fowler
has been approved
by
Annette Towler
Mitch Handelsman


03
Date


Fowler, Melanie R. (MA, Psychology)
The Effects of Self-Monitoring and Vested Interest on Perceptions of Charismatic
Leadership
Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Annette Towler
ABSTRACT
Charismatic leaders are noted to be exceptional leaders whose followers achieve
great outcomes. Charismatic leaders have personal emotional commitments to their
goals, create visionary statements from these personally invested goals, and express
their visions using verbal and non-verbal language. Self-monitoring is a personality
construct that measures the extent to which people adjust their self-presentations in
order to exhibit socially expected behavior. The current study explored the
hypothesis that followers perceive High Self-Monitoring leaders as more
charismatic than Low Self-Monitoring leaders when the leaders do not have a
personal commitment to the outcome of a situation. Fifty-two undergraduate
students participated in the study. The researcher identified participants as High
Self-Monitors or Low Self-Monitors based on a self-monitoring assessment
completed by each participant. Participants read one of two scenarios about a
fictitious clothing company experiencing negative financial growth. The High
Vested Interest Scenario had higher levels of five vested interest factors than the
Low Vested Interest Scenario: Immediacy, Certainty, Salience, Self-efficacy, and
Stake. Participants made a video-taped presentation about the information in the
scenario. Participants played the role of a store manager in the scenarios and asked
employees to take a reduction in pay. Two independent raters scored the participants
in the videos using a charismatic behavior scale, a delivery style scale, and other
m


measures associated with charismatic leaders. Results indicated a main effect with
raters perceiving High Self-Monitors to be more skilled and expressive than Low
Self-Monitors in both task groups (High vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario). Results
also indicated an interaction with raters perceiving High Self-Monitors to be more
charismatic than Low Self-Monitors, especially in the Low Vested Interest Scenario
task group. Raters self-reported to be willing to take a higher percentage pay cut
when viewing High Self-Monitors. This result was not statistically significant.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
Annette Towler
IV


DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my mother, Sharon, for her advice and continued faith in my
abilities, to the I/O class of 2003, especially Marilyn, Vanessa, Charlie, Erika, and
Katy, and to Kerry Jo for accepting late night phone calls. I could not have done it
with out you all.


ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank my advisor, Annette, and my committee members, Mitch and
Mike, for their confidence, support, and for their time during the process of writing
this thesis. Thank you for encouraging me to do better.


CONTENTS
Tables...............................................................x
Figures..............................................................xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................1
Charismatic Leadership...................................3
Charismatic Leadership Behaviors.........................9
Charismatic Language Delivery.....................11
Charismatic Language Content......................13
Personality of Charismatic Leaders: Self-Monitoring Behavior... 15
Vested Interest.........................................21
Hypotheses..............................................25
2. METHOD......................................................29
Participants............................................29
Design..................................................29
Independent Variables...................................30
Dependent Variables.....................................32
Procedure............................................. 33
Scenario Description....................................37
vii


3. RESULTS
39
Overview............................................39
Perceptions of Charismatic Leadership...............39
Delivery............................................42
Hand Gestures: A Charismatic Leadership Behavior....44
Follower Outcomes...................................45
4. DISCUSSION............................................ 47
Overview............................................47
Presentation Strategies.............................47
Charisma............................................48
Delivery and Behavior...............................50
Follower Outcomes...................................52
Implications........................................53
Limitation and Future Research......................54
APPENDIX
A. SELF-MONITORING ASSESSMENT............................58
B. SCENARIO OF HIGH VESTED INTEREST......................60
C. SCENARIO OF LOW VESTED INTEREST.......................64
D. PRESENTATION TECHNIQUES...............................68
E. RATING SC ALES........................................72
viii


F. VESTED INTEREST MANIPULATION..............75
G. MANIPULATION CHECK....................... 77
H. CONSENT FORM..............................79
REFERENCES........................................81
IX


TABLES
Table
1 Charismatic Leadership Rating...........................................42
2 Perception of Skills....................................................43
3 Perception of Expressiveness............................................43
4 Effective use of Hand Gestures..........................................45
5 Willingness to Reduce Pay...............................................46
x


FIGURES
Figure
1 Charisma Behavior....................................................41
2 Expressiveness.......................................................44
xi


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Leaders of a group or an organization are in a pivotal position to motivate
group members towards achieving common goals. Those leaders who can influence
more effectively will achieve important goals. Traditionally the research on
leadership focused only on national and military leaders. However, recently the
research expanded to include leaders in the corporate world. We realize where
there are groups, there are leaders (Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998, p. 1248).
Having an effective leader in business increases employee motivation,
employee satisfaction (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987), and the amount of growth an
organization experiences (Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998). Effective leaders
who adapt to change and keep motivation high can enable an organization to gain a
competitive advantage. Therefore, the ability to select and identify effective leaders
is an important strategic goal for organizations.
Researchers suggest that charismatic leaders are particularly effective
leaders (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; House, 1995; Holladay & Coombs, 1994).
Charismatic leaders can be summarized as those who are visionary (Conger &
Kanungo, 1987; House, 1976) and considered to be role models (Howell & Avolio,
1995). They are trustworthy, sensitive to their followers needs, and inspire
1


enthusiasm in their followers about the leaders visions (Conger & Kanungo, 1987;
1988). In addition, charismatic leaders achieve greater outcomes, such as task
performance, task satisfaction, and higher adjustment to their leader than non-
charismatic leaders (Howell & Frost, 1989; Towler, in press).
However, researchers have not concluded whether the personality traits of
leaders or situational factors are more important in the emergence of extraordinary
leaders (Bass, 1990). Some studies indicate that situational factors are important to
perceptions of leadership (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Other researchers continue to
examine personality traits associated with effective leaders (Bono & Judge, 2003;
Judge & Bono, 2000; Ross & Offerman,1998)
The current study implements an interactional approach in identifying
factors that encourage the perception of charismatic leadership. The interactional
approach enables leadership behaviors to be examined as a blend of situational
factors and personality traits. In the current study, I examined the interaction of the
personality trait of self-monitoring and the situational factor of vested interest on the
perceptions of charismatic leadership. The purpose is to answer the question: Are
High Self-Monitors perceived to be more charismatic leaders than Low Self-
Monitors when the leaders have a low vested interest in the goals of the situation? In
addition, I examined the interactional effects of self-monitoring and vested interest
on perceived expressiveness, perceptions of skill, and willingness to comply with
2


behaviors advocated by the leader. I have chosen to focus on self-monitoring
because previous research has indicated a relationship between self-monitoring and
leadership emergence (Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, & Clemons, 1990; Zaccaro, Foti, &
Kenny, 1991). However, the research has not explicitly examined the relationship
between self-monitoring and charismatic leadership behaviors.
In the following introduction I describe research on charismatic leadership
and the effects of this leadership style on the behaviors of followers. In addition, I
describe the verbal and non-verbal language techniques used by charismatic leaders.
The language of charismatic leaders remains a focus of the study because
participants gave a speech that raters later examined for charismatic content. Next, I
describe the personality trait called self-monitoring and the research supporting the
idea that High Self-Monitors will be viewed as more charismatic than Low Self-
Monitors. Finally, I discuss the impact of self-monitoring and vested interest on
perceptions of charisma and other outcomes associated with charismatic leadership.
Charismatic Leadership
Researchers have noted that charismatic individuals are effective leaders
(Conger & Kanungo, 1988; House, 1995; Holladay & Coombs, 1994). Charismatic
leaders are those who are not satisfied with the status quo and have a vision, or vivid
picture, of a goal that others (i.e., followers) find attractive (House, 1976). They are
3


able to communicate their vision simply and clearly to their followers. They are
described by their followers as likeable, trustworthy, and unconventional in their
behavior. Furthermore, they inspire passion and enthusiasm in their followers about
the communicated purpose of the mission (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). In return, the
followers are devoted to their charismatic leader. Charismatic leaders gain power
through respect, admiration, and the perception of having expertise in their field.
Ethical charismatic leaders coordinate their visions with the needs of the group, use
their position to serve the group, favor open communication, support and recognize
followers, and remain moral role models (Howell & Avolio, 1995).
Initially, charismatic leaders dissatisfaction with the current state of the
organization offers them the chance to envision a change. The vision they have for
the future differs greatly from the status quo and from the current trend of the
organization (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). Those people who are also dissatisfied
feel drawn to the leader (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). The shared perspective aids in
developing a relationship between charismatic leaders and their followers.
The relationship between charismatic leaders and their followers is different
from the relationship that exists with a non-charismatic leader. Non-charismatic
leaders achieve their power base from a combination of position power and personal
power. Position power is generated from factors such as ability to give rewards and
followers perceived similarity between themselves and the leader. Personal power
4


includes factors such as respect, admiration, and expertise. Charismatic leaders
achieve their power base completely from personal power, the more effective of the
two forms of power (Conger & Kanungo, 1987).
Non-charismatic leaders encourage followers to share their views while
charismatic leaders transform their followers to share their vision (Conger &
Kanungo, 1987). Ordinary leaders have impersonal attitudes towards the goals that
are set forth. They do no attempt to alter what their subordinates think is desirable or
possible. In addition, ordinary leaders have a low level of emotional involvement in
the goals of the organization (Zaleznik, 1977).
Non-charismatic leaders have subordinates who perform in order to receive
compensation or other types of rewards for achieving a goal (Conger & Kanungo,
1987). This theory is known as transactional leadership because the relationship
between non-charismatic leaders and subordinates acts on the basis of a transaction
(Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). This is dramatically different from charismatic leadership
theory (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Charismatic leaders are emotionally involved in
their goals (Sosik, 2000). They have followers who perform out of a personal desire
to implement the leaders vision. The charismatic leader actually changes what the
followers feel is possible and desirable (Conger & Kanungo, 1987).
The relationship between followers and charismatic leaders is also
distinguished from the relationship of followers and non-charismatic leaders
5


because followers describe their charismatic leader as likeable and worthy of
identification and imitation. Non-charismatic leaders are not described by their
followers as worthy of identification and imitation (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). A
followers liking of the charismatic leader and his/her identification with the
charismatic leader stems from the shared perspective of the leaders idealized vision
and from the desire of the follower to implement change. According to Conger and
Kanungos (1988) theory of charismatic leadership, when followers share the
distaste for the current state and their values are in line with the desired future state,
the shared perspective results in likeability and identification with the leader. The
followers view the leader as being on their side and acting on their behalf.
However, charismatic leaders receive more from their followers than just
expressed fondness. Charismatic leaders have their followers trust, respect, and
admiration. Conger, Kanungo, & Menon (2000) found that followers trust and
satisfaction are mediated through reverence of the leader. In addition, their study
found a strong relationship between follower admiration and charismatic leadership.
Followers trust is gained in part by making visible personal sacrifices (Conger &
Kanungo, 1987, 1988). For example, leaders may sacrifice privileges, status within
the organization, or monetary compensation (Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999).
When leaders make sacrifices to achieve their vision, it reinforces to followers the
personal commitment that leaders have towards the vision.
6


Moreover, charismatic leaders have more satisfied and productive followers
(Howell & Frost, 1989; Towler, in press). In a laboratory experiment conducted by
Howell and Frost (1989), actors were trained to perform as three different types of
leaders; charismatic leaders, considerate leaders, and structured leaders. The actors
watched videos of individuals exhibiting behaviors consistent with each leadership
style, including body language, facial expressions, emotional states, and
paralinguistic cues. The actors assuming one of the three leadership styles led
participants in an administrative task. Participants perceived the charismatic actors
as the most effective leaders. In addition, participants working under the charismatic
actor had higher levels of task performance and task satisfaction. Participants
adjusted to their leader better than those individuals who performed under an actor
assuming a structured or a considerate leadership style (Howell & Frost, 1989).
In phase one of a laboratory study by Towler (in press), participants received
either charismatic language training, presentation skills training, or no training at all.
Charismatic language skills training included the same materials covered in the
presentation skills training, as well as instruction on delivery techniques and
charismatic content strategies. The presentation skills training consisted of reading
material on effective presentation skills and watching a video on effective delivery.
Then, participants gave a video-taped speech while assuming the role of a manager
for a fictitious pharmaceuticals company. In phase two of the study, different
7


participants than those involved in phase one viewed the videos produced in phase
one of the study. Participants in phase two reported that when they viewed a speaker
that received charismatic leadership training, they had more commitment to the
vision of the company, more satisfaction with the task, and found the speaker more
effective than when they viewed individuals who received either presentation skills
training or no training at all.
Conger and Kanungos (1988) theory of charismatic leadership states that
charismatic leaders are also viewed by followers as experts in their areas of
influence. These leaders reflect through their actions that they are competent in their
skills and abilities to turn their vision into a reality. Furthermore, charismatic leaders
are described by their followers as being experts in using unconventional means to
achieve their idealistic visions. In contrast, non-charismatic leaders are described by
followers as only being experts in using available means to achieve goals related to
the status quo (Conger & Kanungo, 1987)
As an example of a charismatic leader, consider Herb Kelleher, CEO and co-
founder of Southwest Airlines. His philosophy is to treat employees well, and in
return, the company will do well. The leadership traits that have been attributed to
Kelleher (Gibson & Blackwell, 1999) include having a vision, self-confidence,
exemplary communication skills, high level of commitment, energy and enthusiasm,
and being a good role model.
8


Kellehers leadership style kept Southwest Airlines in business in the early
1990s when the airline industry faced the obstacle of rising gasoline prices. Many
other airlines facing the same problem lost billions of dollars. However, Southwest,
determined to stay in business, created the "Fuel from the Heart Program." This
program made it possible for employees to donate the cost of a gallon (or more) of
gasoline from their paychecks. The result: Southwest stayed profitable during this
period of economic decline for the airline industry (Schermerhom, 1999). Kelleher
invoked positive outcomes such as the companys unusual financial stability
through the use of his vision and charismatic leadership style. His followers were
more dedicated to keeping Southwest in business and sacrificed their own pay to
buy fuel for the company.
Charismatic Leadership Behaviors
Charismatic leadership behaviors are important to the current study because
participants gave a speech which raters examined for charismatic leadership
components. These components consisted of verbal and non-verbal language used in
the delivery and the content of the speech. The following describes the behaviors
exhibited by charismatic leaders.
Charismatic leaders communicate their visions through a variety of
methods. Both the delivery and the visionary content of the message are important
9


for charismatic leaders (Holladay & Coombs, 1993; Howell & Frost, 1989).
Delivery is the way in which a message is communicated. It encompasses a series of
non-verbal language techniques: maintaining eye contact with the audience, using
hand gestures and body language, employing expressive and animated facial
expressions, and adding variations in rate and tone of voice. When hand and body
gestures, as well as expressive and animated facial expressions, complement the
visionary message of the leader, they reinforce the message. In addition, variations
in tone of voice add emphasis and additional meaning to the words used to
communicate the vision. As a result, effective delivery of speeches arouses
enthusiastic or emotional responses from followers (Howell & Frost, 1989).
The content is the message contained within the vision. Charismatic leaders
use language that is simple to understand and is presented clearly. The use of
analogies, metaphors, autobiographical stories, and rhetorical techniques augment
the emotionality of the visionary message (Conger, 1991; Howell & Frost, 1989;
Hartog & Verburg, 1997). Rhetorical techniques include lists, repetition, contrasts,
alliteration, and position taking. Some charismatic leaders also incorporate humor
into their style to communicate their visions (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999).
Together, delivery and content encompass the components of charismatic leadership
language.
10


Charismatic Language Delivery
Towler and Dipboye (2001) studied the effects of using an expressive
delivery style to communicate a message. They defined expressiveness as a
generally fluent message that contains vocal intonations. Conversely, they
characterized inexpressiveness as a monotone voice combined with hesitations.
Participants listened to one of four audio recordings made by a trained speaker. The
lectures were manipulated in a 2 X 2 factorial design in which delivery style
(expressive vs. inexpressive) and organization (organized vs. less organized) were
manipulated to create four different audio recordings. Participants answered test
questions on the material covered in the lecture immediately following the lecture
and then again after two days. The researchers found that expressiveness assisted
participants in immediate and delayed recall. Participants remembered the content
of the lecture best when the speaker delivered the organized lecture using an
expressive delivery style. The next highest amount of recall occurred when the
speaker was expressive and the lecture was unorganized. The study suggests that the
content of the message expressed by the leader is more likely to linger in the minds
of the audience if the leader uses an emotional, enthusiastic, or other expressive
delivery style. It is important that charismatic leaders communicate a vision that
remains with their followers because having a shared perspective of an idealized
vision is a critical component of charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987).
11


Holladay and Coombs (1994) studied the effects of delivery and content
variables on perceptions of charismatic leadership. Specifically, they manipulated
delivery and content variables and then measured perceptions of charismatic
leadership. Participants viewed a video-taped message of a trained speaker who
played the role of a store manager. The researchers used four different videos. Each
video used strong or weak delivery techniques in combination with visionary or
non-visionary content. The strong delivery techniques included expressive
behaviors, good eye contact, use of hand gestures, effective facial expressions, and
vocal variety. The videos with visionary content included a vision, a strong sense of
mission, references to shared values, respect towards subordinates, expectations for
subordinates, and an optimistic view of the future. The study found perceptions of
charismatic leadership to be the greatest when the message communicated by the
store manager had both visionary content and a strong delivery. When the message
was non-visionary but still maintained a strong delivery style, perceptions of
charismatic leadership were the second highest. Messages with visionary content
and a weak delivery style followed. Holladay and Coombs suggested that a weak
delivery may dull the effects of the visionary content. Therefore, the message is not
able to carry the same impact as it would with an expressive delivery. The study
concluded that delivery style effects perceptions of charismatic leadership.
12


Charismatic Language Content
Pennebaker and King (1999) suggest that the words people use affect others
perceptions of their moods, emotions, and personality. Linguistic research supports
this idea. Recently, Pennebaker and Lay (2002) conducted a content analysis using
the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to examine the word use of former
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The public noticed a personality change
in Giuliani when comparing his personality at the time of his initial election to
office to his personality at the time of the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks on
September 11,2001. During Giulianis first term in office he was frequently
described by the media as sarcastic, irritable, and defensive (Goode, 2002). In 2000
Giuliani underwent a personal crisis when doctors diagnosed him with prostate
cancer. Beginning at this time, of personal crisis, Giulianis language became
simpler and more personal two characteristics attributed to the language of
charismatic leaders (Sosik, 2000; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Zaleznik, 1977). After
the WTC attacks, Giuliani expressed sadness more openly, spoke about the future
instead of the past, and used more positive emotional tones (Pennebaker & Lay,
2002). In addition, followers witnessed personal sacrifices that Giuliani made as he
gave his time to attend funerals and to stand in at a wedding where all male family
members had been lost in the WTC attacks. Even after his term in office many
people viewed him as a hero (Goode, 2002). Pennebaker and Lays (2002) research
13


found a change in linguistic style over his eight-year term which could explain the
publics assumption that Giulianis personality changed. The study of Giulianis
language demonstrates that it was the language he used that changed others
perceptions of him.
Other ways in which leaders use language to convey their messages is
through clearly articulated vision statements. The vision is accompanied by stories
that have personal meaning to the leader. By using stories that hold personal
meaning, leaders are able to convey their personal commitment and emotional
involvement with their vision.
Charismatic leaders also weave analogies and metaphors into the content
(Conger, 1991). These two language techniques give an emotional charge to the
message because they make comparisons between two items that are not usually
viewed as linked. For example, Will Durant expressed an analogy between
education and happiness. He stated, .. .education, like happiness, is individual, and
must come to us from life and from ourselves (Satire, 1997). Similarly, Martin
Luther King, Jr. used a metaphor to compare the struggle for human rights for
African Americans to an outstanding bank loan:
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this
promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.
Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given
the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked
"insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of
14


justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are
insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this
nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will
give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of
justice. (1963)
Both of these quotes have more emotional appeal than simply stating that education
is individual and personal, or African-Americans are not treated justly. The
audience is better able to relate what the speaker is feeling through the verbal
techniques of charismatic leadership language.
In summary, charismatic leaders use various behaviors that serve to
strengthen the delivery and the content of their visionary messages. The behaviors
are both verbal and non-verbal. When their messages have a strong delivery,
followers perceive the leaders as more charismatic (Holladay & Coombs, 1994) and
are more likely to remember the content of the message (Towler & Dipboye, 2001).
In addition, the specific language that charismatic leaders use effects their
followers perceptions of them (Pennebaker & Lay, 2002) and can increase the
emotionality of the leaders vision.
Personality of Charismatic Leaders: Self-Monitoring Behavior
Researchers did not begin the social scientific study of leadership until the
early 1930s (House & Aditya, 1997). Initially, researchers examined physical traits
such as gender, height, or appearance because popular belief held to the idea that
15


these traits were identifiers of good leaders. Research published on leadership from
1930 through 1950 focused on psychological traits such as intelligence and need for
power. After 1950, the research diminished due to the inability of researchers to
replicate studies, criticism of population samples, and a lack of evidence supporting
the idea of universal traits (House & Aditya, 1997).
Recently, however, researchers have reconsidered the dispositional approach
to leadership by attempting to identify personality traits that separate effective
leaders from non-effective leaders. For example, personality traits such as
extroversion and agreeableness have been linked to emergence of
transformational/charismatic leadership in business managers (Judge & Bono,
2000). Extroverts are expressive and, according to research by Holladay and
Coombs (1993) and Howell and Frost (1989), expressive behavior is an important
predictor of perceptions of charismatic leadership. In addition, research indicates
that followers of charismatic leaders describe their leaders as likeable (Conger &
Kanungo, 1987). However, a charismatic leader must also convey sincere
involvement and capability of achieving the vision to initiate perceptions of
charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; Zaleznik, 1977). The
current study is a continuation of the dispositional approach to leadership; however,
it also takes into account situational factors which will be described subsequently.
16


