George B. Graen, Ph.D.

CURRICULUM VITA

Educational History
1961- B.A., University of Minnesota (Cum Laude); Psychology
1963 - M.A., University of Minnesota; Industrial Relations
1967 - Ph.D., University of Minnesota; Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Professional History
January, 1962 - June, 1963 - Research Assistant, Labor Management Laboratory, Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota.
June, 1963 - July, 1965 - Research Assistant, Consumer Research Project, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Minnesota.
July, 1965 - August, 1967 - Research Assistant and Research Fellow, Acting Project Director Work Attitudes Project, Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota.
September, 1967 - 1971 - Assistant Professor of Psychology in Department of Psychology and in Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
1971-1977 - Associate Professor of Psychology in Department of Psychology and Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations , University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
1972 - 1973 - Keio - Illinois Distinguished Exchange Professor of Organizational Psychology, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
1974 - 1975 - Semester I - Associate in the Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
1974 - 1975 - Semester II - James McKeen Cattell Scholar in Applied Psychology. 1975 - 1977 - Program Chairperson, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
1977 - 1980 - Professor of Organizational Behavior and Head, Department of Management, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
1980 - 1990 - Director, Center for Strategic Management Studies, and Professor of Organizational Behavior, Department of Management, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
1984 - 1985 - First Johnson's Wax Fulbright Senior Research Fellow to Japan, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. First such Fellowship sponsored by the Japan Fulbright Alumni Association.
1989 - 1997 - Executive Director, Center for the Enhancement of International Competitiveness, College of Business, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
1994 - January to June - Visiting Professor at Hong Kong University Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.
1996 - January to June - Visiting Professor at Hong Kong University Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.
1997 – 2001 - Gene Brauns Chaired Professor in International Business, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana.
2007 - Director of Sharing Network Leadership Centre.

Professional Societies
Academy of International Business
Academy of Management
Allied Southern Management Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Psychology Society Division 14 Organizational and Industrial (Distinguished Fellow)
Association of Japanese Business Studies - AJBS (Founding Member)
Beta Gamma Sigma
Decision Sciences
Fulbright Alumni Association (Lifetime)
International Association of Applied Psychology
International Association for Chinese Management Research (Founding Member)
International Leadership Association (ILA)
International Scholar Society
Japan American Society of Greater Cincinnati
Japan Ohio International Network
Japanese Association of Administrative Behavior (Founding Member)
Leadership Lafayette
Management Laureate (2002)
MBA Association University of Louisiana, Lafayette
MESO, Wharton (Founding Member)
Phi Beta Delta
Fayetteville Rotary International
Sigma Si, The Scientific Research
Society Society of Organizational Behavior - SOB (Founding Member)
Southwestern Management Association
World Trade Organization (New Orleans)

Awards
1967 - Honorable mention in the American Institutes for Research Creative Talent Award Program. This recognition was for creative dissertation research during 1967 for a project in psychology.
May, 1967 - Honorable mention in the McKinsey Foundation for Management Research Competition. This recognition included a $500 honorarium. This recognition was for original research design during 1967 on a project in managerial behavior.
September, 1968 - Presented the James McKeen Cattell Award by the Division of Industrial Psychology, the American Psychological Association. This award included a $500 honorarium. The award was for original research design during the year 1967 in Industrial Psychology.
September, 1969 - Honorable mention in the James McKeen Cattell competition for original research design during the year 1968 in Industrial Psychology. This recognition included a $100 honorarium.
1972 – Distinguished Exchange to Keio University, Tokyo, Japan as Professor of Organizational Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.
January, 1974 - Presented the James McKeen Cattell Award by the James McKeen Cattell Fund. This award was $8,200 in research funds. The award was for outstanding research in applied psychology and designed to supplement sabbatical research.
1984 - 1985 - First Johnson's Wax/Fulbright Senior Research Fellow to Japan, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.
March, 2000 - Recipient of the "Outstanding Graduate Faculty Researcher" award from the graduate program of the College of Business Administration, University of Louisiana.
