Emotion
This week’s readings elucidate how affect contributes to the organizing process. From Sigal, we learn that individual affect can influence collective affect and promote improved collaboration and perceived task performance. This research was performed at the individual level and measures were taken to ensure that the confederate was not perceived as a leader. Due to power, distance and formal authority, leaders are uniquely positioned to have more influence on a team than any one member.
Hypothesis 1
Leadership affect will moderate interdepartmental collaboration, measured by identification and coordination, more so than a non-leader’s affect.
Worline et al. and Martin introduce the concept of affect as a dominant organizing principle. While affect was integral to both organizations, the degree of authentic affect seemed to differentiate the two. This led us to consider the relationship between affect authenticity and impact on collaboration. If as some studies have show, disingenuous affect can be discerned, it may be less likely to promote collaboration than authentic affect.
Hypothesis 2
Authentic leadership affect will moderate interdepartmental collaboration, measured by identification and coordination, more so than perceived disingenuous leadership affect.
Methods
For the first hypothesis, we would employ a similar methodology as Sigal and utilize actors to measure individual affect. We would modify the study by introducing the leadership variable. In one of the studies, we would designate a formal leader and compare her affect influence to that of the individual confederate’s.
In the second study, we would deploy a survey immediately following a leader’s presentation around a critical change initiative (We would need to select situations that are emotionally charged). After the meeting we would ask questions around two dimensions. (1)How authentic was the leader’s affect and (2) how likely are you to collaborate to achieve the advocated change. We would then measure the correlation.
In your second hypothesis, you say that authentic leadership will moderate more than "perceived" disingenuous leadership affect. A question: are you suggesting that it doesn't matter whether the leader is or is not authentic, just what the perceptions are of the group? Or, do you also want to test for actual disingenuousness (not sure if that is a word)? If so, you would want to survey/interview the leader in each situation as well and see if they would be honest with you about their level of authenticity. Also, is it the degree of authenticity, or an either-or proposition?
ReplyDeleteHow would you introduce the leadership affect? Would you assign it or let the team determine its own leader?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to compare authentic leadership with non-authentic leadership. These categories are somewhat similar to the ones our group discussed except instead of mangers that exuded authentic vs. non-authentic leadership we discussed managers who displayed genuine or non-genuine evidence of flourishing.
ReplyDeleteOur hypothesis was similar in that we agreed that managers that are more genuine/authentic would be more successful.
Which begs the question; can MBA or internal company training programs teach leadership authenticity?
I'm not sure that I follow the logic of your first hypothesis based on the description above it. I do, however, think that exploring the relationship between leadership and affect is interesting (e.g., H2). I'm not sure that an experimental setting is going to adequately tease out true leadership behavior. Perhaps you should consider a combination of survey and ethnography instead.
ReplyDeleteYou have the beginning of an explanation for hypothesis one, but you need to take it further. Given that the type of leader you seem to be talking about is a formal (rather than informal) leader, it raises questions for me such as the tension between compliance versus wholehearted following. Maybe I will do what a formal leader says, but I won’t feel the same way. Perhaps the influence of the leader’s emotion, for example, is moderated by LMX.
ReplyDeleteAgain, there are some potentially good ideas in your second hypothesis as well, but not enough explanation and argument. Why would inauthentic emotion lead to less collaboration. What is inauthentic emotion? Is it less collaboration because people identify less, or because they cannot coordinate as well?
I think Sigal used actors to manipulate, rather than measure, affect, right?
Are survey measures really the best way to measure the authenticity of emotion?