One personality construct that has not been analyzed specifically in the
context of perceptions of charismatic leadership research is self-monitoring. The
notion of self-monitoring describes the behavior of adjusting ones self-presentation
on the basis of either internal or external factors (Becker, Ayman, & Korabik, 2002;
Snyder, 1974). Internal factors include a persons feelings or emotions. External
factors include the environment and the behavioral reactions of other individuals.
In other words, self-monitoring is a type of impression management affected
by ones sensitivity to the cues that surround a given situation. These cues are
examined by the individual for indications of social acceptability of behaviors
(Snyder, 1974). Individuals who are very sensitive to external cues and adjust their
self-presentation based on the cues are categorized as High Self-Monitors. High
Self-Monitors aim to adjust their image to exhibit socially appropriate behavior.
Individuals who are less sensitive to external cues and adjust their self-presentation
based on internal cues, are categorized as Low Self-Monitors. According to
Snyders (1974) theory, Low Self-Monitors judge the appropriateness of their
behavior from within. They adjust their self-presentation based on what they sense
internally.
In some situations High Self-Monitors will offer a presentation that is
dissimilar from their actual internal state. For example, imagine a public situation
that is exciting such as the wedding of two close friends. Consider a Low Self-
17


Monitor who is upset because he/she is in love with one of the friends to be married.
The Low Self-Monitor examines internal factors and as a result expresses behavior
that is associated with being upset. On the other hand, a High Self-Monitor in the
same predicament considers the external cues, namely from the wedding
atmosphere and the other wedding guests. Thus, a High Self-Monitor expresses
behavior associated with excitement. Excitement is consistent with the external cues
given in the wedding situation and has a consensus of being socially appropriate. In
this example, the expressed behavior of the High Self-Monitor is dissimilar to the
actual emotions being experienced.
Friedman and Miller-Herringer (1991) observed self-monitoring behavior in
their study. When a group of Low Self-Monitors won a computer game, they
expressed their happiness with nonverbal actions such as smiling, clapping, and
punching the air. Conversely, when High Self-Monitors won the computer game,
they suppressed their expressive behavior; they exhibited a neutral emotional state.
In a study by Tumley and Bolino (2001), individuals were taught
impression-management skills. The researchers found that High Self-Monitors used
the impression-management skills more effectively than Low Self-Monitors.
Tumley and Bolino (2001) attributed the difference in effective use of the skills to
High Self-Monitors having more experience in adjusting their self-presentation.
Specifically, High Self-Monitors were more effective in managing self-
18


presentations of likeability, self-promotion, and dedication. These three skills are
characteristics that followers attribute to charismatic leaders (Conger & Kanungo,
1987, 1988).
Some research conducted on leadership and self-monitoring looks at
leadership emergence. Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, and Clemons (1990) conducted a
study examining leadership emergence as affected by self-monitoring and gender.
Undergraduate students completed a self-monitoring assessment and later the
researchers assigned each of them to a four person team. Each team consisted of one
male High Self-Monitor, one female High Self-Monitor, one male Low Self-
Monitor, and one female Low Self-Monitor. The teams then completed a salary
allocation task where the team members had to decide how to allocate $10,000 to
six fictitious employees. At the end of the task, each team member indicated via a 7-
point Likert-type scale how much each would like to have each team member,
including themselves, be the leader. In addition, they each selected one individual,
excluding themselves, to serve as the groups leader. These two indications made by
participants served as measures of leadership emergence. The researchers found that
High Self-Monitors emerged more often than Low Self-Monitors as the leaders of
the groups.
In a similar type of study, Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (1991) researched
leadership emergence across various situations to identify whether or not leadership
19


emergence is trait-based. In addition, self-monitoring was selected as a personality
trait that may be associated with leadership emergence regardless of the situations.
In the study, the researchers asked participants to complete a self-monitoring
questionnaire and then assigned them to a three-person group to complete the first
of four different tasks. The researchers assigned participants to a different group for
each subsequent task. After completing each task, participants rated their peers and
themselves on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire which measures four
leader traits: Persuasion, Initiating structure, Consideration, and Production
Emphasis. Then, at the end of each task participants rated themselves and their peers
on leadership emergence. Leadership emergence was based on two measures, a 5-
item General Leadership Impression (GLI) scale and leader preference rankings. To
obtain the leader preference rankings the researchers asked participants to rank
order which group members they would prefer to have as the group leader.
Leadership emergence was stable across the four different situations even when task
and group membership changed. Therefore, leadership emergence is not solely
based on situational factors. Next, the researchers examined the correlation between
leadership emergence and participants self-monitoring scores. Correlations between
the first measure of leadership emergence (the GLI scale) and self-monitoring were
not significant. However, the researchers found a small correlation between self-
monitoring and the second measure of leadership emergence, the leader preference
20


rankings. Zacarro, Foti and Kenny (1991) concluded in this study that leadership
emergence is in part trait-based and that self-monitoring is one of these traits. This
study failed to examine other personality traits that could account for leadership
emergence.
Vested Interest
In addition to personality traits, situational factors have an impact on
leadership perceptions (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Situational factors are conditions
that exist that may have an impact on individuals behaviors. This study considers
the interaction of a personality trait and a situational factor on perceptions of
charismatic leadership.
Self-interest or vested interest is a factor that affects peoples attitudes and
the ways in which individuals respond to situations (Brewer & Crano, 1994). When
a person has a high vested interest in a situation, then the person perceives that there
are important personal consequences associated with him/her and the event or
situation. Conversely, if a person perceives that a situation will not result in any
important personal consequences, then the person has a low vested interest in the
situation. Crano and Preslin (1995) summarize the theory of vested interest by
explaining that people will behave in ways that match their interests.
21


Several factors contribute to an individuals vested interest. These factors
include stake, salience, certainty, immediacy, and self-efficacy (Crano & Prislin,
1995). Stake refers to ones personal feeling of loss or gain that will result as a
consequence of the situation. Salience is the relevancy of the situation to the
individual. Certainty refers to how likely it is that the consequences will occur at all.
Immediacy refers to how soon the consequences will occur after action is taken by
the individual. Lastly, self-efficacy is the amount to which an individual believes
that he/she can take action to make a difference in the outcome of a situation.
To reiterate, the degree of vested interest an individual has in a situation
affects the ways in which that individual will behave (Crano & Prislin, 1995). This
concept may be applied to charismatic leaders. Researchers have noted that
charismatic leaders have a high vested interest in their visions and they also take
action to achieve their goals (Sosik, 2000; Conger & Kanungo, 1987,1988;
Zaleznik, 1977). For example, the goals they set forth are very relevant to them
because they hold personal meaning. Thus, the salience of the goal is high.
The concept of vested interest is also relevant to self-monitoring. Low Self-
Monitors behave in ways consistent with their internal state, or self-interest.
Therefore, if a Low Self-Monitor has low vested interest in a situation, he/she will
likely express behavior that matches his/her attitude (Crano & Prislin, 1995; Snyder,
1974). High Self-Monitors, however, do not always express behaviors that reflect
22


their self-interest. Therefore, if a High Self-Monitor has low vested interest in a
situation, he/she may not express behaviors that match his/her attitude. Suppose a
situation arises where High Self-Monitor and Low Self-Monitor individuals must
speak to a group on a topic that they have low vested interest in or are not sincere
about. However, the situational cues surrounding the event indicate that it is socially
appropriate for the individuals to be sincere and expressive. According to Snyder
(1974), Low Self-Monitors express behavior congruent with their internal state and
are not as sensitive to external cues. In contrast, High Self-Monitors survey the
situation and adapt a response that is the most socially appropriate for the situation.
As a result, Low Self-Monitors express neutral or non-emotional behavior because
this behavior would match their attitude of low vested interest. Conversely, High
Self-Monitors would speak with emotion about the topic that they have low vested
interest in because High Self-Monitors observe external cues and adjust their self-
presentations to express socially appropriate behaviors.
Consider the same situation except in a charismatic leadership context. Both
a Low Self-Monitor and a High Self-Monitor must speak to a group of people. In
this situation it is beneficial to be charismatic in order to achieve a specific outcome
or goal. The Low Self-Monitor and the High Self-Monitor find personal meaning, or
have a vested interest, in the situation. It is likely that both will express behavior
that matches their attitudes. As a result, the followers perceive the speakers as
23


charismatic because they are expressing behavior consistent with charismatic
leaders. These behaviors may include having a high vested interest in the goals,
expressiveness, and exhibiting expertise. However, if both High Self-Monitors and
Low Self-Monitors have a low vested interest in the situation, there should be a
difference in their expressed behaviors (Crano & Prislin, 1995, Snyder, 1974). The
Low Self-Monitors will express behavior consistent with their attitude low vested
interest. Having a low vested interest in the goals is not typical of charismatic
leaders. On the other hand, the High Self-Monitor will adjust his/her self-
presentation to be consistent with external cues suggesting it is socially appropriate
to express charismatic behaviors. As a result, the High Self-Monitor may be
perceived by followers as more charismatic than the Low Self-Monitor because
he/she will adjust his/her self-presentation to convey charismatic behaviors, such as
high vested interest in the goal, expressiveness, and expertise.
In summary, vested interest influences the ways in which people behave.
According to the theory of vested interest, there is congruency between peoples
attitudes and the behaviors they express. Charismatic leaders who have a high
vested interest in their visions are likely to express behavior congruent with their
visions. Vested interest is also relevant to self-monitoring. Low Self-monitors
behave in ways consistent with their attitude. However, High Self-Monitors adjust
24


their self-presentations based on external cues that may be different than their
attitude.
Hypotheses
The current study looked at the interaction of one dispositional and one
situational factor on perceptions of charismatic leadership. Charismatic leaders are
those who are not satisfied with the status quo (House, 1976). They seek to change
the current state in favor of their vision for a future state (Conger & Kanungo,
1988). Charismatic leaders have emotional and personal commitment to their
visions, unlike non-charismatic leaders (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; Zaleznik,
1977). In addition, charismatic leaders use verbal and non-verbal behaviors to add
emphasis and emotion to their message when speaking about their vision (Holladay
& Coombs, 1993; Howell & Frost, 1989).
The personality trait called self-monitoring has yet to be studied specifically
in the context of perceptions of charismatic leadership. Low Self-Monitors are
individuals who express behaviors based on their internal state. High Self-Monitors
express behavior based on external cues in the situation (Becker, Ayman, &
Korabik, 2002; Snyder, 1974). In other words, High Self-Monitors may express
behavior inconsistent with their internal state.
25


In addition to personality traits, situational factors play a role in leadership
perceptions (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). One such situational factor is the degree of
vested interest an individual has in a situation. Vested interest has an effect on the
behaviors that individuals express (Crano & Prislin, 1995). Charismatic leaders have
a high vested interest in their visions (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; Zaleznik,
1977).
The current study examined the interaction of the situational factor of vested
interest and the dispositional factor of self-monitoring on perceptions of charismatic
leadership. People behave in ways that match their interests and High Self-Monitors
do not always express behaviors consistent with their attitude; it is possible that
these two concepts interact in their influence upon peoples perceptions. Therefore,
participants in the current study completed a measure of Self-Monitoring and were
placed in one of two leadership situations. One situation included content to create a
high vested interest for the participant while the other included content to create a
low vested interest for the participant. All participants made a video-taped speech
which raters examined later for charismatic leadership behaviors and behaviors
associated with the delivery of the speech (expressiveness and skill), non-verbal
delivery techniques (hand gestures), and the willingness of followers to comply with
behaviors advocated by the speaker.
The present study investigated four hypotheses:
26


HI: There will be an interaction of task type (High Vested Interest Scenario
vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) and Self-Monitoring (High Self-
Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on raters perceptions of charisma.
Specifically, when both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have
a vested interest in the situation, there will be no differences in
perceptions of charisma. When there is low vested interest, High Self-
Monitors will be perceived as more charismatic than Low Self-Monitors.
H2: There will be an interaction of task type (High Vested Interest Scenario
vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) and Self-Monitoring (High Self-
Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on raters perceptions of expressiveness.
Specifically, when both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have
a vested interest in the situation, there will be no differences in
perceptions of expressiveness. When there is low vested interest, High
Self-Monitors will be perceived as more expressive than Low Self-
Monitors.
H3: There will be an interaction of task type (High Vested Interest Scenario
vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) and Self-Monitoring (High Self-
Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on charismatic leadership behaviors,
27


including, use of stories, use of analogies, eye contact, tone of voice
changes, hand gestures, animated facial expressions, humor, use of a
vision statement, and raising expectations of the audience. When both
High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have a vested interest in the
situation, there will be no difference in raters perceptions of verbal and
non-verbal charismatic leadership behaviors. When there is low vested
interest in the situation, High Self-Monitors will be perceived as using
more charismatic leadership behaviors while speaking than Low Self-
Monitors.
H4: There will be an interaction of task type (High Vested Interest Scenario
vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) and Self-Monitoring (High Self-
Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on follower outcomes. Specifically,
when both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have a vested
interest in the situation, there will be no differences in raters willingness
to reduce their pay. When there is low vested interest, High Self-
Monitors will achieve greater follower outcomes than Low Self-
Monitors; raters will be willing to reduce their pay by a higher
percentage.
28


CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Participants
Fifty-two undergraduate students from eight psychology courses in an urban
university participated in the study. Participants in seven of the courses received
extra credit in exchange for their participation. Participants ranged from eighteen to
fifty-nine years in age (M=24.7, SL) =8.24). Thirty-five participants (67%) were
between eighteen and twenty-four years in age. Forty-six participants (90%) were
female. The majority were Caucasian (63%) followed by Hispanic (14%), African-
American (8%), Asian (8%), and Native American (2%). Finally, thirty-five
participants (45%) were employed part-time, 12 (24%) employed full-time, and 16
(31%) were not employed at the time of the study. Of those who were at least
employed part-time, 24% were in sales roles, 18% in managerial or professional
roles, 16% in technical or skilled labor roles, 6% in clerical or secretarial roles, and
4% in unskilled labor roles.
Design
The researcher used a 2 x 2 between-subjects design which assessed self-
monitoring (High Self-Monitoring vs. Low Self-Monitoring) and manipulated task
29


group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) to
differentiate between participants. Dependent variables included delivery style
ratings on a 7-point Likert-type scale and charisma behavior ratings on a 5-point
Likert-type scale (Appendix E).
Independent Variables
The study included participants self-monitoring ratings as an independent
variable. Mark Snyder (1974) developed the Self-Monitoring Scale with a reliability
of a = 70 to assess the degree to which individuals alter their self-presentation based
on external cues (Appendix A). High Self-Monitors adjust their self-presentation
more than Low Self-Monitors. Snyder (1974) defines High Self-Monitors as
individuals who score sixteen to twenty-five on the self-monitoring scale. Low Self-
Monitors are defined as individuals scoring one to eight on the same scale. These
scores represent the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively. Participants in the current
study scored between 5 and 21 with a mean of 12.5 (SD=4.27). The 25-point scale
was split dichotomously at the median (12) to form a low and high group. The
researcher classified participants as Low Self-Monitors if they scored 1 to 12 on the
scale and as High Self-Monitors if they scored 13 to 25 on the scale for the purposes
of this study. For the current study, the researcher chose a median split point over
Snyders method because of the sample and the distribution of the data in this study.
30


Scores were evenly distributed about the mean (Skewness=0.09) with a slightly
platykurtic distribution (Kurtosis=-0.97), meaning that there are little data in the
extremes. Eliminating scores in the middle of the ranges would have substantially
lowered the sample size. The cost of using the median split method is that results
will not be as significant as they could have been using Snyders method. This
occurs because there is less variance between the two groups with the inclusion of
the middle scores.
Task group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest
Scenario) served as the other independent variable. Participants received either a
High Vested Interest Scenario or a Low vested Interest Scenario. The High Vested
Interest Scenario contained statements designed to elicit more personal involvement
from participants than the Low Vested Interest Scenario (Appendix B & Appendix
C). Statements differed with respect to Stake, Salience, Certainty, Immediacy, and
Self-Efficacy. For example, the Stake statement for the High Vested Interest
Scenario group read, Unfortunately, you will also have to take a reduction in pay,
and for the Low Vested Interest Scenario group read, Fortunately, you will not
have to take a reduction in pay (Appendix F).
31


Dependent Variables
The dependent variables included scores on an 11-item charismatic behavior
scale (Bass & Avolio, 1985,1995) and a delivery rating scale (Holladay & Coombs,
1993) consisting of expressiveness and skill (Appendix E). Other measures were
subjective Likert-type scale questions that asked raters about the speakers use of
stories, use of analogies, eye contact, tone of voice changes, hand gestures,
animated facial expressions, humor, use of a vision statement, raising expectations
of the audience, and raters percentage of willing pay reduction (Appendix E). Two
female psychology students, one graduate and one undergraduate, served as
independent raters and measured all dependent variables. Inter-rater reliability was
assessed and only some of the dependent variables had sufficient agreement
between raters. Therefore, this study only includes analyses on the charismatic
behavior scale (reliability = .57), expressiveness (reliability = .62) and skill
(reliability = .56) factors of the delivery rating scale, use of hand gestures (reliability
= .58), and raters percentage of willing pay reduction (reliability = .66).
The charisma behavior scale is a component of Bass and Avolios (1985,
1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and consists of 11 items on a 5-point
Likert-type scale based on behavioral components of charisma. These components
include inspirational motivation, attributed charisma, and idealized influence (Bass
& Avolio, 1995). This scale has an alpha coefficient of a =.93. Items included,
32


Talked optimistically about the future, Displayed a sense of power and purpose,
and Went beyond his/her self interest for the good of the group (Appendix E).
The delivery rating scale consisted of 13 pairs of bipolar adjectives on a 7-
point Likert-type scale end points that previous research associated with effective
delivery (Holladay & Coombs, 1993; Towler, in press). Examples included
incompetent/competent, weak/strong, and ffiendly/unffiendly (Appendix E). Two
factors were found that accounted for 85.3% of the variance. The researcher labeled
Factor 1 Skills which accounted for 50.9% of the variance (Eigenvalue=6.61) and
contained items measuring if the speaker was Skilled, Qualified, Reliable,
Intelligent, Competent, Powerful and Wise. Factor 2, labeled Expressiveness
(Eigenvalue=4.48, 34.4% variance explained), contained the items Openness,
Excitement, Friendliness, Motivation, and Charisma.
Percentage of willing pay reduction measured the percentage of pay that
raters indicated they would be willing to cut from their hourly wages based on the
message they heard from the speaker. Percentage increments of five percent began
at 0% and ended at 25%.
Procedure
All participants signed a consent form that informed them of the benefits and
potential hazards of participation in the study (Appendix H). Participants then
33


completed a self-monitoring assessment and read one of two scenarios, High Vested
Interest Scenario or Low Vested Interest Scenario, concerning the fictitious clothing
company (Appendices A, B, & C). Next, each participant read information on
presentation strategies containing both transformational/charismatic and
transactional or normal strategies (Appendix D). Strategies from both perspectives
occurred together without information as to whether they represented
transformational/charismatic or transactional behaviors. Participants reviewed the
strategies and indicated which ones they intended to use by ranking the strategies
according to importance. Preparing an outline (normal strategy) was ranked the
most important strategy by 40% of the participants. The next most frequently ranked
number one strategy was making a statement about your vision for the future
(charismatic strategy). However, only 13% of participants ranked this strategy as the
most important. Almost 12% of participants ranked giving a preview of what you
will cover (normal strategy) as the most important strategy. Overall, participants
selected the normal presentation skill as the most important 86% of the time while
the charismatic presentation skills were only selected approximately 29% of the
time. There was some overlap in participants selection of presentation skills. When
a participant ranked a skill with the same number as another skill is was assumed
they felt these skills to be of equal importance. The researcher allowed participants
to access the strategies throughout the planning stages of their presentation.
34


Participants gave a presentation that was approximately three minutes in
length following a ten minute preparation period. During the preparation period, the
researcher told participants they could make notes on the sheet of blank paper
provided to them which they could refer to during their presentation. There was no
audience present aside from the researcher who video-taped the presentation.
However, the researcher told participants to address their subordinates when making
the presentation. Participants gave the presentation in any format they wished using
the presentation strategies they found to be most helpful to them. The researcher
video-taped all of the presentations using a VHS-tape video recorder on a tripod.
After the presentation, participants indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale
how well they felt they had used the presentation skills that they used in their
presentation (Appendix D). Sixty percent of participants rated their ability to use
plain and simple language (normal strategy) as well or very well. Approximately
33% rated their abilities to prepare an outline (normal strategy), identify themselves
(normal strategy), and maintain eye contact (charismatic strategy) as well or very
well. Fifteen percent of participants rated their ability to make a statement about
their vision for the future (charismatic strategy) as well or very well. Thirteen
percent ranked their ability to give a preview (normal strategy) as well or very well.
In general, participants rated their abilities to perform the normal presentation
35


strategies higher than their abilities to use the charismatic presentation strategies.
Further discourse is continued in the discussion section of this paper.
Lastly, participants completed a manipulation check labeled as an evaluation
form (Appendix G). The manipulation check questions were subjective and similar
to manipulation check questions used in other vested interest research (Crano &
Prislin, 1995; Gorenflo & Crano, 1989). The evaluation contained questions related
to stake, salience, self-efficacy, immediacy, and certainty. The researcher measured
stake with, How much do you feel you were affected by the outcome of this
situation?, and immediacy with, Did you feel the situation needed to be resolved
immediately?
After the researcher video-taped all participants presentations, two female
independent raters scored the videos using the delivery rating scale and charismatic
behaviors scale. They also rated the participants on their use of stories, use of
analogies, eye contact, tone of voice changes, hand gestures, animated facial
expressions, humor, use of a vision statement, ability to raise expectations of the
audience, and indicated the percentage of pay they were willing to forfeit.
(Appendix E). Both raters watched the videos in the same chronological order.
There was approximately 2 seconds between each video and therefore raters had to
pause the tape after each video in order to have sufficient time to complete each
36


measure. Then the rater played the next video in the sequence, pausing after each
presenter before moving on to the next.
Scenario Description
Each participant played the role of a store manager, Pat Allen, who must
hold a meeting with his/her subordinates to ask them to take a pay cut. The scenario
involved a clothing company undergoing a financial loss due to the downturn in the
economy and therefore, must cut costs. The High Vested Interest Scenario included
manipulations designed to increase participants vested interest. This scenario
informed the store manager (participant) that the situation is important and must be
taken care of immediately or lay-offs will certainly result. Also, the store manager
must take a cut in pay along with his/her subordinates. The Low Vested Interest
Scenario included manipulations to reduce the amount of participants vested
interest in the situation. In the Low Vested Interest Scenario the store manager
(participant) does not have to take a pay cut but he/she still must ask the
subordinates to reduce their pay. The situation is described as less important and
that no immediate action is necessary. In addition, the consequences are less certain
in the Low Vested Interest Scenario setting than in the High Vested Interest
Scenario setting. The differences between the scenarios are highlighted in Appendix
F.
37