June 2003-2005 – Senior Fulbright Fellow to Chinese University in Hong Kong for work on Global Business MSc.
January 20, 2005 – Rotary International Foundation Paul Harris Fellowship.

Honors
1971 - Appointed as Keio-Illinois Distinguished Exchange Professor. Selected from among the University of Illinois faculty by Keio University to teach and to conduct research at Keio University during their 1972 academic year.
October, 1972 - Named to the Fulbright Commission's Psychology Committee to review applicants for 1973 - 1974 Fulbright awards, the East-West Center, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
September, 1973 - Invited to become a founding member of the Society of Organizational Behavior.
2005-2006 - Rotary Foundation Individual Grant Recipient to Chiang Mai, Thailand.
2005 - 2007 - Governing Board of Society of Organizational Behavior.
2006 - Present World Service Committee Chair, Fayetteville Rotary.
February, 1974 - Appointed as an Associate in the Center of Advanced Study of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Appointment was full-time for semester I of the 1974-1975 academic year. Purpose of the appointment was to devote time to a study of role-making processes in complex organizations.
September, 1976 - Elected APA Fellow in Industrial-Organizational Psychology (Division 14).
1975 - 1977 - Appointed as member of Division 14 Scientific Affairs Committee, the American Psychological Association.
1980 Elected Faculty member in Beta Gamma Sigma - Honorary Business Fraternity.
1982 - Granted special research leave winter quarter to devote full time to investigating the Productive Leadership System.
1982 - 1983 Appointed to President's Private Sector Survey, EPA Study Group.
January, 1985 - June 1, 1985 - First Johnson's Wax Research Fellow to Japan. Japan-United States Educational Commission.
January, 1993 - June 1995 - President of Association of Japanese Business Studies (AJBS) with Directorate at the University of Pennsylvania. (An Association of over 700 Japan scholars worldwide).
January 1994 - June 1994 - Senior Visiting Professor of Management at the University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong.
September, 1994 - Appointed as Co-Executive Director of the West Lake International Center for Joint Venture Management, Hangzhou, China.
January 1996 - June 1996 - Senior Visiting Professor of Management at the University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong.
March 1997 - Keynote speaker at International Human Resource Strategy conference for MNC HR professionals at West Lake Center, Hangzhou, China.
June 1997 - Gene Brauns Endowed Chair in International Business, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana.
May 1999 - Invited lecturer in International Business, Dong Hua University (CTU), Shanghai, P.R. China.
May 2000 - Appointed as Co-Executive Director of East China University, Center for Sino-Foreign Joint Venture Research and Training, Shanghai, China.
May 2000 – May, 2003 - External accreditation examiner for undergraduate International Business program, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Duties include site visit and programs assessments of International Business Department, College of Business Administration.
2000 - Academy of Management Executive selected "An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships" for its Research Briefs section.
August 2000 - Invited to visit Japanese Business Research Group, Rennes University, Rennes, France.
2001 - Invited LMX leadership keynote lecture for Southwestern Academy of Management.
2001 - "LMX Reflections: An Interview with George Graen", Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship.
2001 – Selected Management Laureate for career of research.
2002-2003 – External Examiner of Masters of International Business, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Awards for Doctoral Research by Student Advisees
1967 - Present Chaired 27 Ph.D. Dissertations.
1971 - University of Illinois Sociology Department's Geissert Award to William J. Haga for the best proposal for doctoral research.
1976 - Honorable Mention American Psychological Association, Division of Industrial and Organizational's S. Rains Wallace Award to James F. Cashman for the best doctoral dissertation in organizational research.
1977 - APA S. Rains Wallace Award to William Schiemann for the best doctoral dissertation in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
1979 - U. of Michigan, Dissertation, Monograph series: "Research for Business Decisions," Published Mitsuru Wakabayashi's doctoral dissertation.
1980 - APA S. Rains Wallace Award to Min Basadur for the best doctoral dissertation in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
1983 - Richard D. Irwin Foundation Award to John R. Weitzel for doctoral research.
