Exam (1~2)

How does implicit leadership theory affect (a) organisational leadership and employee-related outcomes and (b) impact leadership research?

Introduction

Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) investigates how individuals’ perceptions of leadership, shaped by cultural, societal, and personal experiences, influence their reactions to leaders (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). It suggests that these inherent perceptions significantly impact how employees interpret managerial actions, affecting job satisfaction, engagement, and performance in a workplace setting (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). ILT offers a unique perspective to leadership research by shifting the focus from leaders’ actions to followers’ perceptions, adding new dimensions to understanding leadership dynamics (Junker & van Dick, 2014). This paper aims to investigate ILT’s impact on organisational leadership and its resultant effects on employee outcomes while highlighting its consequential influence on the nuances of leadership research.

Understanding

ILT suggests the perception of leadership is based on subconscious assumptions or ‘schemas’ shaped by cultural, societal, and personal experiences (Hannah et al., 2009). The alignment of a leader with these schemas can affect organisational leadership and employee-related outcomes (van Quaquebeke & Eckloff, 2010). A leader who fits the ideal schema is perceived as competent, leading to higher job satisfaction and productivity (DeRue et al., 2011). Conversely, leaders who do not fit the schema may face challenges, affecting morale and productivity negatively (Epitropaki et al., 2017).

There are two primary perspectives in ILT: the cognitive perspective, focusing on mental processes shaping leadership schemas, and the socio-cultural perspective, examining societal and cultural influences (Banks et al., 2016).

Regarding leadership research, ILT offers a unique lens, prompting researchers to consider the subjective nature of leadership perceptions. This can challenge existing theories and lead to new insights. ILT’s emphasis on schemas and attribution has also shaped research methodologies (Epitropaki et al., 2013).

ILT’s framework is based on two theories: social cognition, suggesting individuals simplify complex information about others by fitting them into pre-existing schemas, and attribution theory, proposing individuals infer the causes of others’ behaviours (Hogg et al., 2012). In the context of ILT, positive results are often attributed to a leader’s abilities and skills if their actions align with an individual’s leadership schema (Shondrick et al., 2010).

Impact

In organisational leadership, ILT suggests a leader’s effectiveness is gauged by aligning with a follower’s subconscious leadership ideal (Engelbrecht et al., 2017). This alignment can determine the leader’s approach, influencing whether they adopt authoritative or democratic styles, reflecting the organisation’s prevailing schemas (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). It also impacts decision-making processes, as leaders might align their decisions with their followers’ expectations, affecting the organisation’s risk-taking, ethical considerations, and strategic direction (Hoch et al., 2018).

Regarding employee outcomes, ILT is crucial in employee satisfaction and motivation. Higher satisfaction and motivation occur when a leader aligns with their leadership schemas. Research, such as Schyns et al. (2013), found a positive correlation between ILT congruence, team performance, and job satisfaction.

Finally, ILT affects leadership research by providing a unique perspective, challenging existing theories, and prompting new insights (Epitropaki et al., 2017). However, it is important to note that cultural, societal, and personal experiences shape ILT, emphasising the need for leaders to adapt to their followers’ dynamic leadership schemas (Hanges et al., 2016).

Research

From an organisational perspective, ILT shapes employees’ satisfaction and allegiance to their leaders, impacting their performance and motivation. This is evidenced by empirical studies, such as the ones conducted by Epitropaki and Martin in 2004 and Schyns and Schilling in 2013.

Regarding its effect on leadership research, ILT has successfully integrated qualitative research approaches into a field primarily dominated by quantitative techniques (Mumford, 2000). The theory’s emphasis on perception and expectation necessitates methods capable of capturing these subjective experiences (Shondrick, 2010). As a result, ILT advocates for using interviews, focus groups, and narrative analyses to delve into the implicit leadership schemas of individuals Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). This focus on individual perceptions and expectations can enrich the methodological arsenal of leadership research, offering a more holistic understanding of leadership as a societal construct (Junker & van Dick, 2014).

Therefore, not only does ILT introduce a novel perspective to leadership research, but it provides empirical evidence reinforcing its theoretical postulations, thereby significantly contributing to understanding leadership and its effects on organisations and employees (Junker & van Dick, 2014).

Evaluation

ILTs focus on leadership's subjective and perceptual aspects, emphasising the importance of aligning leadership traits with followers’ preconceived notions (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). Leaders at Google, for example, who demonstrate innovation and collaboration, align with employees’ ILT, resulting in better job satisfaction and performance (Berson et al., 2006).

ILT offers a practical explanation for varying leadership effectiveness in different contexts, acknowledging the role of cultural, organisational, and individual differences (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004). A ‘transformational’ leader might succeed in one environment but not in another, depending on alignment with prevalent leadership prototypes (Den Hartog et al., 1999). Understanding ILTs can aid leadership development and succession planning (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).

Leaders can boost their effectiveness by adapting their behaviour to meet organisational leadership prototypes (Schyns et al., 2011). However, ILT can risk stereotyping and inflexibility in leadership perceptions, which may not reflect reality (Epitropaki et al., 2013). Also, using ILT in empirical research is complex, with issues related to the validity and reliability of measurements (Engle & Lord, 1997).

Future research should focus on developing reliable methodologies for quantifying implicit theories, possibly through a standardised scale or model (Shondrick et al., 2010). It could also explore reshaping employees’ ILTs through targeted training, potentially improving leadership effectiveness and employee satisfaction. As with any theory, ILT should be used judiciously and completed with other leadership theories for a comprehensive understanding (Yukl, 2012).

Conclusion

ILT indicates that people have inherent beliefs about what makes a good leader (Antonakis et al., 2003). These beliefs significantly shape how individuals perceive their leaders and organisational roles (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). This paper discussed the impact of ILT on organisational leadership, employee outcomes, and leadership research. It suggested that researchers’ implicit leadership theories can influence their understanding of leadership (Schyns et al., 2011).

ILT’s influence on organisational leadership is considerable. It highlights leadership effectiveness subjectivity and suggests that leaders should be aware of their team members’ varied implicit leadership theories (House & Aditya, 1997). This awareness can help leaders to align their behaviours with their employees’ expectations, enhancing leadership effectiveness. ILT also has significant implications for leadership research. It counters traditional leadership theories that promote a universal approach to effective leadership (Mumford et al., 2000). Instead, ILT suggests that a leadership style’s success depends on its followers’ unique beliefs and expectations, fostering more nuanced, context-specific leadership studies (Yukl, 1999).