Both scenarios include information about fictitious employees who are
mostly college students on tight budgets. Identical financial information about the
company is also presented in the scenarios. The scenarios were designed by the
researcher to include inspirational information as well as facts and figures. The
participant determined what information to include in the presentation.
Vested interest was tested using a series of independent t-tests on questions
of stake (Appendix G, question 4), salience (Appendix G, question 1), self-efficacy
(Appendix G, question 3), immediacy (Appendix G, question 5), and certainty
(Appendix G, question 6). Overall, Stake, t(49)=2.28, pc.Ol, and Immediacy
t(49)=2.04, p<.05, were significantly different between the High Vested Interest
Scenario (M=4.92, M=5.96) and the Low Vested Interest Scenario (M=3.92,
M=4.96). There was a marginally significant difference for Self-Efficacy between
High Vested Interest Scenario (M=4.80) and Low Vested Interest Scenario
(M=4.23) groups, t(49)=1.43, p<.10.
38


CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Overview
The researcher conducted a series of two-way ANOVAS, using vested
interest (High vs. Low) and self-monitoring (High vs. Low) as the independent
variables. Analyses were conducted on charismatic behavior (HI), delivery style
(expressiveness and skill, (H2), use of hand gestures (H3), and willingness to reduce
pay (H4). Raters scores for participants were first checked for inter-rater reliability
and then averaged to form the dependent variables scores. Because the researcher
had directional hypotheses, she used a one-tailed t-test and adopted a significance
level ofp< .05.
Perceptions of Charismatic Leadership
The researcher conducted a two-way ANOVA to test the hypothesis (HI)
that there would be an interaction of task type (High Vested Interest Scenario vs.
Low Vested Interest Scenario) and self-monitoring (High Self-Monitor vs. Low
Self-Monitor) on perceptions of charisma based on raters averaged scores on the
Charisma Behavior Scale (Appendix E). More specifically, the hypothesis states that
when both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have a vested interest in the
39


situation, there will be no differences in perceptions of charisma. When there is low
vested interest, High Self-Monitors will be perceived as more charismatic than High
Self-Monitors. Results indicated that there were no significant main effects for
vested interest, F(l, 48) = 1.05, p>.05, or self-monitoring score, F(l,48)=1.39,
p>.05, on perceptions of charisma. Results were also non-significant for an
interaction between vested interest and self-monitoring scores on charisma,
F(l,48)=0.55, p>.05.
Rosnow and Rosenthal (1995) theorized that when a hypothesis is so
specific that researchers have preplanned comparisons, they are justified in using a
series of independent means t-tests to make those comparisons despite non-
significant interaction results, through an ANOVA. Therefore, the researcher
conducted two independent means t-tests based on preplanned comparisons of High
Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors in each task group on raters averaged score of
perceptions of charisma.
Results from these analyses support HI. As shown in Figure 1, within the
High Vested Interest group, High Self-Monitors (M=12.31, SD =7.97) were not
perceived as more charismatic than Low Self-Monitors (M=l 1.75, SD=6.32),
40


t(22)=0.17, p>.05.
Figure 1
Charisma Behavior
Low Vested Interest
TASK GROUP
Self-Monitoring
D Low SM
0 0 0 9
D High SM
High Vested Interest
In addition, within the Low Vested Interest group, High Self-Monitors (M=11.45,
SD=6.24) were perceived as marginally more charismatic than Low Self-Monitors
(M=8.00, SD=5.73), t(26)=1.48, p<.08. Table 1 shows the average ratings of
charismatic behavior for all groups.
41


Table 1
Charismatic Leadership Rating
Group Self-Monitoring N Rating
High Vested Interest High 16 12.31
Low 10 11.45
Low Vested Interest High 8 11.75
Low 18 8.00
Delivery
The researcher conducted two separate two-way ANOVAs to test the
hypothesis (H2) that task group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested
Interest Scenario) or self-monitoring (High Self-Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor)
would have an effect on the two delivery styles, skills and expressiveness. A main
effect was found for self-monitoring (High Self-Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on
perceived skills scores, F(l,48)=5.90, p<.01, obtained from Factor 1 of the delivery
rating scale. High Self-Monitors (M=28.55, SD=7.55) were perceived as more
skilled speakers than Low Self-Monitors (M-24.05, SD=4.91). The researcher
found no main effect for task group nor evidence of an interaction. ANOVA results
are displayed in Table 2.
42


Table 2
Perception of Skills
F-Value Significance
Vested Interest 0.001 p>.05
Self-Monitoring 5.90 p<.01
Interaction 0.003 p>.05
The researcher also found a main effect for self-monitoring (High Self-
Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on perceived expressiveness scores, F(l, 48)=3.66,
p<.05, (Table 3).
Table 3
Perception of Expressiveness
F-Value Significance
Vested Interest 0.03 p>.05
Self-Monitoring 3.66 p<.05
Interaction 0.66 p>.05
High Self-Monitors (M-18.35, SD=5.27) were perceived as being more expressive
than Low Self-Monitors (M-15.52, SD=5.13). No main effect was found for task
group on perceived expressiveness, F(l,48)=0.03, p>.05. More specific tests were
conducted using the Rosnow and Rosenthal (1995) method of statistical analyses
using pre-planned comparisons. An independent t-test indicated that High Self-
Monitors were perceived as significantly more expressive than Low Self-Monitors
43


in the Low Vested Interest Scenario group, t(24)=1.86, p<.05 (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Expressiveness
TASK GROUP
There was no significant difference in perceived expressiveness between High Self-
Monitors and Low Self-Monitors in the High Vested Interest Scenario group,
t(23)=0.82, p>.05.
Hand Gestures: A Charismatic Leadership Behavior
The researcher performed a two-way ANOVA to test the hypothesis (H3)
that High Self-Monitors will be perceived as using more effective hand gestures
44


while speaking than Low Self-Monitors in the Low Vested Interest task group. A
marginal main effect was found for self-monitoring, F(l,48)=2.53, p<.08 (Table 4).
Table 4
Effective use of Hand Gestures
F-Value Significance
Vested Interest 0.45 p>.05
Self-Monitoring 2.53 p<.08
Interaction 0.02 p>.05
Raters perceived that High Self-Monitors (M=1.58, SD=1.14) used more effective
hand gestures than Low Self-Monitors (M=1.16, SD=0.90). No main effect was
found for task group on perceived effectiveness of hand gestures, F(l,48)=0.51,
p>.05. Using Rosnow and Rosenthals (1995) method no further significance was
found for the use of hand gestures. Therefore, only the ANOVA results are
included.
Follower Outcomes
The final analysis that the researcher conducted analyzed the percentage of
pay which raters reported being willing to relinquish after viewing a High Self-
Monitor and a Low Self-Monitor. This was to test the hypothesis (H4) that those
viewing a High Self-Monitor (M=l .85, SD=0.77) may be more willing to take a
45


greater reduction in pay compared to viewing a Low Self-Monitor (M=1.52,
SD=0.74), F(l,48)=2.42, p<.08. There was no significant main effect for task group,
F(l, 48)=.03, p>.05, nor any interaction between self-monitoring and task group on
willing pay reduction, F(l,48)=. 15, p>.05 (Table 5).
Table 5
Willingness to Reduce Pay
F-Value Significance
Vested Interest 0.03 p>.05
Self-Monitoring 2.42 p<.08
Interaction 0.15 p>.05
Further analyses using Rosnow and Rosenthal (1995) method did not reveal any
greater significance. Thus, The results of the ANOVA are only included.
46


CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
Overview
The purpose of the current study was to take a dispositional and a situational
approach to examining charismatic leadership. The personality trait of self-
monitoring was hypothesized to interact with the situational factor of vested interest
on perceptions of charisma, delivery of a speech, one charismatic leadership
behavior, and follower outcomes. The following is a discussion of the results of the
study, implications, and limitations.
Presentation strategies
The researcher noted that 86% of participants ranked a normal presentation
strategy a most important. In addition, participants rated their abilities to perform
the normal strategies higher than their abilities to perform charismatic strategies
(Appendix D). It is possible that participants believed the normal presentation
strategies to be the most important and therefore focused on performing these
normal strategies verses the charismatic presentation strategies. It is likely that the
participants could have been more familiar with the normal presentation strategies
and had more practice using these strategies. The lack of ranked importance of the
47


charismatic strategies may be indicative that participants may need instruction or
training about these skills to become familiar with them. The data do suggest that
participants were using the strategies that they felt were important.
Charisma
The researcher conducted specific statistical tests (Rosnow & Rosenthal,
1995) to examine if there would be an interaction between task group (High Vested
Interest Scenario and Low Vested Interest Scenario) and self-monitoring (High Self-
Monitors vs. Low Self-Monitors) on perceived charisma. Analyses suggested that
raters perceived High Self-Monitors as more charismatic than Low Self-Monitors in
the Low Vested Interest Scenario group. This finding is congruent with the research
hypothesis (HI). Even when High Self-Monitors had little or no vested interest in
the situation they were discussing, the raters perceived them as displaying more
charismatic behaviors than Low Self-Monitors.
A high vested interest is associated with charismatic leaders (Sosik, 2000;
Conger & Kanungo, 1987,1988; Zaleznik, 1977). Low Self-Monitors may only be
perceived as charismatic when they have a High Vested Interest in the situation
because they actually have a high vested interest and they express behavior
associated with this internal state. High Self-Monitors demonstrate behavior
congruent with external cues, such as situational context and others behaviors.
48


Therefore, expressing behaviors associated with high vested interest when in fact
the individual has low vested interest is most fitting with High Self-Monitors.
To provide further explanation, High Self-Monitors are better at perceiving
the external cues in the scenario than Low Self-Monitors. It is also possible that
High Self-Monitors are adjusting their self-presentations to behave charismatically
because they believe it to be more socially appropriate behavior as indicated by
external cues in the scenarios. On the other hand, Low Self-Monitors are not
adjusting their self-presentations to the external cues because they are less
influenced by the behaviors they observe.
It may be important to consider the source of the external cues that High
Self-Monitors are perceiving that initiate their charisma. One explanation is that the
speakers actions are based solely on the external cues of the scenario. Another
explanation is that the speakers actions are also based on the their cues from the
experiment situation. In other words, it is possible that the High Self-Monitors are
perceiving cues from the individual operating the video camera despite the video
operators intentions. Social desirability may contribute to the expressed behavior of
High Self-Monitors.
49


Delivery and Behavior
Delivery of a message is also important to perceptions of charisma
(Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994). Two factors of delivery were extracted from the
delivery measure: Skills and Expressiveness. Skills included the following items:
Skilled, Qualified, Reliable, Intelligent, Competent, Powerful, and Wise. Being
viewed as an expert is one of the components of a charismatic leader (Conger &
Kanungo, 1988). It is possible to conclude that those people who are viewed as
more skilled are more likely to be seen as charismatic. Expressiveness included
Openness, Excitement, Friendliness, Motivation, and Charisma (Appendix E).
Expressiveness aids in the effectiveness of the delivery of a message (Towler &
Dipboye, 2001).
The researcher found a main effect for self-monitoring on perceived speaker
Skills but not on the vested interest task groups. Raters perceived High Self-
Monitors as more skilled than Low Self-Monitors in both task group situations
(High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario). Raters did not
perceive participants in the High Vested Interest Scenario group as more skilled
than those in the Low Vested "Interest Scenario group. Therefore, vested interest did
not affect raters perceptions of speaker skills. One explanation for this finding is
that participants were not given sufficient opportunity to demonstrate their speaking
skills. It is also possible that vested interest has no effect on perceptions of delivery
50


skills. In other words, wanting to be a good speaker does not necessarily make one a
good speaker. Most likely these skills are accessed through experience, education,
or other means. A vested interest may motivate individuals to seek out delivery
skills but it is not likely to cause individuals to be perceived as being more skilled
speakers.
Raters perceived High Self-Monitors as more expressive than Low Self-
Monitors regardless of the scenario that they had read. After more specific tests
were conducted using the Rosnow and Rosenthal (1995) method, raters found High
Self-Monitors more expressive than Low Self-Monitors in the Low Vested Interest
Scenario task group. The results of this analysis lend support to the research
hypothesis (H2). However, the researcher would not suggest validating the
hypothesis based on one study. Although the study does support the hypothesis,
other explanations exist. One possibility is that the expressiveness of High Self-
Monitors was in reaction to participating in the experiment. Even when vested
interest was low, High Self-Monitors may have been exhibiting more expressive
behaviors because they were participating in an experiment.
The use of hand gestures has been identified as a charismatic leadership
behavior (Howell & Frost, 1989). Raters perceived High Self-Monitors as using
more effective and appropriate hand gestures than Low Self-Monitors in both task
groups (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario). However,
51


there was not an interaction between self-monitoring (High Self-Monitors vs. Low
Self-Monitors) and task group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested
Interest Scenario). The third hypothesis was not entirely supported. Although raters
perceived High Self-Monitors as using more effective hand gestures, the interaction
was not supported by this study. Raters did not perceive use of more effective hand
gestures in either task group suggesting that vested interest does not have an effect
on the use of this charismatic leadership behavior.
Overall, it is important to consider that because High-Self-Monitors are
continuously surveying the environment for external cues and adjusting their self-
presentation, it is possible that they receive feedback from these cues. If they are
receiving positive feedback then they may be more confident to be expressive.
Conversely, Low Self-Monitors may not be receiving feedback concerning their
behavior and therefore may not be as confident to be expressive.
Follower Outcomes
Although the researcher did not find a significant result regarding the
percentage of pay that raters were willing to cut from their salary, there was a trend
in the data. The two raters were more willing to give up a greater portion of their
pay when viewing a High Self-Monitor verses a Low Self-Monitor regardless of the
task group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario). It is
52


possible that because High Self-Monitors were seen by raters as more charismatic in
this study they tended to achieve greater outcomes (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Conger
& Kanungo, 1988; House, 1995; Holladay & Coombs, 1994). In addition, raters
perceived High Self-Monitors as more expressive and therefore may have been able
to recall the purpose of the speakers presentations better (Towler & Dipboye,
2001).
Implications
The findings have implications in the organizational context. Results tend to
suggest that High Self-Monitors are perceived as more charismatic and more
expressive than Low Self-Monitors even when there is low vested interest. In
addition, High Self-Monitors are viewed as more skilled speakers and as using hand
gestures, a charismatic leadership behavior, more than Low Self-Monitors. Lastly,
there is a trend that suggests that High Self-Monitors may be able to achieve greater
outcomes from followers than Low Self-Monitors.
It would be beneficial to have a High Self-Monitor as a Public Relations
Officer. With this career position, the employee is likely to have a large speaking
role where it is necessary to speak on topics which range in level of vested interest.
In addition, a successful Public Relations Officer will need to influence the audience
and gain support of the public. If High Self-Monitors are perceived as more
53


charismatic even in low vested interest situations, then a high self-monitoring Public
Relations Officer is likely to be more successful at influencing the audience.
Organizations may desire to choose individuals who are High Self-Monitors for
positions that require influencing groups of people.
Another implication is with organizational training specifically, traditional'
lecture-based training. In this type of situation, the organization selects an employee
to train other employees on new procedures, policies, benefits, or other information.
The training position is a largely a speaking role with topics of varying levels of
vested interest. An expressive speaker may aid the audiences recall of the
information better than a non-expressive speaker (Towler & Dipboye, 2001). Also, a
speaker that is perceived to be charismatic may initiate higher employee satisfaction
with the training experience (Howell & Frost, 1989). In lecture-based training where
a variety of levels of vested interest exist, it is likely to be beneficial for
organizations to place a High Self-Monitor in the trainer role.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations to this study. First, the study was conducted in
an artificial setting using fictitious scenarios. It may also have been awkward for
participants to give a presentation in front of a video camera. Participants received
no training on making presentations or being charismatic. Most participants ranked
54


a normal presentation strategy as the most important strategy they intended to use.
Therefore, participants may not have had the choice of deciding which presentation
strategies to use (normal vs. charismatic). Future researchers may desire to train
participants in normal presentation strategies and charismatic presentation strategies
before inviting participants to give a speech (Towler, in press). Furthermore, the
study needs to be replicated in real-world settings. If possible, individuals who are
already established as leaders in companies should be studied. This will provide
better application to the organizational setting.
This study examined only the leaders role as a speaker. Leaders have other
roles including, risk taker, relationship builder, decision maker, and actuator
(Zaleznik, 1977). This study did not measure these roles. Therefore, the findings
have a limited scope of application, namely to the presentation role of leaders.
In addition, only two female raters scored the video presentations. Gender
may have had an affect on the perceptions of the participants as well as the scoring
of participants. The study would be stronger if more raters assessed the video
presentations. The videos were all viewed in the same order; therefore, raters may
have used the last viewed presentation as a comparison for the next. The order in
which the raters view the presentations should be varied so that there is variation in
which presentations might be used as a comparisons for the next. This method will
aid in reducing bias caused by a rater viewing a presentation that follows a well-
55


done or poor presentation. Likewise, inter-rater reliability coefficients were low on
some of the dependent variables. It may be necessary to train raters on the measures
used in the study to increase inter-rater reliability.
Overall, more participants would increase the power of the study. If enough
participants complete the study, then Snyders (1974) method of distinguishing
High Self-Monitors from Low Self-Monitors could be utilized. The current study
included participants scoring in the middle range of the Self-Monitoring scale to
maintain a reasonable sample size resulting in less variance between High and Low
Self-Monitors.
In future research, other personality traits could be included in future studies
to determine if there are other moderating traits. More research should be conducted
to clarify and strengthen the results indicated in the current study. For example, the
exact process that enables a High Self-Monitor to be perceived as more charismatic
is not clear. Also, it is not certain if High Self-Monitors are adjusting their self-
presentations or if High Self-Monitors are internalizing the situation based on
external cues. A measure of empathy or ability to relate to others could be included
to help determine if High Self-Monitors are internalizing the situation and placing
themselves in others positions. Cognitive dissonance may play a role in affecting
High Self-Monitors beliefs about their actions when their actions differ from their
internal state. Thus, in hindsight High Self-Monitors may believe that their actions
56


were a reflection of their feelings. In addition, research should be conducted to
determine if self-monitoring is a trainable attribute. It may be possible to train
individuals to be more sensitive to external cues in their surroundings.
In conclusion, the current study has contributed to the research on
charismatic leadership by examining the interaction of one dispositional and one
situational factor that may lead to perceptions of charismatic leadership. The current
research lends limited support the hypothesis that High Self-Monitors are perceived
as more charismatic and expressive than low self-Monitors regardless of the
individuals level of vested interest. Raters in this study perceived High-Self-
monitors to be more skilled and effective in using hand gestures. The researcher also
found a trend that High Self-Monitors may achieve greater follower outcomes.
However, the study is not able to conclude exactly how self-monitoring enables the
perceptions of charismatic leadership. Perceptions of charismatic leadership may be
a result of High Self-Monitors ability to adjust their outward presentation or it may
be a result of an ability to internalize and empathize with others in the situation.
57


A. Self-Monitoring Scale
T F 1.
T F 2.
T F 3.
T F 4.
T F 5.
T F 6.
T F 7.
T F 8.
T F 9.
T F 10.
T F 11.
T F 12.
T F 13.
T F 14.
T F 15.
T F 16.
T F 17.
T F 18.
T F 19.
T F 20.
T F 21.
I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.
My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings,
attitudes, and beliefs.
At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that
others will like.
I can only argue for ideas which I already believe.
I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have
almost no information.
I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people.
When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the
behavior of others for cues.
I would probably make a good actor
I rarely need the advice of my friends to choose movies, books, or
music.
I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper emotions than I
actually am.
I laugh more when I watch a movie with others than when I am alone.
In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention.
In different situations and with different people, I often act like very
different persons.
I am not particularly good at making other people like me.
Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be having a good
time.
Im not always the person I appear to be.
I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to
please someone else or win their favor.
I have considered being an entertainer.
In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to
be rather than anything else.
I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational
acting.
I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and
different situations.
58


T F 22.
T F 23.
T F 24.
T F 25.
At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going.
I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite so well as I
should.
I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a
right end).
I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them.
59


B. Scenario of High Vested Interest
Like many companies, Marmalade has had to cut costs throughout the
company because of the recent downfall in the economy. In 2002, Marmalade lost
almost 7% in earnings. Regrettably, the budget cuts were not enough. For the
upcoming year, 2003, it is estimated that Marmalade will loose 17%. As the Store
Manager, you realize the situation requires immediate attention. Marmalade needs
to begin reducing costs over the next two weeks to stay in business the following
year. If the employees do not agree to reduce their pay layoffs will certainly be
made across all positions, including management. You are very concerned about the
company and you have called a meeting with all of your employees today to discuss
the situation. You have the power and position to make a difference in the
companys budget and must ask them to take a reduction in pay for the year 2003.
Unfortunately, you will also have to take a reduction in pay.
Financial Records for 2000-2003
2000 2001 2002 2003 Estimated
Total Income $18,000,000 $15,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $15,800,000
Expenses $ 10,000,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 16,000,000 $ 18,500,000
Profits $ 8,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $- 1,000,000 $ 2,700,000
% Gain 44% 20% - 6.7% - 17%
60