1986 - American Assembly of Collegiate School of Business Fellowship to Terri A. Scandura for doctoral research.
1990 - Richard D. Irwin Foundation Award to Mary Uhl-Bien for doctoral research.
1995 - ASTD Best dissertation awarded to Lisa Bell.

Listings
Biographical Directory of the American Psychological Association
Cattell Men of Science
Cattell Men and Women of Science
Institute for Scientific Information
Marquis Who's Who in Frontier Science and Technology

Editorial Duties 1970 - 1994 Reviewer Board for Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process.
1989 - 1998 Reviewer Board for Leadership Quarterly.
1989 - 2002 Reviewer Board for Group and Organization Management.
2001 - Present Reviewer Board for International Management.
2001 – Present Reviewer Board for Journal of Research in Management Education and Training.
2012 – Present Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Reviewer of Manuscripts
Academy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Program Committee
Administrative Science Quarterly
American Educational Journal
APA, National Program Committee
Association of Japanese Business Studies (AJBS)
Human Relations
Journal of Applied Psychology
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin
Psychological Bulletin
SIU Leadership Symposium
Society of Industrial & Organizational Psychology
Southwestern Academy of Management
International Association for Chinese Management Research (Founding Member) (IACMR)

Occasional Reviewer of Proposals
Army Research Institute
Australian Research Council
Canada Research Council Humanities and Social Sciences Division
HEW
National Institute of Education and Department of Education
National Institute of Mental Health
National Science Foundation, (various programs)
Undergraduate Business Program at Chinese University, Hong Kong

REFERENCES ON REQUEST

Publications
~Motivator and hygiene dimensions for research and development engineers, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, pp. 563-566.
~ Addendum to "An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor theory," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, pp. pp. 551-555.
~Testing traditional and two-factor hypothesis concerning job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, pp. 366-371.
~Review of Martin Fishbein, Reading in attitude theory and measurement, Psychometrika, 1968, 33, pp. 387-389.
~Review of Felician F. Foltman, White-and-Blue collars in a mill shutdown: A case study of relative redundancy, Personnel Psychology, 1968, 21, pp. 69-72.
~Need type and job satisfaction among industrial research scientists, (with R V. Dawis & D. J. Weiss), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, pp. 286-289.
~Addendum to "An empirical investigation of two implications of the two factor theory of job satisfaction", (with C. L. Hulin), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, pp. 341-342.
~Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested modifications, Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1969, 53, (Whole No. 2, Part 2).
~Review of educational testing service, Motivation of managers, Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22, pp. 91-94.
~Review of Ray C. Hackman. The motivated working adult, Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22, pp. 352-355.
~Work motivation: The behavioral effects of job-content and job-context factors in an employment situation, Creative Talents Award Program Pittsburgh: American Institutes for Research, 1969.
~Review of Robert N. Ford, Motivation through the work itself, Contemporary Psychology, 1970, 15, pp. 291-294.
~The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Antecedent and evidential results, (with K. Alvares, D. Orris, & J. Martella), Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, pp. 285-296.
~A measure of work attitudes for high-school-age-youth, (with R. V. Dawis), Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1971, 1, pp. 343-353.
~The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Some experimental results, (with D. Orris & K. Alvares), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, pp. 196-201.
~Biographical correlates of work attitudes, (with M. Ace & R. Dawis), Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1972, 2, pp. 191-199.
~Dysfunctional leadership styles, (with F. Dansereau, Jr., & T. Minami), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, pp. 216-236.
~An empirical test of the man-in-the-middle hypothesis among executives in a hierarchical organization employing a unit set analysis, (with F. Dansereau, Jr., & T. Minami), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 8, pp. 262-285.
~Review of M. Scott Myers, Every employee a manager: More meaningful work through job enrichment, Contemporary Psychology, 1973, 18, pp. 13-14.
~Leadership behaviors as cues to performance evaluation, (with F. Dansereau, T. Minami & J. Cashman), Academy of Management Journal, 1973, 16, pp. 611-623.
~Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting leadership and turnover among managers, (with F. Dansereau, Jr., & J. Cashman),
~Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, pp. 194-200. Organization assimilation and role rejection, (with T. Johnson), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, pp. 72-87.
~Role assimilation processes in a complex organization, (with D. Orris & T. Johnson), Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1973, 3, pp. 395-420.
~Review of Duane P. Schultz, Psychology and industry today, Contemporary Psychology, 1974, 19 p. 474.
~Expectancy as a moderator of the relationship between job attitudes and turnover, (with F. Dansereau, Jr., & J. Cashman), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, pp. 228-229.
~Professionalism and role making within a service organization: A longitudinal investigation, (with W. Haga & F. Dansereau), American Sociological Review, 1974, 39, pp. 122-133.
~Review of Siegel and Lane, Psychology in industrial organization, Contemporary Psychology, 1975, 20, p. 669.
~A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach, (with J. Cashman), Organization and Administrative Sciences, 1975, 6, pp. 143-165.
~A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations; a longitudinal investigation of the role making process, (with F. Dansereau & W. Haga), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, pp. 46-78.
~Role making processes within complex organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976, pp. 1201-1245.
~Organizational understructure and leadership: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role making process, (with J. Cashman, F. Dansereau, & W. Haga), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1976, 15, pp. 278-296.
~Managerial professionalism and the use of organization resources, (with W. Haga), The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Malden: 1976, 35, pp. 337–348.
~Effects of linking-pin quality upon the quality of working life of lower participants: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial understructure, (with J. Cashman, S. Ginsburgh, & W. Schiemann), Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22, pp. 491-504.
~Job resignation as a function of role orientation and leader acceptance: A longitudinal investigation of organizational assimilation, (with S. Ginsburgh), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 19, pp. 1-17.
~Japanese private university as a socialization system for future leaders in business and industry, (with K. Sano, M. Wakabayashi, & T. Minami), International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1977, 2, pp. 269-289.
~Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach, (with W. Schiemann), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63 pp. 206-212.
~Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership, (with R. Liden), Academy of Management Journal, 1980, 23, pp. 451-465.
~Management progress: Japanese Style, (with M. Wakabayashi, T. Minami, K. Sano & M. Novak), International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1980, 4, pp. 391-420.
~Managerial career development: Japanese style, (with M. Wakabayashi, T. Minami, M. Hashimoto, K. Sano, & M. Novak), International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1981, 4, pp. 391-420.
~Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization, (with M. Basadur and S. G. Green), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1982, 30, pp. 41-70.
~The role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process, (with R. Liden & W. Hoel), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, 67 pp. 868-872.
~The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model, (with M. Novak & P. Sommerkamp), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1982, 30, 1, pp. 109-131.
~Bias in management research: A defense, Business Horizons, 1983, June, pp. 42-50.
~Where management research is needed: Transitional management, Business Horizons, 1983, 26 pp. 44-50.
~The interaction of job stress and social support: A strong inference investigation, (with A. Seers, G. W. McGee & T. T. Serey), Academy of Management Journal, 1983, 26, pp. 273-284.
~The moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention, (with T. A. Scandura), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 69, pp. 428-436.
~A dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics and leader-member exchange, (with A. Seers), Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1984, 33, pp. 283-306.
~The Japanese career progress study: A seven-year follow up, (with M. Wakabayashi), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 69, pp. 603-614.
~Review of worker capitalism and worker participation, Contemporary Psychology, 1986, 31, pp. 885-886.
~Training effects on attitude toward divergent thinking among manufacturing engineers, (with M. Basadur & T. Scandura), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 612-617.
~A field experimental test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity, (with T. A. Scandura & M. R. Graen), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, 71, pp. 484-491.
~A theory of dyadic career reality, (with T. A. Scandura). In G. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986, pp. 147-181.
~When managers decide not to decide autocratically. An investigation of decision influence in managerial dyads, (with T. A. Scandura & M. Novak), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, 71, pp. 579-584.
~Agreement in dyadic leadership, (with W. Schiemann). In F. Landy (Ed.) Readings in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986.
~Vertical dyad linkage theory of leadership, (with T. A. Scandura). In A. Kieser, G. Reber, & R. Wunderer (Eds.) Handbook of Leadership. C. E. Paeschel Verlag: Stuttgart, 1987, pp. 377-389.
~Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing, (with T.A. Scandura). In B. Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987, pp. 175-208.
~Exchange theories of leadership, (with M. Zalesny). In A. Kieser, G. Reber, and R. Wunderer (Eds.) Handbook of Leadership. C. E. Paeschel Verlag: Stuttgart, 1987, pp. 714-727.
~Human resource development of Japanese managers: Leadership and career investment, (with M. Wakabayashi) In K. Rowland and G. Ferris (Eds.), Research on International Human Resource Management, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1988.
~Japanese management progress: Mobility into middle management, (with M. Wakabayashi, & M.R. Graen), Journal of Applied Psychology, 1988, 73, pp. 217-227.
~Unwritten Rules For Your Career: Fifteen Secrets For Fast-Track Success. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., October, 1989.
~Comparing attitudes toward divergent thinking of managers and non-managers before and after training, (with M. Basadur, J. Takai, & M. Wakabayashi), Japanese Journal of Administrative Behavior, 1989, 4, pp. 19-27.
~Career development under the lifetime employment system of Japanese organizations, (with M. Wakabayashi and D. Gallagher), Journal of Organizational Research, 1989.
~System development project effectiveness: Problem-solving competence as a moderator variable, (with J. R. Weitzel), Decision Sciences, 1989, 20, pp. 507-531.
~Designing productive leadership systems to improve both work motivation and organizational effectiveness. In U. Kleinbeck et al, (Ed.) International Work Motivation. New York: Erlbaum, 1990, pp. 200-233.
~Identifying individual differences in creative problem solving styles, (with M. Basadur, & M. Wakabayashi), Journal of Creative Behavior, 1990. Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 111-131.
~A theory of dyadic career reality, (with T. Scandura) In K. Rowland and G. Ferris (Eds.) Career and Human Resources Development.: New York: JAI Press, 1990, pp. 147-181.
~Belief in paternalism as an indicant of the "right type" of manager for the Japanese corporation, (with M. Uhl-Bien, P. Tierney & M. Wakabayashi), Group and Organization Studies, 1990, 15, pp. 414-430.
~Generalizability of the hidden investment hypothesis among line managers in five leading Japanese corporations, (with M. Uhl-Bien & M. Wakabayashi), Human Relations, 1990, 43, pp. 1099-1116.
~Japanese transplants in the united states: Problems in domestic management assimilation, (with M. Wakabayashi) In B. Shaw & K. Rowland (Eds.), International Human Resources Management, 1990 Vol. 2, New York: JAI Press.
~Attitudes toward divergent thinking before and after training. Focusing upon the effects of individual problem-solving styles, (with M. Wakabayashi and M. Basadur), Creativity Research Journal 1990, 3, pp. 22-32.
~International generalizability of American hypotheses about Japanese management progress: A strong inference investigation, (with M. Wakabayashi, M.R. Graen & M.G. Graen), The Leadership Quarterly, 1990, 1, pp. 1-23.
~Transformation of work group professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing teams: Toward a theory of leadership-making, (with M. Uhl-Bien), Journal of Management Systems, January, 1991, pp. 34-48.
~Leadership-making applies equally well to teammate -- sponsor, teammate -- competence network, and teammate -- teammate relationships, (with M. Uhl-Bien), Journal of Management Systems, 1991, pp. 49-54.
~The transformation of professionals: Toward a theory of leadership-making, (with M. Uhl-Bien), Technology Management Research, 1991, 3, pp. 33-48.
~Cross-cultural human resource development for transfer of management technology, (with M. Wakabayashi). In M. Trevor (Ed.), International Business and the Management of Change, 1991, Worchester GB: Avebury Publishing, pp. 147-169.