Employee Pay
ASfe $ 38,000 yr Manager J Floor Associate with 3 years $ 10 hourly experience
Team Leader $ 30,000 yr Floor Associate $ 7 hourly
Company Profile
Marmalade Clothing Retail was established in 1995 by Ethan Relfo. He
insists that employees of the company refer to him by his first name. Ethans goal
was to begin a company that provided fashionable professional clothes at an
affordable cost to young professionals. His clothing line targets male and female
customers between ages 18 and 29. The idea came to him when he realized that
many college students have difficulty affording a professional wardrobe.
Many students work hard to get through school and then
are thrust into the professional world with a load of debts.
They need to look professional at interviews and while on the
job. I intend to make that possible.
Marmalade employs mostly college students as floor associates. The
company expects its employees to be knowledgeable about appropriate interview
attire and to ensure that all customers look professional with the outfits they select.
There is a tradition within the company to move floor associates up to a managerial
level once they have finished their degree program. Therefore, Marmalade insists
that its employees finish their college educations.
Marmalade has plans to create a college tuition program called MarmaFund.
The company will contribute $2 to an employees tuition for every hour worked at
61


the company in addition to normal hourly pay. In this manner, Marmalade hopes to
make a college education affordable to each employee.
One of the major goals that Ethan has described is expanding his business to
reach the homeless.
Typically, people think of the homeless as also being
jobless. This simply is not true. I know I can make a
difference in these peoples lives. I can give them the
confidence they need to attain their dreams and allow them to
provide homes for their families
The program would allow Marmalade to sell high quality new clothing to the
homeless at a fraction of the retail cost. The money for the program will come from
the sale of their current line of products. If sales go well, Ethan estimates he will
have the program in action.in 18 months.
Information about You
You are Pat Allen. You were promoted to Store Manager a year ago.
Previously, you worked as a Floor Associate with Marmalade. You obtained a
Bachelors Degree and were hired as the Store Manager. Your outstanding record
with Marmalade and business knowledge helped you earn the position. You are
pleased to have this position so you can pay off your student loans. You are in
charge of 25 employees, 17 of whom are part-time status. Your duties include
hiring, training, employee recognition, employee schedules, and payroll.
Information about Your Employees
Of the 25 employees, 20 are in college full or part-time. The employees
range from ages 18 to 27.
62


Becky has been with Marmalade for 3 years working part-time as a Floor
Associate. She is a part-time student and a single mother. She is finishing her
Associates Degree in Nursing and will graduate next year. Some employees
complain that she receives too many phone calls at work.
Maxim works full-time as a Team Leader for Marmalade and has been with
the company for 5 years. He has an excellent sales record and is a team player. He
works hard and never complains about having to cover a shift on his day off. He
was suspected of stealing money last year but the issue was not pursued because
there was little evidence to back the claim.
Kerry was hired last year as a Floor Associate. She is studying law at the
State University this year. She is an out-of-state student and must keep 35 hours a
week to pay her tuition. Customers often compliment her on her knowledge base.
She does not interact much with the other staff and prefers to take her lunch breaks
alone.
Rick is a full-time student at the community college studying Business
Administration and works full time as a Floor Associate. You and Rick were hired
together as 3 years ago. Recently, you have had to talk to him about being late for
work. You get the feeling that he is juggling too many responsibilities but he is
always helpful to customers.
63


C. Scenario of Low Vested Interest
Like many companies, Marmalade has had to cut costs throughout the
company because of the recent downfall in the economy. In 2002, Marmalade lost
almost 7% in earnings. The budget cuts were not quite enough. For the upcoming
year, 2003, it is estimated that Marmalade will loose 17%. As the Store Manager,
you realize the situation should probably be addressed. Marmalade needs to reduce
costs over the next several years to stay afloat. If the employees do not agree to
reduce their pay, eventually, the company may consider looking into the possibility
of layoffs. You are not too concerned about the company but you have called a
meeting with all of your employees to discuss the situation. You may be able to
make a difference at this store but not with the entire companys situation. Today,
you plan to ask your employees to take a reduction in pay for the year 2003.
Fortunately, you will not have to take a reduction in pay.
Financial Records for 2000-2003
2000 2001 2002 2003 Estimated
Total Income $18,000,000 $15,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $15,800,000
Expenses $ 10,000,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 16,000,000 $ 18,500,000
Profits $ 8,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $- 1,000,000 $ 2,700,000
% Gain 44% 20% - 6.7% -17%
64


Employee Pay
J!re $ 38,000 yr Manager Floor Associate with 3 years $ 10 hourly experience
Team Leader $ 30,000 yr Floor Associate $ 7 hourly
Company Profile
Marmalade Clothing Retail was established in 1995 by Ethan Relfo. He
insists that employees of the company refer to him by his first name. Ethans goal
was to begin a company that provided fashionable professional clothes at an
affordable cost to young professionals. His clothing line targets male and female
customers between ages 18 and 29. The idea came to him when he realized that
many college students have difficulty affording a professional wardrobe.
Many students work hard to get through school and then
are thrust into the professional world with a load of debts.
They need to look professional at interviews and while on the
job. I intend to make that possible.
Marmalade employs mostly college students as floor associates. The
company expects its employees to be knowledgeable about appropriate interview
attire and to ensure that all customers look professional with the outfits they select.
There is a tradition within the company to move floor associates up to a managerial
level once they have finished their degree program. Therefore, Marmalade insists
that its employees finish their college educations.
65


Marmalade has plans to create a college tuition program called MarmaFund.
The company will contribute $2 to an employees tuition for every hour worked at
the company in addition to normal hourly pay. In this manner, Marmalade hopes to
make a college education affordable to each employee.
One of the major goals that Ethan has described is expanding his business to
reach the homeless.
Typically, people think of the homeless as also being
jobless. This simply is not true. I know I can make a
difference in these peoples lives. I can give them the
confidence they need to attain their dreams and allow them to
provide homes for their families
The program would allow Marmalade to sell high quality new clothing to the
homeless at a fraction of the retail cost. The money for the program will come from
the sale of their current line of products. If sales go well, Ethan estimates he will
have the program in action in 18 months.
Information about You
You are Pat Allen. You were promoted to Store Manager a year ago.
Previously, you worked as a Floor Associate with Marmalade. You obtained a
Bachelors Degree and were hired as the Store Manager. Your outstanding record
with Marmalade and business knowledge helped you earn the position. You are
pleased to have this position so you can pay off your student loans. You are in
charge of 25 employees, 17 of whom are part-time status. Your duties include
hiring, training, employee recognition, employee schedules, and payroll.
66


Information about Your Employees
Of the 25 employees, 20 are in college full or part-time. The employees
range from ages 18 to 27.
Becky has been with Marmalade for 3 years working part-time as a Floor
Associate. She is a part-time student and a single mother. She is finishing her
Associates Degree in Nursing and will graduate next year. Some employees
complain that she receives too many phone calls at work.
Maxim works full-time as a Team Leader for Marmalade and has been with
the company for 5 years. He has an excellent sales record and is a team player. He
works hard and never complains about having to cover a shift on his day off. He
was suspected of stealing money last year but the issue was not pursued because
there was little evidence to back the claim.
Kerry was hired last year as a Floor Associate. She is studying law at the
State University this year. She is an out-of-state student and must keep 35 hours a
week to pay her tuition. Customers often compliment her on her knowledge base.
She does not interact much with the other staff and prefers to take her lunch breaks
alone.
Rick is a full-time student at the community college studying Business
Administration and works full time as a Floor Associate. You and Rick were hired
together as 3 years ago. Recently, you have had to talk to him about being late for
work. You get the feeling that he is juggling too many responsibilities but he is
always helpful to customers.
67


D. Presentation Techniques
Some people find the following techniques helpful when making a speech.
Use as many as you personally find helpful. Although, you do not have to use any of
the techniques if you do not think they will be helpful. (Note: Normal and
Charismatic distinction will not be given to participants, but is here for your benefit)
Normal Presentation Skills
O Prepare an outline
O Give a preview of what you will cover in your speech
O Summarize the main points and repeat the main ideas of your speech
O Use plain, simple language
O Avoid saying urn and ah
O Identify yourself to the audience
Charismatic
O Use a story to help illustrate your message to the listener
O Use analogies to help the listener relate to important points you want to
make
O Maintain eye contact with your audience but avoid darting glances
O Change your tone of voice to reflect your feelings on the topic
O Make gestures with your hands to emphasize important concepts
O Use animated facial expressions
O Incorporate humor that is appropriate and non-offensive into your speech
O Make a statement about your vision for the future
O Demonstrate confidence in your audience by raising the expectations of the
group
68


Presentation Techniques
Before you give a presentation to your employees, review the following list
of 15 techniques some people find helpful when making a presentation. Consider
using as many or as few as you find helpful. Rank order the techniques you intend
to use according to which technique you think will be most important. (For
example, if you only intend to use 3 techniques, rank the one you find most
important a 1, the second most important 2, and the least important a 3. Leave the
remaining techniques blank.) Remember, rank order only those techniques you
intend to use.
______Make a statement about your vision for the future
______Prepare an Outline
______Use animated facial expressions
______ Give a preview of what you will cover in your presentation
______Change your tone of voice to reflect your feelings on the topic
______ Summarize the main points and repeat the main ideas of your presentation
______Use plain, simple language
______Make gestures with your hands to emphasize important concepts
______ Avoid saying um and ah
69


______ Demonstrate confidence in your audience by raising the expectations of the
group
______ Identify yourself to the audience
______Use a story to help illustrate your message to the listener
______ Use analogies to help the listener relate to important points you want to
make
______Maintain eye contact with your audience but avoid darting glances
______ Incorporate humor that is appropriate and non-offensive into your
presentation
Presentation Techniques
Presentation Techniques
Now that you have had a chance to give your presentation, please indicate
which, if any, of the presentation styles you actually used while making your
presentation. Indicate how well you felt you applied the techniques that you used.
Use the following scale to rate how well you applied only the techniques you used.
(Note: these may be different from the ones you actually intended to use)
1 2 3 4 5
Used Poorly Average Used very well
______ Made a statement about your vision for the future
______ Prepared an outline
70


______Used animated facial expressions
______ Gave a preview of what you would cover in your presentation
______ Changed your tone of voice to reflect your feelings on the topic
______ Summarized the main points and repeated the main ideas of your
presentation
______Used plain, simple language
______Made gestures with your hands to emphasize important concepts
_______ Avoided saying um and ah
______Demonstrated confidence in your audience by raising the expectations of the
group
______ Identified yourself to the audience
______Used a story to help illustrate your message to the listener
______ Used analogies to help the listener relate to important points you wanted to
make
______ Maintained eye contact with your audience but avoided darting glances
______ Incorporated humor that was appropriate and non-offensive into your
presentation
71


E. Rating Scales
Delivery Rating Scale
Incompetent 1
Uncharismatic 1
Unreliable 1
Unqualified 1
Unintelligent 1
Unskilled 1
Foolish 1
Unfriendly 1
Inattentive 1
Weak 1
Closed 1
Boring 1
Ineffective 1
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
6 7 Competent
6 7 Charismatic
6 7 Reliable
6 7 Qualified
6 7 Intelligent
6 7 Skilled
6 7 Wise
6 7 Friendly
6 7 Attentive
6 7 Powerful
6 7 Open
6 7 Exciting
6 7 Motivating
72


Charisma Behavior Scale
0 1 2 3 Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly Often 4 Almost Always
Talked about most important values and beliefs 0 1 2 3 4
Talked optimistically about the future 0 1 2 3 4
Instilled pride in being associated with him/her 0 1 2 3 4
Talked enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 0 1 2 3 4
Specified the importance of having a strong sense of purpose 0 1 2 3 4
Displayed a sense of power and purpose 0 1 2 3 4
Articulated a compelling vision of the future 0 1 2 3 4
Emphasized the importance of having a collective sense of mission 0 1 2 3 4
Went beyond his/her self-interest for the good of the group 0 1 2 3 4
Acted in ways to build your trust 0 1 2 3 4
Considered the moral and ethical consequences of his/her decisions 0 1 2 3 4
How sincere do you feel the speaker was?
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Somewhat Very
Did the speaker offer to take a reduction in pay? Yes No
What percentage of a reduction in pay would you be willing to take, assuming you
are making $7 hourly currently as a floor associate?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% or more
% Reduced 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
educed pay 7.00 $6.65 $6.30 $5.95 $5.60 $5.25
73


How well did the speaker do the following:
Use a story to help illustrate the message to the listener
0 1 2 3 4 5
None Not well Average Very Well
Use analogies to help the listener relate to important points made
0 1 2 3 4 5
None Not well Average Very Well
Maintain eye contact with the audience but avoid darting glances
0 1 2 3 4 5
None Not well Average Very Well
Changed tone of voice to reflect feelings on the topic
0 1 2 3 4 5
None Not well Average Very Well
Make gestures with hands to emphasize important concepts
0 1 2 3 4 5
None Not well Average Very Well
Use animated facial expressions
0 1 2 3
None Not well Average
Very Well
Incorporate humor that is appropriate and non-offensive into the speech
0 1 2 3 4 5
None Not well Average Very Well
Make a statement about a vision for the future
0 1 2 3 4 5
None Not well Average Very Well
Demonstrate confidence in the audience by raising the expectations of the group
0
None
1
Not well
4
Average
Very Well
74


F. Vested Interest Manipulation
High Vested Interest
For the upcoming year, 2003, it is estimated that Marmalade will loose 17%.
(Immediacy)The situation requires immediate attention. Marmalade needs to
begin reducing costs over the next two weeks to stay in business the following
year. If the employees do not agree to reduce their pay (Certainty) layoffs will
certainly be made across all positions, including management. (Salience)You
are very concerned about the company and you have called a meeting with all of
your employees today to discuss the situation. (Self-efficacy) You have the power
and position to make a difference in the companys budget and must ask them to
take a reduction in pay for the year 2003. (Stake) Unfortunately, you will also
have to take a reduction in pay.
Low Vested Interest
For the upcoming year, 2003, it is estimated that Marmalade will loose 17%.
(Immediacy) The situation should probably be addressed. Marmalade needs to
reduce costs over the next several years to stay afloat. If the employees do not
agree to reduce their pay, (Certainty) eventually, the company may consider
75


looking into the possibility of layoffs. (Salience) You are not too concerned
about the company but you have called a meeting with all of your employees to
discuss the situation. (Self-efficacy) You may be able to make a difference at this
store but not with the entire companys situation. Today, you must ask your
employees to take a reduction in pay for the year 2003. (Stake)Fortunately, you
will not have to take a reduction in pay.
76


G. Manipulation Check
Evaluation
Now that you have given your presentation, please answer the following questions
about you and your presentation. Circle only one number for each question.
1. How much did you care about the companys situation?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Very
2. How much did you care about the employees situations?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Very
3. How much ability do you feel you had to make a difference in the
companys overall financial situation?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Very
4. How much do you feel you were affected by the outcome of this situation?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Very
5. Did you feel the situation needed to be resolved immediately?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Very
77


6. How certain were you that the company would need to reduce costs?
1 2 3 4 5 6
Not at all Somewhat
7. How important was the overall outcome of the situation to you?
1 2 3 4 5 6
Not at all Somewhat
7
Very
7
Very
78


H. Consent Form
CONSENT FORM
The Department of Psychology supports the practice of respect and protection for
human participants in research. The following information is provided so that you can
decide whether you wish to participate in the present study. You should be aware that
even if you agree to participate you are free to withdraw at any time.
Purpose/Procedures
The purpose of this study is to understand those factors that help students learn.
First, you will complete a personality measure.
Then, we ask that you read a brief description of a company. You will play the
role of a Manager who must make a presentation to his/her employees.
You will have an opportunity to review several presentation styles and you will
be asked to indicate which styles you intend to use to make a presentation.
Then, we ask you to make a presentation using the information in the provided
scenario.
The presentation will be recorded on videotape to be reviewed by the
researchers later. The videotape will in no way be reproduced, sold, or viewed
by anyone, other than the researchers.
You will be debriefed on the study and have the opportunity to have questions
answered.
Risks/Benefits
We are required by the University to tell you of any risks or benefits that you will
receive from this study. There is a risk that confidentiality may be lost. However, steps
will be taken to ensure that this does not occur. There are no other risks other than the
minimal risks associated with making a presentation. In terms of benefits, the extra
credit policy from the school of psychology will be followed. Extra credit will be
given to participants with non-participants having an opportunity to earn the same. You
will also leam a little bit about research. If successful, this study will offer insights on
effective methods to develop and select leaders.
Your participation is solicited, but it is strictly voluntary; you may withdraw at any
time with no penalty. Your name will NOT be associated with the research findings.
For example, this consent form will not be attached to the personality measure, so that
79


nobody will know how you answered the questions. The extra copy of the consent form
is for you to keep.
Contact Information
If you have questions about the study feel free to call me at 303-759-0215, email me at
mfowler@ouray.cudenver.edu, or stop by my office at 5008K, North Classroom.
If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research subject you may contact
the CU- Denver Office of Academic Affairs, CU-Denver Building Suite 700, 303-556-
4060.
Sincerely,
Melanie Fowler
Industrial/Organizational Psychology Masters Student
Signature of Student Agreeing to Participate
Printed Name / Date


REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, JJ. (1999). A funny thing happened
on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects.
Academy of Management Journal. 4(2), 219-227.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B J.(1995). Manual for the multifactor leadership
questionnaire: Rater form (5x short). Palo Alto, CA: sage.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B.J.(1985). (Eds). Leadership and performance
beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study
of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in
entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 43-54.
Becker, J., Ayman, R. & Korabik, K. (2002). Discrepancies in
self/subordinates perceptions of leadership behavior. Group and Organizational
Management, 27(2), 226-244.
Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. (2003). Personality and Transformational and
Transactional Leadership: A Meta-analysis. Paper presented at Society of
Industrial/Organizational Psychology Conference, Orlando, Florida.
Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (1994). Social Psychology. Minneapolis/St.
Paul: West.
Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy
of Management Executive, 5(1), 31-45.
Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of
charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review,
12(4), 637-647.
81


Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic Leadership: The
Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R. N. & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic
leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767.
Crano, W. D. & Prislin, R. (1995). Components of vested interest and
attitude-behavior consistency. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1 & 2), 1-
21.
Dobbins, G. H., Long, S. W., Dedrick, E. J., & Clemons, T., C. (1990). The
role of self-monitoring and gender on leader emergence: A laboratory and field
study. Journal of Management, 16(3), 609-618.
Friedman, H. S. & Miller-Herringer, T. (1991). Nonverbal display of
emotion in public and in private: Self-monitoring, personality, and expressive cues.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 766-775.
Gibson, J. W. & Blackwell, C. W. (1999). Flying High with Herb Kelleher:
A Profile in Charismatic Leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 120-128.
Gitter, A. G., Black, H., & Fishman, J. E. (1985). Effect of race, sex,
nonverbal communication on perception of leadership. Journal of Sociology and
Social Research, 60(1), 46-57.
Gitter, A. G., Black, H., & Goldman, A. (1975). Role of nonverbal
communication in the perception of leadership. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40,
463-466.
Gitter, A. G., Black, H., & Walkley, J. (1976). Nonverbal communication
and the judgment of leadership. Psychological Reports, 39,1117-1118.
Goode, E. (2002, February 12). Sifting off-the-cuff remarks for cues to the
inner Rudy. The New York Times: On The Web.
Gorenflo, D. W. & Crano, W. D. (1989). Judgmental subjectivity/objectivity
and locus of choice in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(4), 605-614.
82


Hartog, D. & Verburg, R.M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative
techniques of international business leaders. Leadership Quarterly. 8(4), 355-391
Holladay, S. J. & W. T. Coombs. (1993). Communicating visions: An
exploration of the role of delivery in the creation of leader charisma. Management
Communications Quarterly, 6(4), 405-427.
Holladay, S. J. & W. T. Coombs. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions
being spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions
of leader charisma. Management Communications Quarterly, 8(2), 165-188.
House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A speculative
inquiry. In A. Howards (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 411-450.
House, R. J. & Aditya, R. N. (1997). A social scientific study of leadership:
Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-465.
Howell & Avolio (1995). Charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation?
Business Quarterly 60(1), 62-70.
Howell, J. M. & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic
leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269.
Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 751-765.
King, Jr., M. L. (1963). March on Washington. Washington, DC:
http://www.historychannel.com/speeches.
Kuhert, K.W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational
leadership: A construedve/developmental analysis. Academy of Management
Review, 12(4), 648-657.
Pennebaker, J. W. & Lay, T. C. (2002). Language use and personality during
crises: Analysis of mayor Rudolf Giulianis press conferences. Journal of Research
in Personality, 36(3), 271-282.
83


Pennebaker, J. W. & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as
an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1296-
1317.
Pillai, R. & Meindl, J. (1998). Context and charisma: A meso level
examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to
charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24(5), 643-662.
Rosnow, R. L. & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Some things you leam aren't so:
Cohen's paradox, Asch's paradigm, and the interpretation of interaction,
Psychological Science, 6, 3-9.
Safire, W. (Selection & Introduction). (1997). Lend me your ears: Great
speeches in history (expanded edition). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd.
Schermerhom, Jr, J. R. (1999). Management 6th Ed. New York: Von
Hoffman Press, 443-445.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537.
Sosik, J. J. (2000). The role of personal meaning in charismatic leadership.
The Journal of Leadership Studies. 7(2), 61-75.
Towler, A. J. (in press), Effects of charismatic influence training on
attitudes, behavior, and performance. Personnel Psychology.
Towler, A. & Dipboye (2001). Effects of trainer expressiveness,
organization, and trainee goal orientation on training outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 86(4), 664-673.
Tumley, W. H. & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while
avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression
management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351-360.
Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The Effect of Leader
Outcomes on Influence, Attributions, and Perceptions of Charisma. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(3), 428.
84


Zaccaro, S. J; Foti, R. J; Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-
based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple
group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308-315.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? In H. Leavitt,
L. R. Pondy, and D. M. Boje (Eds.), Readings in Managerial Psychology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
85


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE EFFECTS OF SELF-MONITORING AND VESTED INTEREST ON PERCEPTIONS OF CHARJSMATIC LEADERSHIP by Melanie R. Fowler B.A., Indiana State University, 2001 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fiilfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Psychology 2003

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Melanie R. Fowler has been approved by Annette Towler Mitch Handelsman Michael Cook Date

PAGE 3

Fowler, Melanie R. (MA, Psychology) The Effects of Self-Monitoring and Vested Interest on Perceptions of Charismatic Leadership Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Annette Towler ABSTRACT Charismatic leaders are noted to be exceptional leaders whose followers achieve great outcomes. Charismatic leaders have personal emotional commitments to their goals, create visionary statements from these personally invested goals, and express their visions using verbal and non-verbal language. Self-monitoring is a personality construct that measures the extent to which people adjust their self-presentations in order to exhibit socially expected behavior. The current study explored the hypothesis that followers perceive High Self-Monitoring leaders as more charismatic than Low Self-Monitoring leaders when the leaders do not have a personal commitment to the outcome of a situation. Fifty-two undergraduate students participated in the study. The researcher identified participants as High Self-Monitors or Low Self-Monitors based on a self-monitoring assessment completed by each participant. Participants read one of two scenarios about a fictitious clothing company experiencing negative fmancial growth. The High Vested Interest Scenario had higher levels of five vested interest factors than the Low Vested Interest Scenario: Immediacy, Certainty, Salience, Self-efficacy, and Stake. Participants made a video-taped presentation about the information in the scenario. Participants played the role of a store manager in the scenarios and asked employees to take a reduction in pay. Two independent raters scored the participants in the videos using a charismatic behavior scale, a delivery style scale, and other 111

PAGE 4

measures associated with charismatic leaders. Results indicated a main effect with raters' perceiving High Self-Monitors to be more skilled and expressive than Low Self-Monitors in both task groups (High vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario). Results also indicated an interaction with raters' perceiving High Self-Monitors to be more charismatic than Low Self-Monitors, especially in the Low Vested Interest Scenario task group. Raters self-reported to be willing to take a higher percentage pay cut when viewing High Self-Monitors. This result was not statistically significant. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. Signed Annette Towler iv

PAGE 5

DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my mother, Sharon, for her advice and continued faith in my abilities, to the I/0 class of2003, especially Marilyn, Vanessa, Charlie, Erika, and Katy, and to Kerry Jo for accepting late night phone calls. I could not have done it with out you all.