~Self-management and team-making in cross functional work teams: Discovering the keys to becoming an integrated team, (with M. Uhl-Bien), Journal of High Technology Management, 1992, pp. 225-241.
~Identifying differences in creative problem solving style (with M. Basadur and M. Wakabayashi). In Source Book for Creative Problem Solving, Editor Parnes, S.J. 1992, pp. 111-131. Buffalo, N.Y.: Creative Education Foundation Press.
~Adapting Japanese leadership techniques to their transplants in the united states: Focusing on manufacturing, (with M. Wakabayashi). In M. Serapio, (Ed.) Research in International Business and International Relations. 1992, 5, pp. 259-278.
~Leadership-making in self-managing professional work teams: An empirical investigation, (with M. Uhl-Bien). In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), The Impact of Leadership, 1993, West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
~Team leadership-making theory: From mature dyads grow higher performance teams, (with M. Uhl-Bien). In A. Kieser, G. Reber & R. Wunderer (Eds.), Handbook of Leadership (Second Edition), Poeschl Verlag: Stuttgart, 1994, pp. 177-389.
~Cross-cultural leadership-making: Bridging American and Japanese diversity for team advantage, (with M. Wakabayashi). In M. D. Dunnette, M. Hough & H. Triandis (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, Consulting New York: Psychologists Press 1994, pp. 415-446.
~Exchange theory in leadership revisited: Same actors, different plot and location, (with M. Zalesny). In A. Kieser, G. Reber & R. Wunderer (Eds.), Handbook of Leadership (Second Edition), Poeschl Verlag: Stuttgart, 1994, pp. 714-727.
~Leadership of people in your firm, a chapter in M. J. Dollinger, Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources. Flossmor, IL: Austen Press 1995.
~Finally a production system that works and allows everyone to be an insider, (with C. Hui), International Journal of Applied Psychology, 1995, 45, 2, pp. 130-135.
~Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level-multi-domain perspective, (with M. Uhl-Bien), Leadership Quarterly 1995, 6, 2, pp. 219-247.
~Third culture training for joint ventures in China, (with Z.M. Wang), Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, Cross-cultural partnership-making in action, 1995.
~Who’s the Boss?, Wall Street Journal. Panel of 11 top experts in International Business Ventures, September 26, 1996.
~Review of Japanese industry in the American south by Choong Soon Kim, New Asian Review, 1996.
~Managing changes in globalizing business: How to manage cross-cultural business partners, (with C. Hui), Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1996, 9, 3, pp. 62-72.
~Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams, (with G. Baugh), Group and Organization Management, 1997, Vol. 22, Issue 3, pp. 366-383.
~Cross-cultural research alliances in organizational research, (with C. Hui, M. Wakabayashi, & Z.M. Wang). In C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.) Cross-Cultural Research in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 1997, pp. 160-189.
~Guanxi and professional leadership in contemporary Sino-American joint ventures in mainland China, (with C. Hui), Leadership Quarterly, Winter, 1997, Vol. 8 4, pp. 451-465.
~When to use which approach of leadership: Building towards a complete contingent model of leadership. In Work Motivation in the Context of a Globalizing Economy, (with C. Hui), Erez, M., Kleinbeck, U. & Theirry, H. (Eds.), Mah Wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers 1998.
~U.S. army leadership in the twenty-first century: Challenges and implications for training. (with C. Hui). In J.G. Hunt, G.E. Dodge & L. Wong, (Eds.), Out-Of-The-Box Leadership: Transforming the Twenty-First-Century Army and Other Top-Performing Organizations, 1998, pp. 239-252.
~Individual self-management: Analysis of professionals’ self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional work teams, (with M. Uhl-Bien), Academy of Management Journal, June, 1998, Vol. 41, Issue 3, pp. 340-351.
~Sino-foreign joint ventures in coastal China, American Council of Learned Societies, 1999.