PAGE 6

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank my advisor, Annette, and my committee members, Mitch and Mike, for their confidence, support, and for their time during the process of writing this thesis. Thank you for encouraging me to do better.

PAGE 7

CONTENTS Tables ...................................................................................................................... x Figures ....................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1. IN"TRODUCTION ............................................................. 1 Charismatic Leadership ................................................... 3 Charismatic Leadership Behaviors ...................................... 9 Charismatic Language Delivery .................................. 11 Charismatic Language Content ................................ 13 Personality of Charismatic Leaders: Self-Monitoring Behavior ... 15 Vested Interest ............................................................ 21 Hypotheses ................................................................ 25 2. METHOD ..................................................................... 29 Participants ............................................................... 29 Design ..................................................................... 29 Independent Variables ................................................... 30 Dependent Variables ..................................................... 32 Procedure .................................................................. 33 Scenario Description .................................................... 37 vii -----------

PAGE 8

3. RESULTS ...................................................................... 39 Overview ........................................................................................ 39 Perceptions of Charismatic Leadership ............................... .39 Delivery ................................................................... 42 Hand Gestures: A Charismatic Leadership Behavior. .............. 44 Follower Outcomes ....................................................... 45 4. DISCUSSION ................................................................. 47 Overview ........................................................................................ 47 Presentation Strategies ................................................................... 4 7 Charisma .................................................................. 48 Delivery and Behavior ................................................... 50 Follower Outcomes ...................................................... 52 Implications ............................................................... 53 Limitation and Future Research .......................................... 54 APPENDIX A. SELF-MONITORING ASSESSMENT ................................... 58 B. SCENARIO OF HIGH VESTED INTEREST ........................... 60 C. SCENARIO OF LOW VESTED INTEREST ............................ 64 D. PRESENTATION TECHNIQUES ........................................ 68 E. RATING SCALES ........................................................... 72 Vlll

PAGE 9

F. VESTEDINTERESTMANIPULATION ................................ 75 G. MANIPULATION CHECK ................................................. 77 H. CONSENT FORM ............................................................ 79 REFERENCES ............................................................................. 81 ix

PAGE 10

TABLES Table 1 Charismatic Leadership Rating ......................................................................... .42 2 Perception of Skills ............................................................................................ 43 3 Perception of Expressiveness ............................................................................ .43 4 Effective use ofHand Gestures ......................................................................... .45 5 Willingness to Reduce Pay ................................................................................ 46 X

PAGE 11

FIGURES Figure 1 Charisma Behavior ............................................................................................ 41 2 Expressiveness ................................................................................................... 44 Xl

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Leaders of a group or an organization are in a pivotal position to motivate group members towards achieving common goals. Those leaders who can influence more effectively will achieve important goals. Traditionally the research on leadership focused only on national and military leaders. However, recently the research expanded to include leaders in the corporate world. We realize "where there are groups, there are leaders" (Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998, p. 1248). Having an effective leader in business increases employee motivation, employee satisfaction (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987), and the amount of growth an organization experiences (Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998). Effective leaders who adapt to change and keep motivation high can enable an organization to gain a competitive advantage. Therefore, the ability to select and identify effective leaders is an important strategic goal for organizations. Researchers suggest that charismatic leaders are particularly effective leaders (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; House, 1995; Holladay & Coombs, 1994). Charismatic leaders can be summarized as those who are visionary (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1976) and considered to be role models (Howell & Avolio, 1995). They are trustworthy, sensitive to their followers needs, and inspire 1

PAGE 13

enthusiasm in their followers about the leaders' visions (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; 1988). In addition, charismatic leaders achieve greater outcomes, such as task performance, task satisfaction, and higher adjustrhent to their leader than non charismatic leaders (Howell & Frost, 1989; Towler, in press). However, researchers have not concluded whether the personality traits 'of leaders or situational factors are more important in the emergence of extraordinary leaders (Bass, 1990). Some studies indicate that situational factors are important to perceptions of leadership (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Other researchers continue to examine personality traits associated with effective leaders (Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge & Bono, 2000; Ross & Offerman, 1998) The current study implements an interactional approach in identifying factors that encourage the perception of charismatic leadership. The interactional approach enables leadership behaviors to be examined as a blend of situational factors and personality traits. In the current study, I examined the interaction of the personality trait of self-monitoring and the situational factor of vested interest on the perceptions of charismatic leadership. The purpose is to answer the question: Are High Self-Monitors perceived to be more charismatic leaders than Low Self Monitors when the leaders have a low vested interest in the goals of the situation? In addition, I examined the interactional effects of self-monitoring and vested interest on perceived expressiveness, perceptions of skill, and willingness to comply with 2

PAGE 14

behaviors advocated by the leader. I have chosen to focus on self-monitoring because previous research has indicated a relationship between self-monitoring and leadership emergence (Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, & Clemons, 1990; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991). However, the research has not explicitly examined the relationship between self-monitoring and charismatic leadership behaviors. In the following introduction I describe research on charismatic leadership and the effects of this leadership style on the behaviors of followers. In addition, I describe theverbal and non-verbal language techniques used by charismatic leaders. The language of charismatic leaders remains a focus of the study because participants gave a speech that raters later examined for charismatic content. Next, I describe the personality trait called self-monitoring and the research supporting the idea that High Self-Monitors will be viewed as more charismatic than Low Self Monitors. Finally, I discuss the impact of self-monitoring and vested interest on perceptions of charisma and other outcomes associated with charismatic leadership. Charismatic Leadership Researchers have noted that charismatic individuals are effective leaders (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; House, 1995; Holladay & Coombs, 1994). Charismatic leaders are those who are not satisfied with the status quo and have a vision, or vivid picture, of a goal that others (i.e., followers) find attractive (House, 1976). They are 3

PAGE 15

able to communicate their vision simply and clearly to their followers. They are described by their followers as likeable, trustworthy, and unconventional in their behavior. Furthermore, they inspire passion and enthusiasm in their followers about the communicated purpose ofthe mission (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). In return, the followers are devoted to their charismatic leader. Charismatic leaders gain power through respect, admiration, and the perception of having expertise in their field. Ethical charismatic leaders coordinate their visions with the needs of the group, use their position to serve the group, favor open communication, support and recognize followers, and remain moral role models (Howell & Avolio, 1995). Initially; charismatic leaders' dissatisfaction with the current state of the organization offers them the chance to envision a change. The vision they have for the future differs greatly from the status quo and from the current trend ofthe organization (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). Those people who are also dissatisfied feel drawn to the leader (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). The shared perspective aids in developing a relationship between charismatic leaders and their followers. The relationship between charismatic leaders and their followers is different from the relationship that exists with a non-charismatic leader. Non-charismatic leaders achieve their power base from a combination of position power and personal power. Position power is generated from factors such as ability to give rewards and followers' perceived similarity between themselves and the leader. Personal power 4

PAGE 16

includes factors such as respect, admiration, and expertise. Charismatic leaders achieve their power base completely from personal power, the more effective of the two forms of power (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). Non-charismatic leaders encourage followers to share their views while charismatic leaders transform their followers to share their vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). Ordinary leaders have impersonal attitudes towards the goals that are set forth. They do no attempt to alter what their subordinates think is desirable or possible. In addition, ordinary leaders have a low level of emotional involvement in the goals of the organization (Zaleznik, 1977). Non-charismatic leaders have subordinates who perform in order to receive compensation or other types of rewards for achieving a goal (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). This theory is known as transactional leadership because the relationship between non-charismatic leaders and subordinates acts on the basis of a transaction (Kulmert & Lewis, 1987). This is dramatically different from charismatic leadership theory (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Charismatic leaders are emotionally involved in their goals (Sosik, 2000). They have followers who perform out of a personal desire to implement the leader's vision. The charismatic leader actually changes what the followers feel is possible and desirable (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). The relationship between followers and charismatic leaders is also distinguished from the relationship of followers and non-charismatic leaders 5

PAGE 17

because followers describe their charismatic leader as likeable and worthy of identification and imitation. Non-charismatic leaders are not described by their followers as worthy of identification and imitation (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). A follower's liking ofthe charismatic leader and his/her identification with the charismatic leader stems from the shared perspective of the leader's idealized vision and from the desire of the follower to implement change. According to Conger and Kanungo's (1988) theory of charismatic leadership, when followers share the distaste for the current state and their values are in line with the desired future state, the shared perspective results in likeability and identification with the leader. The followers view the leader as being on their side and acting on their behalf. However, charismatic leaders receive more from their followers than just expressed fondness. Charismatic leaders have their followers' trust, respect, and admiration. Conger, Kanungo, & Menon (2000) found that followers' trust and satisfaction are mediated through reverence ofthe leader. In addition, their study found a strong relationship between follower admiration and charismatic leadership. Followers' trust is gained in part by making visible personal sacrifices (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988). For example, leaders may sacrifice privileges, status within the organization, or monetary compensation (Y orges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999). When leaders make sacrifices to achieve their vision, it reinforces to followers the personal commitment that leaders have towards the vision. 6

PAGE 18

Moreover, charismatic leaders have more satisfied and productive followers (Howell & Frost, 1989; Towler, in press). In a laboratory experiment conducted by Howell and Frost (1989), actors were trained to perform as three different types of leaders; charismaticleaders, considerate leaders, and structured leaders. The actors watched videos of individuals exhibiting behaviors consistent with each leadership style, including body language, facial expressions, emotional states, and paralinguistic cues. The actors assuming one of the three leadership styles led participants in an administrative task. Participants perceived the charismatic actors as the most effective leaders. In addition, participants working under the charismatic actor had higher levels of task performance and task satisfaction. Participants adjusted to their leader better than those individuals who performed under an actor assuming a structured or a considerate leadership style (Howell & Frost, 1989). In phase one of a laboratory study by Towler (in press), participants received either charismatic language training, presentation skills training, or no training at all. Charismatic language skills training included the same materials covered in the presentation skills training, as well as instruction on delivery techniques and charismatic content strategies. The presentation skills training consisted of reading material on effective presentation skills and watching a video on effective delivery. Then, participants gave a video-taped speech while assuming the role of a manager for a fictitious pharmaceuticals company. In phase two of the study, different 7

PAGE 19

participants than those involved in phase one viewed the videos produced in phase one of the study. Participants in phase two reported that when they viewed a speaker that received charismatic leadership training, they had more commitment to the vision ofthe company, more satisfaction with the task, and found the speaker more effective than when they viewed individuals who received either presentation skills training or no training at all. Conger and Kanungo's (1988) theory of charismatic leadership states that charismatic leaders are also viewed by followers as experts in their areas of influence. These leaders reflect through their actions that they are competent in their skills and abilities to tum their vision into a reality; Furthermore, charismatic leaders are described by their followers as being experts in using unconventional means to achieve their idealistic visions. In contrast, non-charismatic leaders are described by followers as only being experts in using available means to achieve goals related to the status quo (Conger & Kanungo, 1987) As an example of a charismatic leader, consider Herb Kelleher, CEO and co founder of Southwest Airlines. His philosophy is to treat employees well, and in return, the company will do well. The leadership traits that have been attributed to Kelleher (Gibson & Blackwell, 1999) include having a vision, self-confidence, exemplary communication skills, high level of commitment, energy and enthusiasm, and being a good role model. 8

PAGE 20

Kelleher's leadership style kept Southwest Airlines in business in the early 1990s when the airline industry faced the obstacle of rising gasoline prices. Many other airlines facing the same problem lost billions of dollars. However, Southwest, determined to stay in business, created the "Fuel from the Heart Program." This program made it possible for employees to donate the cost of a gallon (or more) of gasoline from their paychecks. The result: Southwest stayed profitable during this period of economic decline for the airline industry (Schermerhorn, 1999). Kelleher invoked positive outcomes such as the company's unusual financial stability through the use of his vision and charismatic leadership style. His followers were more dedicated to keeping Southwest in business and sacrificed their own pay to buy fuel for the company. Charismatic Leadership Behaviors Charismatic leadership behaviors are important to the current study because participants gave a speech which raters examined for charismatic leadership components. These components consisted ofverbal and non-verbal language used in the delivery and the content of the speech. The following describes the behaviors exhibited by charismatic leaders. Charismatic leaders communicate their visions through a variety of methods. Both the delivery and the visionary content of the message are important 9

PAGE 21

for charismatic leaders (Holladay & Coombs, 1993; Howell & Frost, 1989). Delivery is the way in which a message is communicated. It encompasses a series of non-verbal language techniques: maintaining eye contact with the audience, using hand gestures and body language, employing expressive and animated facial expressions, and adding variations in rate and tone of voice. When hand and body gestures, as well as expressive and animated facial expressions, complement the visionary message of the leader, they reinforce the message. In addition, variations in tone of voice add emphasis and additional meaning to the words used to communicate the vision. As a result, effective delivery of speeches arouses enthusiastic or emotional responses from followers (Howell & Frost, 1989). The content is the message contained within the vision. Charismatic leaders use language that is simple to understand and is presented clearly. The use of analogies, metaphors, autobiographical stories, and rhetorical techniques augment the emotionality of the visionary message (Conger, 1991; Howell & Frost, 1989; Hartog & Verburg, 1997). Rhetorical techniques include lists, repetition, contrasts, alliteration, and position taking. Some charismatic leaders also incorporate humor into their style to communicate their visions (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999). Together, delivery and content encompass the components of charismatic leadership language. 10

PAGE 22

Charismatic Language Delivery Towler and Dipboye (2001) studied the effects ofusing an expressive delivery style to communicate a message. They defined expressiveness as a generally fluent message that contains vocal intonations. Conversely, they characterized inexpressiveness as a monotone voice combined with hesitations. Participants listened to one of four audio recordings made by a trained speaker. The lectures were manipulated in a 2 X 2 factorial design in which delivery style (expressive vs. inexpressive) and organization (organized vs. less organized) were manipulated to create four different audio recordings. Participants answered test questions on the material covered in the lecture immediately following the lecture and then again after two days. The researchers found.that expressiveness assisted participants in immediate and delayed recall. Participants remembered the content of the lecture best when the speaker delivered the organized lecture using an expressive delivery style. The next highest amount of recall occurred when the speaker was expressive and the lecture was unorganized. The study suggests that the content of the message expressed by the leader is more likely to linger in the minds of the audience if the leader uses an emotional, enthusiastic, or other expressive delivery style. It is important that charismatic leaders communicate a vision that remains with their followers because having a shared perspective of an idealized vision is a critical component of charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). 11

PAGE 23

Holladay and Coombs (1994) studied the effects of delivery and content variables on perceptions of charismatic leadership. Specifically, they manipulated delivery and content variables and then measured perceptions of charismatic leadership. Participants viewed a video-taped message of a trained speaker who played the role of a store manager. The researchers used four different videos. Each video used strong or weak delivery techniques in combination with visionary or non-visionary content. The strong delivery techniques included expressive behaviors, good eye contact, use ofhand gestures, effective facial expressions, and vocal variety. The videos with visionary content included a vision, a strong sense of mission, references to shared values, respect towards subordinates, expectations for subordinates, and an optimistic view of the future. The study found perceptions of charismatic leadership to be the greatest when the message communicated by the store manager had both visionary content and a strong delivery. When the message was non-visionary but still maintained a strong delivery style, perceptions of charismatic leadership were the second highest. Messages with visionary content and a weak delivery style followed. Holladay and Coombs suggested that a weak delivery may dull the effects of the visionary content. Therefore, the message is not able to carry the same impact as it would with an expressive delivery. The study concluded that delivery style effects perceptions of charismatic leadership. 12

PAGE 24

Charismatic Language Content Pennebaker and King (1999) suggest that the words people use affect others' perceptions of their moods, emotions, and personality. Linguistic research supports this idea. Recently, Pennebaker and Lay (2002) conducted a content analysis using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to examine the word use of former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The public noticed a "personality change" in Giuliani when comparing his "personality" at the time ofhis initial election to office to his"personality" at the time ofthe World Trade Center (WTC) attacks on September 11, 2001. During Giuliani's first term in office he was frequently described by the media as sarcastic, irritable, and defensive (Goode, 2002). In 2000 Giuliani underwent a personal crisis when doctors diagnosed him with prostate cancer. Beginning at this time. of personal crisis, Giuliani's language became simpler and more personal-two characteristics attributed to the language of charismatic leaders (Sosik, 2000; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Zaleznik, 1977). After the WTC attacks, Giuliani expressed sadness more openly, spoke about the future instead of the past, and used more positive emotional tones (Pennebaker & Lay, 2002). In addition, followers witnessed personal sacrifices that Giuliani made as he gave his time to attend funerals and to stand in at a wedding where all male family members had been lost in the WTC attacks. Even after his term in office many people viewed him as a hero (Goode, 2002). Pennebaker and Lay's (2002) research 13

PAGE 25

found a change in linguistic style over his eight-year term which could explain the public's assumption that Giuliani's personality changed. The study of Giuliani's language demonstrates that it was the language he used that changed others' perceptions ofhim. Other ways in which leaders use language to convey their messages is through clearly articulated vision statements. The vision is accompanied by stories that have personal meaning to the leader. By using stories that hold personal meaning, leaders are able to convey their personal commitment and emotional involvement with their vision. Charismatic leaders also weave analogies and metaphors into the content (Conger, 1991). These two language techniques give an emotional charge to the message because they make comparisons between two items that are not usually viewed as linked. For example, Will Durant expressed an analogy between education and happiness. He stated," ... education, like happiness, is individual, and must come to us from life and from ourselves" (Safire, 1997). Similarly, Martin Luther King, Jr. used a metaphor to compare the struggle for human rights for African Americans to an outstanding bank loan: It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of 14

PAGE 26

justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. (1963) Both of these quotes have more emotional appeal than simply stating that education is individual and personal, or African-Americans are not treated justly. The audience is better able to relate what the speaker is feeling through the verbal techniques of charismatic leadership language. In summary, charismatic leaders use various behaviors that serve to strengthen the delivery and the content of their visionary messages. The behaviors are.both verbal and non-verbal. When their messages have a strong delivery, followers perceive the leaders as more charismatic (Holladay & Coombs, 1994) and are more likely to remember the content of the message (Towler & Dipboye, 2001 ). In addition, the specific language that charismatic leaders use effects their followers' perceptions of them (Pennebaker & Lay, 2002) and can increase the emotionality ofthe leader's vision. Personality of Charismatic Leaders: Self-Monitoring Behavior Researchers did not begin the social scientific study of leadership until the early 1930s (House & Aditya, 1997). Initially, researchers examined physical traits such as gender, height, or appearance because popular belief held to the idea that 15

PAGE 27

these traits were identifiers of good leaders. Research published on leadership from 1930 through 1950 focused on traits such as intelligence and need for power. After 1950, the research diminished due to the inability of researchers to replicate studies, criticism of population samples, and a lack of evidence supporting the idea of universal traits (House & Aditya, 1997). Recently, however, researchers have reconsidered the dispositional approach to leadership by attempting to identify personality traits that separate effective leaders from non-effective leaders. For example, personality traits such as extroversion and agreeableness have been linked to emergence of transformational/charismatic leadership in business managers (Judge & Bono, 2000). Extroverts are expressive and, according to research by Holladay and Coombs (1993) and Howell and Frost (1989), expressive behavior is an important predictor ofperceptions of charismatic leadership. In addition, research indicates that followers of charismatic leaders describe their leaders as likeable (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). However, a charismatic leader must also convey sincere involvement and capability of achieving the vision to initiate perceptions of charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; Zaleznik, 1977). The current study is a continuation of the dispositional approach to leadership; however, it also takes into account situational factors which will be described subsequently. 16

PAGE 28

One personality construct that has not been analyzed specifically in the context of perceptions of charismatic leadership research is self-monitoring. The notion of self-monitoring describes the behavior of adjusting one's self-presentation on the basis of either internal or external factors (Becker, Ayman, & Korabik, 2002; Snyder, 1974). Internal factors include a person's feelings or emotions. External factors include the environment and the behavioral reactions of other individuals. In other words, self-monitoring is a type of impression management affected by one's sensitivity to the cues that surround a given situation. These cues are examined by the individual for indications of social acceptability of behaviors (Snyder, 1974). Individuals who are very sensitive to external cues and adjust their self-presentation based on the cues are categorized as High Self-Monitors. High Self-Monitors aim to adjust their image to exhibit socially appropriate behavior. Individuals who are less sensitive to external cues and adjust their self-presentation based on internal cues, are categorized as Low Self-Monitors. According to Snyder's (1974) theory, Low Self-Monitors judge the appropriateness of their behavior from within. They adjust their self-presentation based on what they sense internally. In some situations High Self-Monitors will offer a presentation that is dissimilar from their actual internal state. For example, imagine a public situation that is exciting such as the wedding of two close friends. Consider a Low Self17

PAGE 29

Monitor who is upset because he/she is in love with one of the friends to be married. The Low Self-Monitor examines internal factors and as a result expresses behavior that is associated with being upset. On the other hand, a High Self-Monitor in the same predicament considers the external cues, namely from the wedding atmosphere and the other wedding guests. Thus, a High Self-Monitor expresses behavior associated with excitement. Excitement is consistent with the external cues given in the wedding situation and has a consensus of being socially appropriate. In this example, the expressed behavior of the High Self-Monitor is dissimilar to the actual emotions being experienced. Friedman and Miller-Herringer (1991) observed self-monitoring behavior in their study. When a group of Low Self-Monitors won a computer game, they expressed their happiness with nonverbal actions such as smiling, clapping, and punching the air. Conversely, when High Self-Monitors won the computer game, they suppressed their expressive behavior; they exhibited a neutral emotional state. In a study by Turnley and Bolino (2001 ), individuals were taught impression-management skills. The researchers found that High Self-Monitors used the impression-management skills more effectively than Low Self-Monitors. Turnley and Bolino (2001) attributed the difference in effective use ofthe skills to High Self-Monitors having more experience in adjusting their self-presentation. Specifically, High Self-Monitors were more effective in managing self-18

PAGE 30

presentations oflikeability, self-promotion, and dedication. These three skills are characteristics that followers attribute to charismatic leaders (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988). Some research conducted on leadership and self-monitoring looks at leadership emergence. Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, and Clemons (1990) conducted a study examining leadership emergence as affected by self-monitoring and gender. Undergraduate students completed a self-monitoring assessment and later the researchers assigned each of them to a four person team. Each team consisted of one male High Self-Monitor, one female High Self-Monitor, one male Low Self Monitor, and one female Low Self-Monitor. The teams then completed a salary allocation task where the team members had to decide how to allocate $10,000 to six fictitious employees; At the end of the task, each team member indicated via a 7point Likert-type scale how much each would like to have each team member, including themselves, be the leader. In addition, they each selected one individual, excluding themselves, to serve as the group's leader. These two indications made by participants served as measures of leadership emergence. The researchers found that High Self-Monitors emerged more often than Low Self-Monitors as the leaders of the groups. In a similar type of study, Zaccaro, F oti, and Kenny ( 1991) researched leadership emergence across various situations to identify whether or not leadership 19

PAGE 31

emergence is trait-based. In addition, self-monitoring was selected as a personality trait that may be associated with leadership emergence regardless of the situations. In the study, the researchers asked participants to complete a self-monitoring questionnaire and then assigned them to a three-person group to complete the first of four different tasks. The researchers assigned participants to a different group for each subsequent task. After completing each task, participants rated their peers and themselves on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire which measures four leader traits: Persuasion, Initiating structure, Consideration, and Production Emphasis. Then, at the end of each task participants rated themselves and their peers on leadership emergence. Leadership emergence was based on two measures, a 5item General Leadership Impression (GLI) scale and leader preference rankings. To obtain the leader preference rankings the researchers asked participants to rank order which group members they would prefer to have as the group leader. Leadership emergence was stable across the four different situations even when task and group membership changed. Therefore, leadership emergence is not solely based on situational factors. Next, the researchers examined the correlation between leadership emergence and participants self-monitoring scores. Correlations between the first measure of leadership emergence (the GLI scale) and self-monitoring were not significant. However, the researchers found a small correlation between self monitoring and the second measure of leadership emergence, the leader preference 20

PAGE 32

rankings. Zacarro,.Foti and Kenny (1991) concluded in this study that leadership emergence is in part trait-based and that self-monitoring is one of these traits. This study failed to examine other personality traits that could account for leadership emergence. Vested Interest In addition to personality traits, situational factors have an impact on leadership perceptions (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Situational factors are conditions that exist that may have an impact on individuals' behaviors. This study considers the interaction of a personality trait and a situational factor on perceptions of charismatic leadership. Self-interest or vested interest is a factor that affects peoples' attitudes and the ways in which individuals respond to situations (Brewer & Crano, 1994). When a person has a high vested interest in a situation, then the person perceives that there are important personal consequences associated with him/her and the event or situation. Conversely, if a person perceives that a situation will not result in any important personal consequences, then the person has a low vested interest in the situation. Crano and Preslin (1995) summarize the theory ofvested interest by explaining that people will behave in ways that match their interests. 21

PAGE 33

Several factors contribute to an individual's vested interest. These factors include stake, salience, certainty, immediacy, and self-efficacy (Crano & Prislin, 1995). Stake refers to one's personal feeling ofloss or gain that will result as a consequence of the situation. Salience is the relevancy of the situation to the individual. Certainty refers to how likely it is that the consequences-will occur at all. Immediacy refers to how soon the consequences will occur after action is taken by the individual. Lastly, self-efficacy is the amount to which an individual believes that he/she can take action to make a difference in the outcome of a situation. To reiterate, the degree of vested interest an individual has in a situation affects the ways in which that individual will behave (Crano & Prislin, 1995). This concept may be applied to charismatic leaders. Researchers have noted that charismatic leaders have a high vested interest in their visions and they also take action to achieve their goals (Sosik, 2000; Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; Zaleznik, 1977). For example, the goals they set forth are very relevant to them because they hold personal meaning. Thus, the salience of the goal is high. The concept of vested interest is also relevant to self-monitoring. Low Self Monitors behave in ways consistent with their internal state, or self-interest. Therefore, if a Low Self-Monitor has low vested interest in a situation, he/she will likely express behavior that matches his/her attitude (Crano & Prislin, 1995; Snyder, 1974). High Self-Monitors, however, do not always express behaviors that reflect 22

PAGE 34

their self-interest. Therefore, if a High Self-Monitor has low vested interest in a situation, he/she may not express behaviors that match his/her attitude. Suppose a situation arises where High Self-Monitor and Low Self-Monitor individuals must speak to a group on a topic that they have low vested interest in or are not sincere about. However, the situational cues surrounding the event indicate that it is socially appropriate for the individuals to be sincere and expressive. According to Snyder (1974), Low Self-Monitors express behavior congruent with their internal state and are not as sensitive to external cues. In contrast, High Self-Monitors survey the situation and adapt a response that is the most socially appropriate for the situation. As a result, Low Self-Monitors express neutral or non-emotional behavior because this behavior would match their attitude of low vested interest. Conversely, High Self-Monitors would speak with emotion about the topic that they have low vested interest in because High Self-Monitors observe external cues and adjust their self presentations to express socially appropriate behaviors. Consider the same situation except in a charismatic leadership context. Both a Low Self-Monitor and a High Self-Monitor must speak to a group of people. In this situation it is beneficial to be charismatic in order to achieve a specific outcome or goal. The Low Self-Monitor and the High Self-Monitor find personal meaning, or have a vested interest, in the situation. It is likely that both will express behavior that matches their attitudes. As a result, the followers perceive the speakers as 23

PAGE 35

charismatic because they are expressing behavior consistent with charismatic leaders. These behaviors may include having a high vested interest in the goals, expressiveness, and exhibiting expertise. However, if both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have a low vested interest in the situation, there should be a difference in their expressed behaviors (Crano & Prislin, 1995, Snyder, 1974). The Low Self-Monitors will express behavior consistent with their attitude -low vested interest. Having a low vested interest in the goals is not typical of charismatic leaders. On the other hand, the High Self-Monitor will adjust his/her self presentation to be consistent with external cues suggesting it is socially appropriate to express charismatic behaviors. As a result, the High Self-Monitor may be perceived by followers as more charismatic than the Low Self-Monitor because he/she will adjust his/her self-presentation to convey charismatic behaviors, such as high vested interest in the goal, expressiveness, and expertise. In summary, vested interest influences the ways in which people behave. According to the theory of vested interest, there is congruency between peoples' attitudes and the behaviors they express. Charismatic leaders who have a high vested interest in their visions are likely to express behavior congruent with their visions. Vested interest is also relevant to self-monitoring. Low Self-monitors behave in ways consistent with their attitude. However, High Self-Monitors adjust 24

PAGE 36

their self-presentations based on external cues that may be different than their attitude. Hypotheses. The current study looked at the interaction of one dispositional and one situational factor on perceptions of charismatic leadership. Charismatic leaders are those who are not satisfied with the status quo (House, 1976). They seek to change the current state in favor of their vision for a future state (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Charismatic leaders have emotional and personal commitment to their visions, unlike non-charismatic leaders (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; Zaleznik, 1977). In addition, charismatic leaders use verbal and non-verbal behaviors to add emphasis and emotion to their message when speaking about their vision (Holladay & Coombs, 1993; Howell & Frost, 1989). The personality trait called self-monitoring has yet to be studied specifically in the context ofperceptions of charismatic leadership. Low Self-Monitors are individuals who express behaviors based on their internal state. High Self-Monitors express behavior based on external cues in the situation (Becker, Ayman, & Korabik, 2002; Snyder, 1974). In other words, High Self-Monitors may express behavior inconsistent with their internal state. 25

PAGE 37

In addition to personality traits, situational factors play a role in leadership perceptions (Pillai & Meindl, 1998). One such situational factor is the degree of vested interest an individual has in a situation. Vested interest has an effect on the behaviors that individuals express (Crano & Prislin, 1995). Charismatic leaders have a high vested interest in their visions (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; Zaleznik, 1977). The current study examined the interaction of the situational factor of vested interest and the dispositional factor of self-monitoring on perceptions of charismatic leadership. People behave in ways that match their interests and High Self-Monitors do not always express behaviors consistent with their attitude; it is possible that these two concepts interact in their influence upon peoples' perceptions. Therefore, participants in the current study completed a measure of Self-Monitoring and were placed in one of two leadership situations. One situation included content to create a high vested interest for the participant while the other included content to create a i low vested interest for the participant. All participants made a video-taped speech which raters examined later for chansmatic leadership behaviors and behaviors associated with the delivery ofthe speech (expressiveness and skill), non-verbal delivery techniques (hand gestures), and the willingness of followers to comply with behaviors advocated by the speaker. The present study investigated four hypotheses: 26

PAGE 38

Hl: There will be an interaction of task type (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) and Self-Monitoring (High SelfMonitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on rater's perceptions of charisma. Specifically, when both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have a vested interest in the situation, there will be no differences in perceptions of charisma. When there is low vested interest, High SelfMonitors will be perceived as more charismatic than Low Self-Monitors. H2: There will be an interaction oftask type (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) and Self-Monitoring (High SelfMonitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on rater's perceptions of expressiveness. Specifically, when both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have a vested interest in the situation, there will be no differences in perceptions of expressiveness. When there is low vested interest, High ... Self-Monitors will be perceived as more expressive than Low SelfMonitors. H3: There will be an interaction of task type (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) and Self-Monitoring (High SelfMonitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on charismatic leadership behaviors, 27

PAGE 39

including, use of stories, use of analogies, eye contact, tone of voice changes, hand gestures, animated facial expressions, humor, use of a vision statement, and raising expectations of the audience. When both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have a vested interest in the situation, there will be no difference in rater's perceptions of verbal and non-verbal charismatic leadership behaviors. When there is low vested interest in the situation, High Self-Monitors will be perceived as using more charismatic leadership behaviors while speaking than Low Self Monitors. H4: There will be an interaction of task type (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) and Self-Monitoring (High Self Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on follower outcomes. Specifically, when both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have a vested interest in the situation, there will be no differences in rater's willingness to reduce their pay. When there is low vested interest, High Self Monitors will achieve greater follower outcomes than Low Self Monitors; raters will be willing to reduce their pay by a higher percentage. 28

PAGE 40

CHAPTER2 METHOD Participants Fifty-two undergraduate students from eight psychology courses in an urban university participated in the study. Participants in seven of the courses received extra credit in exchange for their participation. Participants ranged from eighteen to fifty-nine years in age (M=24.7, S.D.=8.24). Thirty-five participants (67%) were between eighteen and twenty-four years in age. Forty-six participants (90%) were female. The majority were Caucasian (63%) followed by Hispanic (14%), African American (8%), Asian (8%), and Native American (2%). Finally, thirty-five participants (45%) were employed part-time, 12 (24%) employed full-time, and 16 (31 %) were not employed at the time of the study. Of those who were at least employed part-time, 24% were in sales roles, 18% in managerial or professional roles, 16% in technical or skilled labor roles, 6% in clerical or secretarial roles, and 4% in unskilled labor roles. Design The researcher used a 2 x 2 between-subjects design which assessed self monitoring (High Self-Monitoring vs. Low Self-Monitoring) and manipulated task 29

PAGE 41

group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) to differentiate between participants. Dependent variables included delivery style ratings on a 7-point Likert-type scale and charisma behavior ratings on a 5-point Likert-type scale (Appendix E). Independent Variables The study included participants' self-monitoring ratings as an independent variable .. Mark Snyder (1974) developed the Self-Monitoring Scale with a reliability of a =.70to assess the degree to which individuals alter their self-presentation based on external cues (Appendix A). High Self-Monitors adjust their self-presentation more than Low Self-Monitors. Snyder (1974) defines High Self-Monitors as individuals who score sixteen to twentyfive on the self-monitoring scale. Low Self Monitors are defined as individuals scoring one to eight on the same scale. These scores represent the 751 h and 251 h percentiles, respectively. Participants in the current study scored between 5 and 21 with a mean of 12.5 (SD=4.27). The 25-point scale was split dichotomously at the median (12) to form a low and high group. The researcher classified participants as Low Self-Monitors ifthey scored I to 12 on the scale and as High Self-Monitors ifthey scored 13 to 25 on the scale for the purposes of this study. For the current study, the researcher chose a median split point over Snyder's method because of the sample and the distribution of the data in this study. 30

PAGE 42

Scores were evenly distributed about the mean (Skewness=0.09) with a slightly platykurtic distribution (Kurtosis=-0.97), meaning that there are little data in the extremes. Eliminating scores in the middle of the ranges would have substantially lowered the sample size. The cost of using the median split method is that results will not be as significant as they could have been using Snyder's method. This occurs because there is less variance between the two groups with the inclusion of the middle scores. Task group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) served as the other independent variable. Participants received either a High Vested Interest Scenario or a Low vested Interest Scenario. The High Vested Interest Scenario contained statements designed to elicit more personal involvement from participants than the Low Vested Interest Scenario (Appendix B & Appendix C). Statements differed with respect to Stake, Salience, Certainty, Immediacy, and Self-Efficacy. For example, the Stake statement for the High Vested Interest Scenario group read, ''Unfortunately, you will also have to take a reduction in pay," and for the Low Vested Interest Scenario group read, "Fortunately, you will not have to take a reduction in pay" (Appendix F). 31

PAGE 43

Dependent Variables The dependent variables included scores on an 11-item charismatic behavior scale (Bass & Avolio, 1985, 1995) and a delivery rating scale (Holladay & Coombs, 1993) consisting ofexpressiveness and skill (Appendix E). Other measures were subjective Likert-type scale questions that asked raters about the speaker's use of stories, use of analogies, eye contact, tone of voice changes, hand gestures, animated facial expressions, humor, use of a vision statement, raising expectations of the audience, and raters' percentage of willing pay reduction (Appendix E). Two female psychology students, one graduate and one undergraduate, served as independent raters and measured all dependent variables. Inter-rater reliability was assessed and only some of the dependent variables had sufficient agreement between raters. Therefore, this study only includes analyses on the charismatic behavior scale (reliability= .57), expressiveness (reliability= .62) and skill (reliability= .56) factors of the delivery rating scale, use ofhand gestures (reliability =.58), and raters' percentage of willing pay reduction (reliability= .66). The charisma behavior scale is a component of Bass and Avolio's (1985, 1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and consists of 11 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale based on behavioral components of charisma. These components include inspirational motivation, attributed charisma, and idealized influence (Bass & Avolio, 1995). This scale has an alpha coefficient of a =.93. Items included, 32

PAGE 44

"Talked optimistically about the future," "Displayed a sense of power and purpose," and "Went beyond his/her self interest for the good ofthe group" (Appendix E). The delivery rating scale consisted of 13 pairs ofbipolar adjectives on a 7point Likert-type scale end points that previous research associated with effective delivery (Holladay & Coombs, 1993; Towler, in press). Examples included incompetent/competent, weak/strong, and friendly/unfriendly (Appendix E). Two factors were found that accounted for 85.3% of the variance. The researcher labeled Factor 1 Skills which accounted for 50.9% of the variance (Eigenvalue=6.61) and contained items measuring if the speaker was Skilled, Qualified, Reliable, Intelligent, Competent, Powerful and Wise. Factor 2, labeled Expressiveness (Eigenvalue=4.48, 34.4% variance explained), contained the items Openness, Excitement, Friendliness, Motivation, and Charisma. Percentage of willing pay reduction measured the percentage of pay that raters indicated they would be willing to cut from their hourly wages based on the message they heard from the speaker. Percentage increments of five percent began at 0% and ended at 25%. Procedure All participants signed a consent form that informed them of the benefits and potential hazards of participation in the study (Appendix H). Participants then 33

PAGE 45

completed a self-monitoring assessment and read one of two scenarios, High Vested Interest Scenario or Low Vested Interest Scenario, concerning the fictitious clothing company (Appendices A, B, & C). Next, each participant read information on presentation strategies containing both transformational/charismatic and transactional or normal strategies (Appendix D). Strategies from both perspectives occurred together without information as to whether they represented transformational/charismatic or transactional behaviors. Participants reviewed the strategies and indicated which ones they intended to use by ranking the strategies according:to importance. Preparing an outline (normal strategy) was ranked the most important strategy by 40% of the participants. The next most frequently ranked number one strategy was making a statement about your vision for the future (charismatic strategy). However, only 13% of participants ranked this strategy as the most important. Almost 12% of participants ranked giving a preview of what you will cover (normal strategy) as the most important strategy. Overall, participants selected the normal presentation skill as the most important 86% of the time while the charismatic presentation skills were only selected approximately 29% of the time. There was some overlap in participants selection of presentation skills. When a participant ranked a skill with the same number as another skill is was assumed they felt these skills to be of equal importance. The researcher allowed participants to access the strategies throughout the planning stages oftheir presentation. 34

PAGE 46

Participants gave a presentation that was approximately three minutes in length following a ten minute preparation period. During the preparation period, the researcher told participants they could make notes on the sheet of blank paper provided to them which they could refer to during their presentation. There was no audience present aside from the researcher who video-taped the presentation. However, the researcher told participants to address their subordinates when making the presentation. Participants gave the presentation in any format they wished using the presentation strategies they found to be most helpful to them. The researcher video-taped all of the presentations using a VHS-tape video recorder on a tripod. After the presentation, participants indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale how well they felt they had used the presentation skills that they used in their presentation (Appendix D). Sixty percent of participants rated their ability to use plain and simple language (normal strategy) as well or very well. Approximately 33% rated their abilities to prepare an outline (normal strategy), identify themselves (normal strategy), and maintain eye contact (charismatic strategy) as well or very well. Fifteen percent of participants rated their ability to make a statement about their vision for the future (charismatic strategy) as well or very well. Thirteen percent ranked their ability to give a preview (normal strategy) as well or very well. In general, participants rated their abilities to perform the normal presentation 35 ------------------------

PAGE 47

strategies higher than their abilities to use the charismatic presentation strategies. Further discourse is continued in the discussion section of this paper. Lastly, participants completed a manipulation check labeled as an evaluation form (Appendix G). The manipulation check questions were subjective and similar to manipulation check questions used in other vested interest research (Crano & Prislin, 1995; Gorenflo & Crano, 1989). The evaluation contained questions related to stake, salience; self-efficacy, immediacy, and certainty. The researcher measured stake with, "How much do you feel you were affected by the outcome of this situation?," and immediacy with, "Did you feel the situation needed to be resolved immediately?" After the researcher video-taped all participants' presentations, two female independent raters scored the videos using the delivery rating scale and charismatic behaviors scale. They also rated the participants on their use of stories, use of analogies, eye contact, tone of voice changes, hand gestures, animated facial expressions, humor, use of a vision statement, ability to raise expectations of the audience, and indicated the percentage of pay they were willing to forfeit. (Appendix E). Both raters watched the videos in the same chronological order. There was approximately 2 seconds between each video and therefore raters had to pause the tape after each video in order to have sufficient time to complete each 36