~Transcultural global leadership in the twenty-first century: Challenges and implications for development, (with C. Hui), In W.H. Mobley, V. Arnold & M. Gessner (Eds.), Advances in Global Leadership., Vol. 1, 1999, pp. 9-26, Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
~An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships, (with P. Tierney & S. Farmer), Personnel Psychology. 1999. Autumn Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 591-620.
~Third culture management issues in two-culture business ventures in the United States and the People's Republic of China, (with M. Wakabayashi, & C. Hui), Japanese Journal of Administrative Science, 2000, 13, 2, pp. 87-98.
~Implication of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage, (with M. Uhl-Bien & T. Scandura), (G Ferris Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 2000, Vol. 18, pp. 137-185. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
~Approaches to leadership: Toward a complete contingency model of face-to-face leadership, (with C. Hui), (M. Erez and P.C. Earley Eds.), Work Motivation to Clinical Language Problems, New York: Erlbaum Publishing, 2001.
~"It's about LMXs stupid ": Collect high quality data, follow it, trust LMXs and seek serendipity always, Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays. Art Bedeian (Ed.), 2002 Vol. 6, JAI Press, pp. 52-81.
~Helping business students to cope with 911 attack. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 36, August, 2002.
~Dealing With Diversity, LMX Leadership: The Series, (series editor) 2003, Vol. 1. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
~Role making onto the starting work team using LMX leadership: Diversity as an asset, Dealing With Diversity, LMX Leadership: The Series. (series editor) 2003, Vol. 1, Information Age Publishing, Inc., Greenwich, CT. pp. 1-28
~Interpersonal workplace theory at the crossroads: LMX and transformational theory as special cases of role making in work organizations, Dealing With Diversity, LMX Leadership: The Series, (series editor). 2003, Vol. 1, pp. 145-182, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
~New Frontiers of Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series (series editor). 2004 Vol. 2. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
~A new approach to team leadership: Upward, downward, and horizontal differentiation, (with Chun Hui and Elizabeth T. Taylor) New Frontiers of Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series (series editor). 2004, Vol. 2, pp. 33-66,. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
~Asian model of management efficacy and leadership: A glimpse into the future, (with Mitsuru Wakabayashi and Ziguang Chen) New Frontiers of Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series (series editor). 2004, Vol. 2, pp. 121-137. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
~A new approach to intercultural cooperation, (with Chun Hui and Qing Liang Gu) New Frontiers of Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series, (series editor). 2004, Vol. 2, pp. 225-246. Information Age Publishing Greenwich, CT, Vol. 2, pp. 225-246.
~Global Organizing Designs, LMX Leadership: The Series, (series editor). 2005 Vol. 3. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT,
~Japanese models of managerial progress: Sponsored, tournament, and two-stage mobility, (with Mitsuru Wakabayashi). Global Organizing Designs, LMX Leadership: The Series, (series editor). 2005. Vol. 3, p. 153-172, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
~Three dyadic leadership theories: Comparative multiple hypotheses testing. Global Organizing Designs, LMX Leadership: The Series, (series editor). 2005. Information Age Publishing, Inc., Greenwich, CT.
~Proper levels of analysis, hierarchical linear models, and leadership theories, (with Dora Lau) Global Organizing Designs, LMX Leadership: The Series, (series editor). 2005, Vol. 3, p. 235-269, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
~Review of contagious capitalism: Globalization and the politics of labor in China by Mary Elizabeth Gallagher. Princeton University Press, 2005.
~Japanese career progress: an empirical examination, (with R. Dharwadkar, R. Grewal, & M. Wakabayashi), Journal of International Business Studies, 2006. pp. 148-161.
~Sharing Network Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series, (series editor). 2006 Vol. 4, August,. Information Age Publishing. Greenwich, CT.
~Experience-based learning about LMX leadership and fairness in project teams: A dyadic directional approach, (with C. Hui, & E. Taylor), 2006 Vol. 5 4 pp. 448-460. Academy of Management Learning and Education.