PAGE 48

measure. Then the rater played the next in the sequence, pausing after each presenter before moving on to the next. Scenario Description Each participant played the role of a store manager, Pat Allen, who must hold a meeting with his/her subordinates to ask them to take a pay cut. The scenario involved a clothing company undergoing a fmancial loss due to the downturn in the economy and therefore, must cut costs. The High Vested Interest Scenario included manipulations designed to increase participants' vested interest. This scenario informed the store manager (participant) that the situation is important and must be taken care of immediately or lay-offs will certainly result. Also, the store manager must take a cut in pay along with his/her subordinates. The Low Vested Interest Scenario included manipulations to reduce the amount of participants' vested interest in the situation. In the Low Vested Interest Scenario the store manager (participant) does not have to take a pay cut but he/she still must ask the subordinates to reduce their pay. The situation is described as less important and that no immediate action is necessary. In addition, the consequences are less certain in the Low Vested Interest S7enario setting than in the High Vested Interest Scenario setting. The differences between the scenarios are highlighted in Appendix F. 37

PAGE 49

Both scenarios include information about fictitious employees who are mostly college students on tight budgets. Identical financial information about the company is also presented in the scenarios. The scenarios were designed by the researcher to include inspirational information as well as facts and figures. The participant determined what information to include in the presentation. Vested interest was tested using a series of independent t-tests on questions of stake (Appendix G, question 4), salience (Appendix G, question 1), self-efficacy (Appendix G, question 3), immediacy (Appendix G, question 5), and certainty (Appendix G, question 6). Overall, Stake, !(49)=2.28, p<.Ol, and Immediacy !(49)=2.04, p<.05, were significantly different between the High Vested Interest Scenario (M=4.92, M=5.96) and the Low Vested Interest Scenario (M=3.92, M=4.96). There was a marginally significant difference for Self-Efficacy between High Vested Interest Scenario (M=4.80) and Low Vested Interest Scenario (M=4.23) groups, !(49)=1.43, p<.lO. 38

PAGE 50

CHAPTER3 RESULTS Overview The researcher conducted a series oftwo-way ANOVAS, using vested interest (High vs. Low) and self-monitoring (High vs. Low) as the independent variables. Analyses were conducted on charismatic behavior (Hl), delivery style (expressiveness and skill, (H2), use ofhand gestures (H3), and willingness to reduce pay (H4). Rater's scores for participants were first checked for inter-rater reliability and then averaged to form the dependent variables' scores. Because the researcher had directional hypotheses, she used a one-tailed t-test and adopted a significance level ofp< .05. Perceptions of Charismatic Leadership The researcher conducted a two-way ANOVA to test the hypothesis (Hl) that there would be an interaction of task type (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) and self-monitoring (High SelfMonitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on perceptions of charisma based on raters' averaged scores on the Charisma Behavior Scale (Appendix E). More specifically, the hypothesis states that when both High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors have a vested interest in the 39

PAGE 51

situation, there will be no differences in perceptions of charisma. When there is low vested interest, High Self-Monitors will be perceived as more charismatic than High Self-Monitors. Results indicated that there were no significant main effects for vested interest, F(1, 48) = 1.05, p>.05, or self-monitoring score, F(l,48)=1.39, p>.05, on perceptions of charisma. Results were also non-significant for an interaction between vested interest and self-monitoring scores on charisma, F(1,48)=0.55, p>.05. Rosnow and Rosenthal (1995) theorized that when a hypothesis is so specific that researchers have preplanned comparisons, they are justified in using a series of independent means t-tests to make those comparisons despite non significant interaction results.through an ANOVA. Therefore, the researcher conducted two independent means t-tests based on preplanned comparisons of High Self-Monitors and Low Self-Monitors in each task group on raters averaged score of perceptions of charisma. Results from these analyses support H1. As shown in Figure 1, within the High Vested Interest group, High Self-Monitors {M=12.31, SD =7.97) were not perceived as more charismatic than Low Self-Monitors {M=11.75, SD=6.32), 40

PAGE 52

!(22)=0.17, p>.05. Figure 1 Charisma Behavior 12 D ........... ca 11 E f/) 10 ..J:: 0 0 9 f/) c: 0 ':OJ c. 8 Q) Dt:!tlll:lll Self-Monitoring -0 Low SM 0 HighSM High Vested Interest Low Vested Interest TASK GROUP In addition, within the Low Vested Interest group, High Self-Monitors (M=11.45, SD=6.24) were perceived as marginally more charismatic than Low Self-Monitors (M=8.00, SD=5.73), !(26)=1.48, p<.08. Table 1 shows the average ratings of charismatic behavior for all groups. 41

PAGE 53

Table 1 Charismatic Leadership Rating Group Self-Monitoring N Rating High High 16 12.31 Vested Interest Low 10 11.45 Low High 8 11.75 Vested Interest Low 18 8.00 Delivery The researcher conducted two separate two-way ANOV As to test the hypothesis (H2) that task group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario) or self-monitoring (High Self-Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) would have an effect on the two delivery styles, skills and expressiveness. A main effect was found for self-monitoring (High Self-Monitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on perceived skills scores, p<.01, obtained from Factor 1 ofthe delivery rating scale. High Self-Monitors (M=28.55, SD=7.55) were perceived as more skilled speakers than Low Self-Monitors (M=24.05, SD=4.91). The researcher found no main effect for task group nor evidence of an interaction. ANOV A results are displayed in Table 2. 42

PAGE 54

Table 2 Perception of Skills F-Value Significance Vested Interest 0.001 p>.OS Self-Monitoring 5.90 p<.Ol Interaction 0.003 p>.OS The researcher also found a main effect for self-monitoring (High SelfMonitor vs. Low Self-Monitor) on perceived expressiveness scores, F(l, 48)=3.66, p<.OS, (Table 3). Table 3 Perception of Expressiveness F-Value Significance Vested Interest 0.03 p>.OS Self-Monitoring 3.66 p<.OS Interaction 0.66 p>.05 High Self-Monitors (M=l8.35, SD=5.27) were perceived as being more expressive than Low Self-Monitors (M=l5.52, SD=5.13). No main effect was found for task group on perceived expressiveness, F(1,48)=0.03, p>.05. More specific tests were conducted using the Rosnow and Rosenthal ( 1995) method of statistical analyses using pre-planned comparisons. An independent t-test indicated that High SelfMonitors were perceived as significantly more expressive than Low Self-Monitors 43

PAGE 55

in the Low Vested Interest Scenario group, t(24)=1.86, p<.05 (Figure 2). Figure 2 Expressiveness 19. 11"'" ........ !1 o 18 a [ Q) c::: Q) > u; Q) L... 17. 0 Low SM 0 Blit8C Q) 14._------------------------------------4 0 High SM High Vested Interest Low Vested Interest TASK GROUP There was no significant difference in perceived expressiveness between High SelfMonitors and Low Self-Monitors in the High Vested Interest Scenario group, t(23)=0.82, p>.05. Hand Gestures: A Charismatic Leadership Behavior The researcher performed a two-way ANOV A to test the hypothesis (H3) that High Self-Monitors will be perceived as using more effective hand gestures 44

PAGE 56

while speaking than Low Self-Monitors in the Low Vested Interest task group. A marginal main effect was found for self-monitoring, F(1,48)=2.53, p<.08 (Table 4). Table 4 Effective use of Hand Gestures F-Value Significance Vested Interest 0.45 p>.05 Self-Monitoring 2.53 p<.08 Interaction 0.02 p>.05 Raters perceived that High Self-Monitors (M=l.58, SD=l.l4) used more effective hand gestures than Low Self-Monitors (M=l.l6, SD=0.90). No main effect was found for task group on perceived effectiveness of hand gestures, F(1,48)=0.51, p>.05. Using Rosnow and Rosenthal's (1995) method no further significance was found for the use of hand gestures. Therefore, only the ANOV A results are included. Follower Outcomes The final analysis that the researcher conducted analyzed the percentage of pay which raters reported being willing to relinquish after viewing a High SelfMonitor and a Low Self-Monitor. This was to test the hypothesis (H4) that those viewing a High Self.:MonitC!F;CM=l.85, SD=0.77) may be more willing to take a 45

PAGE 57

greater reduction in pay compared to viewing a Low Self-Monitor (M=l.52, SD=0.74), F(1,48)=2.42, p<.08. There was no significant main effect for task group, F(1, 48)=.03, p>.05, nor any interaction between self-monitoring and task group on willing pay reduction, F(l,48)=.15, p>.05 (Table 5). Table 5 Willingness to Reduce Pay F-Value Significance Vested Interest 0.03 p>.05 Self-Monitoring 2.42 p<.08 Interaction 0.15 p>.05 Further analyses using Rosnow and Rosenthal (1995) method did not reveal any greater significance. Thus, The results of the ANOV A are only included. 46

PAGE 58

CHAPTER4 DISCUSSION Overview The purpose of the current study was to take a dispositional and a situational" approach to examining charismatic leadership. The personality trait of self monitoring was hypothesized to interact with the situational factor of vested interest on perceptions of charisma, delivery of a speech, one charismatic leadership behavior, and follower outcomes. The following is a discussion ofthe results of the study, implications, and limitations. Presentation strategies The researcher noted that 86% of participants ranked a normal presentation strategy a most important. In addition, participants rated their abilities to perform the normal strategies higher than their abilities to perform charismatic strategies (Appendix D). It is possible that participants believed the normal presentation strategies to be the most important and therefore focused on performing these normal strategies verses the charismatic presentation strategies. It is likely that the participants could have been more familiar with the normal presentation strategies and had more practice using these strategies. The lack of ranked importance of the 47

PAGE 59

charismatic strategies may be indicative that participants may need instruction or training about these skills to become familiar with them. The data do suggest that participants were using the strategies that they felt were important. Charisma The researcher conducted specific statistical tests (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1995) to examine ifthere would be an interaction between task group (High Vested Interest Scenario and Low Vested Interest Scenario) and self-monitoring (High Self Monitors vs. Low Self-Monitors) on perceived charisma. Analyses suggested that raters perceived High Self-Monitors as more charismatic than Low Self-Monitors in the Low Vested Interest Scenario group. This finding is congruent with the research hypothesis (HI). Even when High Self-Monitors had little or no vested interest in the situation they were discussing, the raters perceived them as displaying more charismatic behaviors than Low Self-Monitors. A high vested interest is associated with charismatic leaders (Sosik, 2000; Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988; Zaleznik, 1977). Low Self-Monitors may only be perceived as charismatic when they have a High Vested Interest in the situation because they actually have a high vested interest and they express behavior associated with this internal state. High Self-Monitors demonstrate behavior congruent with external cues, such as situational context and others' behaviors. 48

PAGE 60

Therefore, expressing behaviors associated with high vested interest when in fact the individual has low vested interest is most fitting with High Self-Monitors. To provide further explanation, High Self-Monitors are better at perceiving the external cues in the scenario than Low Self-Monitors. It is also possible that High Self-Monitors are adjusting their self-presentations to behave charismatically because they believe it to be more socially appropriate behavior as indicated by external cues in the scenarios. On the other hand, Low Self-Monitors are not adjusting their self-presentations to the external cues because they are less influenced by the behaviors they observe. It may be important to consider the source of the external cues that High Self-Monitors are perceiving that initiate their charisma. One explanation is that the speakers' actions are based solely on the external cues of the scenario. Another explanation is that the speakers' actions are also based on the their cues from the experiment situation. In other words, it is possible that the High Self-Monitors are perceiving cues from the individual operating the video camera despite the video operator's intentions. Social desirability may contribute to the expressed behavior of High Self-Monitors. 49

PAGE 61

Delivery and Behavior Delivery of a message is also important to perceptions of charisma (Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994). Two factors of delivery were extracted from the delivery measure: Skills and Expressiveness. Skills included the following items: Skilled, Qualified, Reliable, Intelligent, Competent, Powerful, and Wise. Being viewed as an expert is one of the components of a charismatic leader (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). It is possible to conclude that those people who are viewed as more skilled are more likely to be seen as charismatic. Expressiveness included Openness, Excitement, Friendliness, Motivation, and Charisma (Appendix E). Expressiveness aids in the effectiveness of the delivery of a message (Towler & Dipboye, 2001). The researcher found a main effect for self-monitoring on perceived speaker Skills but not on the vested interest task groups. Raters perceived High Self Monitors as more skilled than Low Self Monitors in both task group situations (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario). Raters did not perceive participants in the High Vested Interest Scenario group as more skilled than those in the Low Vested}Interest Scenario group. Therefore, vested interest did not affect raters' perceptions of speaker skills. One explanation for this finding is that participants were not given sufficient opportunity to demonstrate their speaking skills. It is also possible that vested interest has no effect on perceptions of delivery 50

PAGE 62

skills. In other words, wanting to be a good speaker does not necessarily make one a good speaker. Most likely these skills are accessed through experience, education, or other means. A vested interest may motivate individuals to seek out delivery skills but it is not likely to cause individuals to be perceived as being more skilled speakers. Raters perceived High Self-Monitors as more expressive than Low Self-. Monitors regardless of the scenario that they had read. After more specific tests were conducted using the Rosnow and Rosenthal (1995) method, raters found High Self-Monitors more expressive than Low Self-Monitors in the Low Vested Interest Scenario task group. The results of this analysis lend support to the research hypothesis (H2). However, the researcher would not suggest validating the hypothesis based on one study. Although the study does support the hypothesis, other explanations exist. One possibility is that the expressiveness of High Self Monitors was in reaction to participating in the experiment. Even when vested interest was low, High Self-Monitors may have been exhibiting more expressive behaviors because they were participating in an experiment. The use of hand gestUres has been identified as a charismatic leadership behavior (Howell & Frost, 1989). Raters perceived High Self-Monitors as using more effective and appropriate hand gestures than Low Self-Monitors in both task groups (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario). However, 51

PAGE 63

there was not an interaction between self-monitoring (High Self-Monitors vs. Low Self-Monitors) and task group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario). The third hypothesis was not entirely supported. Although raters perceived High Self-Monitors as using more effective hand gestures, the interaction was not supported by this study. Raters did not perceive use of more effective hand gestures in either task group suggesting that vested interest does not have an effect on the use of this charismatic leadership behavior. Overall, it is important to consider that because High-Self-Monitors are continuously surveying the environment for external cues and adjusting their self presentation, it is possible that they receive feedback from these cues. If they are receiving positive feedback then they may be more confident to be expressive. Conversely, Low Self-Monitors may not be receiving feedback concerning their behavior and therefore may not be as confident to be expressive; Follower Outcomes Although the researcher did not find a significant result regarding the percentage of pay that raters were willing to cut from their salary, there was a trend in the data. The two raters were more willing to give up a greater portion of their pay when viewing a High Self-Monitor verses a Low Self-Monitor regardless ofthe task group (High Vested Interest Scenario vs. Low Vested Interest Scenario). It is 52

PAGE 64

possible that because High Self-Monitors were seen by raters as more charismatic in this study they tended to achieve greater outcomes (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; House, 1995; Holladay & Coombs, 1994). In addition, raters perceived High Self-Monitors as more expressive and therefore may have been able to recall the purpose ofthe speakers' presentations better (Towler & Dipboye, 2001). Implications The findings have implications in the organizational context. Results tend to suggest that High Self-Monitors are perceived as more charismatic and more expressive than Low Self-Monitors even when there is low vested interest. In addition, High Self-Monitors are viewed as more skilled speakers and as using hand gestures, a charismatic leadership behavior, more than Low Self-Monitors. Lastly, there is a trend that suggests that High Self-Monitors may be able to achieve greater outcomes from followers than Low Self-Monitors. It would be beneficial to have a High Self-Monitor as a Public Relations Officer. With this career position, the employee is likely to have a large speaking role where it is necessary to speak on topics which range in level of vested interest. In addition, a successful Public Relations Officer will need to influence the audience and gain support of the public. If High Self-Monitors are perceived as more 53

PAGE 65

charismatic even in low vested interest situations, then a high self-monitoring Public Relations Officer is likely to be more successful at influencing the audience. Organizations may desire to choose individuals who are High Self-Monitors for positions that require influencing groups of people. Another implication is with organizational training-specifically, traditional" lecture-based training. In this type of situation, the organization selects an employee to train other employees on new procedures, policies, benefits, or other information. The training position is a largely a speaking role with topics of varying levels of vested interest. An expressive speaker may aid the audience's recall of the information better than a non-expressive speaker (Towler &Dipboye, 2001). Also, a speaker that is perceived to be charismatic may initiate higher employee satisfaction with the training experience (Howell & Frost, 1989). In lecture-based training where a variety oflevels of vested interest exist, it is likely to be beneficial for organizations to place a High Self-Monitor in the trainer role. Limitations and Future Research There are several limitations to this study. First, the study was conducted in an artificial setting using fictitious. scenarios. It may also have been awkward for participants to give a presentation in front of a video camera. Participants received no training on making presentations or being charismatic. Most participants ranked 54

PAGE 66

a normal presentation strategy as the most important strategy they intended to use. Therefore, participants may not have had the choice of deciding which presentation strategies to use (normal vs. charismatic). Future researchers may desire to train participants in normal presentation strategies and charismatic presentation strategies before inviting participants to give a speech (Towler, in press). Furthermore, the study needs to be replicated in real-world settings. If possible, individuals who are already established as leaders in companies should be studied. This will provide better application to the organizational setting. This study examined only the leader's role as a speaker. Leaders have other roles including, risk taker, relationship builder, decision maker, and actuator (Zaleznik, 1977}. This study did not measure these roles. Therefore, the findings have a limited scope of application, namely to the presentation role of leaders. In addition, only two female raters scored the video presentations. Gender may have had an affect on the perceptions of the participants as well as the scoring of participants. The study would be stronger if more raters assessed the video presentations. The videos were all viewed in the same order; therefore, raters may have used the last viewed presentation as a comparison for the next. The order in which the raters view the presentations should be varied so that there is variation in which presentations might be used as a comparisons for the next. This method will aid in reducing bias caused by a rater viewing a presentation that follows a well-55

PAGE 67

done or poor presentation. Likewise, inter-rater reliability coefficients were low on some of the dependent variables. It may be necessary to train raters on the measures used in the study to increase inter-rater reliability. Overall, more participants would increase the power of the study. If enough participants complete the study, then Snyder's (1974) method of distinguishing High Self-Monitors from Low Self-Monitors could be utilized. The current study included participants scoring in the middle range ofthe Self-Monitoring scale to maintain a reasonable sample size resulting in less variance between High and Low Self-Monitors. In future research, other personality traits could be included in future studies to determine if there are other moderating traits. More research should be conducted to clarify and strengthen the results indicated in the current study. For example, the exact process that enables a High Self-Monitor to be perceived as more charismatic is not clear. Also, it is not certain if High Self-Monitors are adjusting their self presentations or ifHigh Self-Monitors are internalizing the situation based on external cues. A measure of empathy or ability to relate to others could be included to help determine if High Self-Monitors are internalizing the situation and placing themselves in others' positions. Cognitive dissonance may play a role in affecting High Self-Monitors beliefs about their actions when their actions differ from their internal state. Thus, in hindsight High Self-Monitors may believe that their actions 56

PAGE 68

were a reflection oftheir feelings. In addition, research should be conducted to detennine if self-monitoring is a trainable attribute. It may be possible to train individuals to be more sensitive to external cues in their surroundings. In conClusion, the current study has contributed to the research on charismatic leadership by examining the interaction of one dispositional and one situational factor that may lead to perceptions of charismatic leadership. The current research lends limited support the hypothesis that High Self-Monitors are perceived as more charismatic and expressive than low self-Monitors regardless ofthe individuals level of vested interest. Raters in this study perceived High-Self monitors to be more skilled and effective in using hand gestures. The researcher also found a trend that High Self-Monitors may achieve greater follower outcomes. However, the study is not able to conclude exactly how self-monitoring enables the perceptions of charismatic leadership. Perceptions of charismatic leadership may be a result of High Self-Monitors' ability to adjust their outward presentation or it may be a result of an ability to internalize and empathize with others in the situation. 57

PAGE 69

A. Self-Monitoring Scale T F 1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people. T F 2. My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. T F 3. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like. T F 4. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. T F 5. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information. T F 6. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people. T F 7. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the behavior of others for cues. T F 8. I would probably make a good actor T F 9. I rarely need the advice of my friends to choose movies, books, or music. T F 10. I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper emotions than I actually am. T F 11. I laugh more when I watch a movie with others than when I am alone. T F 12. In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention. T F 13. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons. T F 14. I am not particularly good at making other people like me. T F 15. Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be having a good time. T F 16. I'm not always the person I appear to be. T F 17. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone else or win their favor. T F 18. I have considered being an entertainer. T F 19. In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to be rather than anything else. T F 20. I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational acting. T F 21. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations. 58

PAGE 70

T F 22. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going. T F 23. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite so well as I should. T F 24. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end). T F 25. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them. 59

PAGE 71

B. Scenario of High Vested Interest Like many companies, Marmalade has had to cut costs throughout the company because of the recent downfall in the economy. In 2002, Marmalade lost almost 7% in earnings. Regrettably, the budget cuts were not enough. For the upcoming year, 2003, it is estimated that Marmalade will loose 17%. As the Store Manager, you realize the situation requires immediate attention. Marmalade needs to begin reducing costs over the next two weeks to stay in business the following year. If the employees do not agree to reduce their pay layoffs will certainly be made across all positions, including management. You are very concerned about the company and you have called a meeting with all of your employees today to discuss the situation. You have the power and position to make a difference in the company's budget and must ask them to take a reduction in pay for the year 2003. Unfortunately, you will also have to take a reduction in pay. Financial Records for 2000-2003 2000 2001 2002 2003 Estimated Total Income $18,000,000 $15,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $15,800,000 Expenses $ 10,000,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 16,000,000 $ 18,500,000 Profits $8,000,000 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,700,000 %Gain 44% 20% -6.7% -17% 60

PAGE 72

Employee Pay Store Floor Associate Manager $38,000 yr with 3 years $ 10 hourly expenence Team Leader $30,000 yr Floor Associate $7 hourly Company Profile Marmalade Clothing.Retail was established in 1995 by Ethan Relfo. He insists that employees of the company refer to him by his first name. Ethan's goal was to begin a company that provided fashionable professional clothes at an affordable cost to young professionals. His clothing line targets male and female customers between ages 18 and 29. The idea came to him when he realized that many college students have difficulty affording a professional wardrobe. "Many students work hard to get through school and then are thrust into the professional world with a load of debts. They need to look professional at interviews and while on the job. I intend to make that possible." Mannalade employs mostly college students as floor associates. The company expects its employees to be knowledgeable about appropriate interview attire and to ensure that all customers look professional with the outfits they select. There is a tradition within the company to move floor associates up to a managerial level once they have finished their degree program. Therefore, Marmalade insists that its employees finish their college educations. Mannalade has plans to create a college tuition program called MarmaFund. The company will contribute $2 to an employee's tuition for every hour worked at 61

PAGE 73

the company in addition to normal hourly pay. In this manner, Marmalade hopes to make a college education affordable to each employee. One of the major goals that Ethan has described is expanding his business to reach the homeless. "Typically, people think of the homeless as also being jobless. This simply is not true. I know I can make a difference in these people's lives. I can give them the confidence they need to attain their dreams and allow them to provide homes for their families" The program would allow Marmalade to sell high quality new clothing to the homeless at a fraction of the retail cost. The money for the program will come from the sale oftheir current line of products .. If sales go well, Ethan estimates he will have the program in action.in 18 months. Information about You You are Pat Allen. You were promoted to Store Manager a year ago. Previously, you worked as a Floor Associate with Marmalade. You obtained a Bachelor's Degree and were hired as the Store Manager. Your outstanding record with Marmalade and business knowledge helped you earn the position. You are pleased to have this position so you can pay off your student loans. You are in charge of25 employees, 17 of whom are part-time status. Your duties include hiring, training, employee recognition, employee schedules, and payroll. Information about Your Employees Of the 25 employees, 20 are in college full or part-time. The employees range from ages 18 to 27. 62

PAGE 74

Becky has been with Marmalade for 3 years working part-time as a Floor Associate. She is a part-time student and a single mother. She is finishing her Associate's Degree in Nursing and will graduate next year. Some employees complain that she receives too many phone calls at work. Maxim works full-time as a Team Leader for Marmalade and has been with the company for 5 years. He has an excellent sales record and is a team player. He works hard and never complains about having to cover a shift on his day off. He was suspected of stealing money last year but the issue was not pursued because there was little evidence to back the claim. Kerry was hired last year as a Floor Associate. She is studying law at the State University this year. She is an out-of-state student and must keep 35 hours a week to pay her tuition. Customers often compliment her on her knowledge base. She does not interact much with the other staff and prefers to take her lunch breaks alone. Rick is a full-time student at the community college studying Business Administration and works full time as a Floor Associate. You and Rick were hired together as 3 years ago. Recently, you have had to talk to him about being late for work. You get the feeling that he is juggling too many responsibilities but he is always helpful to customers. 63

PAGE 75

C. Scenario of Low Vested Interest Like many companies, Marmalade has had to cut costs throughout the company because of the recent downfall in the economy. In 2002, Marmalade lost almost 7% in earnings. The budget cuts were not quite enough. For the upcoming year, 2003, it is estimated that Marmalade will loose 17%. As the Store Manager, you realize the situation should probably be addressed. Marmalade needs to reduce costs over the next several years to stay afloat. If the employees do not agree to reduce their pay, eventually, the company may consider looking into the possibility of layoffs. You are not too concerned about the company but you have called a meeting with all of your employees to discuss the situation. You may be able to make a difference at this store but not with the entire company's situation. Today, you plan to ask your employees to take a reduction in pay for the year 2003. Fortunately, you will not have to take a reduction in pay. Financial Records for 2000-2003 2000 2001 2002 2003 Estimated Total Income $18,000,000 $15,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $15,800,000 Expenses $ 10,000,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 16,000,000 $ 18,500,000 Profits $8,000,000 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 $ -2, 700,000 %Gain 44% 20% -6.7% -17% 64

PAGE 76

Employee Pay Store Floor Associate Manager $38,000 yr with 3 years $ 10 hourly expenence Team Leader $30,000 yr Floor Associate $7 hourly Company Profile Marmalade Clothing Retail was established in 1995 by Ethan Relfo. He insists that employees of the company refer to him by his first name. Ethan's goal was to begin a company that provided fashionable professional clothes at an affordable cost to young professionals. His clothing line targets male and female customers between ages 18 and 29. The idea came to him when he realized that many college students have difficulty affording a professional wardrobe. "Many students work hard to get through school and then are thrust into the professional world with a load of debts. They need to look professional at interviews and while on the job. I intend to make that possible." Marmalade employs mostly college students as floor associates. The company expects its employees to be knowledgeable about appropriate interview attire and to ensure that all customers look professional with the outfits they select. There is a tradition within the company to move floor associates up to a managerial level once they have finished their degree program. Therefore, Marmalade insists that its employees finish their college educations. 65

PAGE 77

Marmalade has plans to create a college tuition program called MarmaFund. The company will contribute $2 to an employee's tuition for every hour worked at the company in addition to normal hourly pay. In this manner, Marmalade hopes to make a college education affordable to each employee. One of the major goals that Ethan has described is expanding his business to reach the homeless. "Typically, people think ofthe homeless as also being jobless. This simply is not true. I know I can make a difference in these people's lives. I can give them the confidence they need to attain their dreams and allow them to provide homes for their families" The program Would allow Marmalade to sell high quality new clothing to the homeless at a fraction of the retail The money for the program will come from the sale of their current line of products. If sales go well, Ethan estimates he will have the program in action in 18 months. Information about You You are Pat Allen. You were promoted to Store Manager a year ago. Previously, you worked as a Floor Associate with Marmalade. You obtained a Bachelor's Degree and were hired as the Store Manager. Your outstanding record with Marmalade and business knowledge helped you earn the position. You are pleased to have this position so you can pay offyour student loans. You are in charge of 25 employees, 17 of whom are part-time status. Your duties include ,. hiring, training, employee recognition, employee schedules, and payroll. 66

PAGE 78

Information about Your Employees Of the 25 employees, 20 are in college full or part-time. The employees range from ages 18 to 27. Becky has been with Marmalade for 3 years working part-time as a Floor Associate. She is a part-time student and a single mother. She is finishing her Associate's Degree in Nursing and will graduate next year. Some employees complain that she receives too many phone calls at work. Maxim works full-time as a Team Leader for Marmalade and has been with the company for 5 years. He has an excellent sales record and is a team player. He works hard and never complains about having to cover a shift on his day off. He was suspected of stealing money last year but the issue was not pursued because there was little evidence to back the claim. Kerry was hired last year as a Floor Associate. She is studying law at the State University this year. She is an out-of-state student and must keep 35 hours a week to pay her tuition. Customers often compliment her on her knowledge base. She does not interact much with the other staff and prefers to take her lunch breaks alone. Rick is a full-time student at the community college studying Business Administration and works full time as a Floor Associate. You and Rick were hired together as 3 years ago. Recently, you have had to talk to him about being late for work. You get the feeling that he is juggling too many responsibilities but he is always helpful to customers. 67

PAGE 79

D. Presentation Techniques Some people find the following techniques helpful when making a speech. Use as many as you personally find helpful. Although, you do not have to use any of the techniques if you do not think they will be helpful. (Note: Normal and Charismatic distinction will not be given to participants, but is here for your benefit) Normal Presentation Skills 0 Prepare an outline 0 Give a preview of what you will cover in your speech 0 Summarize the main points and repeat the main ideas of your speech 0 Use plain, simple language 0 A void saying "urn" and "ah" 0 Identify yourself to the audience Charismatic 0 Use a story to help illustrate your message to the listener 0 Use analogies to help the listener relate to important points you want to make 0 Maintain eye contact with your audience but avoid darting glances 0 Change your tone of voice to reflect your feelings on the topic 0 Make gestures with your hands to emphasize important concepts 0 Use animated facial expressions 0 Incorporate humor that is appropriate and non-offensive into your speech 0 Make a statement about your vision for the future 0 Demonstrate confidence in your audience by raising the expectations of the group 68

PAGE 80

Presentation Techniques Before you give a presentation to your employees, review the following list of 15 techniques some people find helpful when making a presentation. Consider using as many or as few as you find helpful. Rank order the techniques you intend to use according to which technique you think will be most important. (For example, if you only intend to use 3 techniques, rank the one you find most important a 1, the second most and theleast important a 3. Leave the remaining techniques blank.) Remember, rank order only those techniques you intend to use. __ Make a statement about your vision for the future __ Prepare an outline __ Use animated facial expressions __ Give a preview of what you will cover in your presentation __ Change your tone of voice to reflect your feelings on the topic __ Summarize the main points and repeat the main ideas of your presentation __ Use plain, simple language __ Make gestures with your hands to emphasize important concepts __ Avoid saying "urn" and "ah" 69

PAGE 81

__ Demonstrate confidence in your audience by raising the expectations of the group __ Identify yourself to the audience __ Use a story to help illustrate your message to the listener __ Use analogies to help the listener relate to important points you want to make __ Maintain eye contact with your audience but avoid darting glances __ Incorporate hwnor that is appropriate and non-offensive into your presentation Presentation Techniques Presentation Techniques Now that you have had a chance to give your presentation, please indicate which, if any, ofthe presentation styles you actually used while making your presentation. Indicate how well you felt you applied the techniques that you used. Use the following scale to rate how well you applied only the techniques you used. (Note: these may be different from the ones you actually intended to use) 1 2 3 4 5 Used Poorly Average __ Made a statement about your vision for the future __ Prepared an outline 70 Used very well

PAGE 82

__ Used animated facial expressions __ Gave a preview of what you would cover in your presentation __ Changed your tone of voice to reflect your feelings on the topic __ Summarized the main points and repeated the main ideas of your presentation __ Used plain, simple language __ Made gestures with your hands to emphasize important concepts __ A voided saying "urn" and "ah" __ Demonstrated confidence in your audience by raising the expectations of the group --Identified yourselfto the audience __ Used a story to help illustrate your message to the listener __ Used analogies to help the listener relate to important points you wanted to make __ Maintained eye contact with your audience but avoided darting glances .. __ Incorporated humor was appropriate and non-offensive into your presentation 71

PAGE 83

E. Rating Scales Delivery Rating Scale Incompetent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Competent Uncharismatic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Charismatic Unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reliable Unqualified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Qualified Unintelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Intelligent Unskilled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Skilled Foolish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wise Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Friendly Inattentive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Attentive Weak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Powerful Closed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Open Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exciting Ineffective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Motivating -.. 72

PAGE 84

Charisma Behavior Scale 0 2 3 4 Not at all 1 I Once in a while Sometimes Fairly Often Almost Always Talked about most important values and beliefs 0 Talked optimistically about the future 0 Instilled pride in being associated with him/her 0 Talked enthusiastically about what needs to be 0 accomplished Specified the importance ofhaving a strong sense of 0 purpose Displayed a sense of power and purpose 0 Articulated a. compelling vision of the future 0 Emphasized the importance of having a collective sense of 0 miSSIOn Went beyond his/her self-interest for the good of the group 0 Acted in ways to build your trust 0 Considered the moral and ethical consequences ofhis/her 0 decisions How sincere do you feel the speaker was? 1 2 3 4 Not at all Somewhat Did the speaker offer to take a reduction in pay? Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 Very What percentage of a reductio,n in pay would you be willing to take, assuming you are making $7 hourly currently as a floor associate? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% or more %Reduced 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% educed pay 7.00 $6.65 $6.30 $5.95 $5.60 $5.25 73

PAGE 85

How well did the speaker do the following: Use a story to help illustrate the message to the listener 0 1 2 3 4 None Not well Average Use analogies to help the listener relate to important points made 0 1 2 3 4 None Not well Average Maintain eye contact with the audience but avoid darting glances 0 1 2 3 4 None Not well Average Changed tone ofvoice to reflect feelings on the topic 0 1 2 3 4 None Not well Average Make gestures with hands to emphasize important concepts 0 1 2 3 4 None Not well Use animated facial expressions 0 1 2 None Not well Average 3 Average 4 Incorporate humor that is appropriate and non-offensive into the speech 5 Very Well 5 Very Well 5 Very Well 5 Very Well 5 Very Well 5 Very Well 0 1 2 3 4 5 None Not well Average Make a statement about a vision for the future 0 1 2 3 None Not well Average 4 Very Well 5 Very Well Demonstrate confidence in the audience by raising the expectations of the group 0 1 2 3 4 5 None Not wellAverage Very Well 74

PAGE 86

F. Vested Interest Manipulation High Vested Interest For the upcoming year, 2003, it is estimated that Marmalade will loose 17%. (Inimediacy)The situation requires immediate attention. Marmalade needs to begin reducing costs over the next two weeks to stay in business the following year. If the employees do not agree to reduce their pay (Certainty) layoffs will certainly be made across all positions, including management. (Salience)You are very concerned about the company and you have called a meeting with all of your employees today to discuss the situation. (Self-efficacy) You have the power and position to make a difference in the company's budget and must ask them to take a reduction in pay for the year 2003. (Stake) Unfortunately, you will also have to take a reduction in pay. Low Vested Interest For the upcoming year, 2003, it is estimated that Marmalade will loose 17%. (Immediacy) The situation should probably be addressed. Marmalade needs to reduce costs over the next several years to stay afloat. If the employees do not agree to reduce their pay, (Certainty) eventually, the company may consider 75

PAGE 87

looking into the possibility of layoffs. (Salience) You are not too concerned about the company but you have called a meeting with all of your employees to discuss the situation. (Self-efficacy) You may be able to make a difference at this store but not with the entire company's situation. Today, you must ask your employees to take a reduction in pay for the year 2003. (Stake)Fortunately, you will not have to take a reduction in pay. 76

PAGE 88

G. Manipulation Check Evaluation Now that you have given your presentation, please answer the following questions about you and your presentation. Circle only one number for each question. 1. How much did you care about the company's situation? 1 Not at all 2 3 4 Somewhat 5 2. How much did you care about the employees' situations? 1 Not at all 2 3 4 Somewhat 5 6 6 3. How much ability do you feel you had to make a difference in the company's overall financial situation? 1 Not at all 2 3 4 Somewhat 5 6 7 Very 7 Very 7 Very 4. How much do you feel you were affected by the outcome ofthis situation? 1 Not at all 2 3 4 Somewhat 5 6 5. Did you feel the situation needed to be resolved immediately? 1 Not at all 2 3 4 Somewhat 77 5 6 7 Very 7 Very

PAGE 89

6. How certain were you that the company would need to reduce costs? I Not at all 2 3 4 Somewhat 5 6 7. How important was the overall outcome of the situation to you? I Not at all 2 3 4 Somewhat 78 5 6 7 Very 7 Very

PAGE 90

H. Consent Form CONSENT FORM The Department of Psychology supports the practice of respect and protection for human participants in research. The following information is provided so that you can decide whether you wish to participate in the present study. You should be aware that even if you agree to participate you are free to withdraw at any time. Purpose/Procedures The purpose of this study is to understand those factors that help students learn. First, you will complete a personality measure. Then, we ask that you read a brief description of a company. You will play the role of a Manager who must make a presentation to his/her employees. You will have an opportunity to review several presentation styles and you will be asked to indicate which styles you intend to use to make a presentation. Then, we ask you to make a presentation using the information in the provided scenano. The presentation will be recorded on videotape to be reviewed by the researchers later. The videotape will in no way be reproduced, sold, or viewed by anyone, other than the researchers. You will be debriefed on the study and have the opportunity to have questions answered. Risks/Benefits We are required by the University to tell you of any risks or benefits that you will receive from this study. There is a risk that confidentiality may be lost. However, steps will be taken to ensure that this does not occur. There are no other risks other than the minimal risks associated with_making a presentation. In terms of benefits, the extra credit policy from the school of psychology will be followed. Extra credit will be given to participants with non-participants having an opportunity to earn the same. You will also learn a little bit about research. If successful, this study will offer insights on effective methods to develop and select leaders. Your participation is solicited, but it is strictly voluntary; you may withdraw at any time with no penalty. Your name will NOT be associated with the research fmdings. For example, this consent form will not be attached to the personality measure, so that 79

PAGE 91

nobody will know how you answered the questions. The extra copy of the consent form is for you to keep. Contact Information If you have questions about the study feel free to call me at 303-759-0215, email me at mfowler@ouray.cudenver.edu, or stop by my office at 5008K, North Classroom. If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research subject you may contact the CUDenver Office of Academic Affairs, CU-Denver Building Suite 700, 303-5564060. Sincerely, Melanie Fowler Industrial/Organizational Psychology Master's Student Signature of Student Agreeing to Participate Printed Name I Date 80

PAGE 92

REFERENCES Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J.J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy ofManagement Journal. 4(2), 219-227. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook ofleadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B.J.(1995). Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire: Rater form (5x short). Palo Alto, CA: sage. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B.J.(1985). (Eds). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation: ofvision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 43-54. Becker, J., Ayman, R. & Korabik, K. (2002). Discrepancies in self/subordinates' perceptions ofleadership behavior. Group and Organizational Management, 27(2), 226-244. Bono, J. E. & Judge, T. A. (2003). Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-analysis. Paper presented at Society of Industrial/Organizational Psychology Conference, Orlando, Florida. Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (1994). Social Psychology. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West. Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language ofleadership. Academy ofManagement Executive, 5(1), 31-45. Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647. 81

PAGE 93

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767. Crano, W. D. & Prislin, R. (1995). Components ofvested interest and attitude-behavior consistency. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1 & 2), 121. Dobbins, G. H., Long, S. W., Dedrick, E. J., & Clemons, T., C. (1990). The role of self-monitoring and gender on leader emergence: A laboratory and field study. Journal of Management, 16(3), 609-618. Friedman, H. S. & Miller-Herringer, T. (1991). Nonverbal display of emotion in public and in private: Self-monitoring, personality, and expressive cues. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 766-775. Gibson, J. W. & Blackwell, C. W. (1999). Flying High with Herb Kelleher: A Profile in Charismatic Leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 120-128. Gitter, A. G., Black, H.; & Fishman, J. E. (1985). Effect ofrace, sex, nonverbal communication on perception ofleadership. Journal of Sociology and Social Research, 60(1), 46-57. Gitter, A. G., Black, H., & Goldman, A. (1975). Role of nonverbal communication in the perception of leadership. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 463-466. Gitter, A. G., Black, H., & Walkley, J. (1976). Nonverbal communication and the judgment ofleadership. Psychological Reports, 39, 1117-1118. Goode, E. (2002, February 12). Sifting off-the-cuff remarks for cues to the inner Rudy. The New York Times: On The Web. Gorenflo, D. W. & Crano, W. D. (1989). Judgmental subjectivity/objectivity and locus of choice in social cpmparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 605-614. 82

PAGE 94

Hartog, D. & Verburg, R.M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques ofintemational business leaders. Leadership Quarterly. 8(4), 355-391 Holladay, S. J. & W. T. Coombs. (1993). Communicating visions: An exploration of the role of delivery in the creation of leader charisma. Management Communications Quarterly, 6(4), 405-427. Holladay, S. J. & W. T. Coombs. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communications Quarterly, 8(2), 165-188. House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard's (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 411-450. House, R. J. & Aditya, R.N. (1997).A social scientific study ofleadership: Quo vadis? Journal ofManagement, 23(3), 409-465. Howell & Avolio (1995). Charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Business Quarterly 60(1), 62-70. Howell, J. M. & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269. Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 751-765. King, Jr., M. L. (1963). "March on Washington." Washington, DC: http://www .historychannel.com/speeches. Kuhert, K.W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy ofManagement Review, 12(4), 648-657. Pennebaker, J. W. & Lay, T. C. (2002). Language use and personality during crises: Analysis of mayor Rudolf Giuliani's press conferences. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 36(3), 271-282. 83

PAGE 95

Pennebaker, J. W. & King, L.A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 12961317. Pillai, R. & Meindl, J. (1998). Context and charisma: A "meso" level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal ofManagement, 24(5), 643-662. Rosnow, R. L. & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Some things you learn aren't so: Cohen's paradox, Asch's paradigm, and the interpretation of interaction, Psychological Science, 6, 3-9. Safire, W. (Selection & Introduction). (1997). Lend me your ears: Great speeches in history (expanded edition). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd. Schermerhorn, Jr, J. R. (1999). Management 6th Ed. New York: Von Hoffman Press, 443-445. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537. Sosik, J. J. (2000). The role of personal meaning in charismatic leadership. The Journal ofLeadership Studies. 7(2), 61-75. Towler, A. J. (in press). Effects of charismatic influence training on attitudes, behavior, and performance. Personnel Psychology. Towler, A. & Dipboye (2001). Effects of trainer expressiveness, organization, and trainee goal orientation on training outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 86(4), 664-673. Turnley, W. H. & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351-360. Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, 0. J. (1999). The Effect of Leader Outcomes on Influence, Attributions, and Perceptions of Charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 428. 84

PAGE 96

Zaccaro, S. J; Foti, R. J; Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait based variance in leadership: An investigation ofleader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308-315. Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? In H. Leavitt, L. R. Pondy, and D. M. Boje (Eds.), Readings in Managerial Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 85