~To share or not to share leadership: New LMX-MMX network leadership or charismatic leadership on creative projects. Sharing Network Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series, (editors G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen), 2006 Volume 4, pp. 23-36. Information Age Publishing.
~Post Simon, March, Weick and Graen: New leadership sharing as a key to understanding organizing. Sharing Network Leadership, LMX Leadership: The Series, August, 2006, (editors G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen), 2006 Volume 4, pp. 269-278. Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, CT.
~In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross-Cultural Lesson in Leadership from Project GLOBE. 2006 20 4 pp. 95-101. Academy of Management Perspectives.
~New Multinational Network Sharing, LMX Leadership: The Series Volume V, Editor, 2007. Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~Phenotype for enhancing multinational network leadership, New Multinational Network Sharing, LMX Leadership: The Series, (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.). 2007 Vol V, pp. 23-42. Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~New genotype for enhancing shared network leadership, New Multinational Network Sharing, LMX Leadership: The Series, (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.). 2007 Vol V, pp. 1-22. Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~Integrating Graen’s LMX leadership theory and Hackman’s job characteristics model. New Multinational Network Sharing, LMX Leadership: The Series. (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.), Volume V, pp. 197-209. Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~Emerging integration of organizational leadership. New Multinational Network Sharing, LMX Leadership: The Series, (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.), Vol V, pp. 211-229. Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~Asking The wrong questions about leadership, The American Psychologist, 2007 Volume 62, 6, pp 604-605.
~Jessica’s Web. Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC. 2007.
~Global study seeks only national self-stereotypes. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2007 Vol. 21, Issue 1, pp 5-6.
~Enriched engagement through assistance to systems change: A proposal. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 74-75.
~Linking Chinese leadership theory and practice to the world: leadership secrets of the middle kingdom. In Business Leadership in China: Philosophies, Theories and Practices, (C. C. Chen and Y-T Lee, Eds.). Cambridge Press, London. 2008.
~New approaches for cultivating and nourishing communications networks, (Charles Wankel, Ed.). Handbook Of 21st Century Management, Sage Publishing, 2008.
~Knowledge-Driven Corporation: Complex Creative Destruction. LMX Leadership: The Series, (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.), 2008 Vol VI Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~What is a knowledge-driven corporation? Knowledge-driven corporation: Complex, creative, destruction. LMX Leadership: The Series, (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.), 2008 Vol. VI, pp 1-18. Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~Why knowledge-driven corporations should invest in developing emergent response leadership for both face-to-face and far-flung teams, Knowledge-driven corporation: Complex, creative, destruction LMX Leadership: The Series, (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.), 2008 Vol. VI, pp 231-242. Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~Growing power using cherry picking strategies, Power And Interdependence In Organizations, (Dean Tjosvold & Barbara Van Knippenberg, Eds.), 2008 pp 103-117. Cambridge University Press.
~Predator’s game-changing designs: Research-based tools, (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.), 2009 Vol VII, LMX Leadership: The Series, Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~Strategic development of competence networks to implement adaptation. Predator’s Game-changing designs: Research-based tools, (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.), LMX Leadership: The Series. 2009 Vol VII pp 43-64. Information Age Publishing:.Charlotte, NC.
~CEO summary: Find-design-capture comparative advantage. Predator’s game-changing designs: Research-based tools, (G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen, Eds.), LMX Leadership: The Series, 2009 Vol VII pp 209-228. Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC.
~Educating new management specialists from an evidence-based perspective: A proposal. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2009 8, 2, pp 255-258.
~Don’t forget Sam Walton, Business Week, April 13, page 70. 2009.
~Excellence in socio-technical teamwork requires both cognitive and emotional bonding. American Psychologist 2009 Volume 64, 1.
~9-11-08 Crash: I-O Psychology can help. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 2009 Volume 46, 3.
~Operationalizing and comparing leadership measures, (with Rowold, J. & Heinitz, K.) Leadership Quarterly, 2010 21, 3, 563-575.
~A longitudinal examination of the effects of LMX, ability, differentiation on team performance, (with L. J. Naidoo, C. A. Scherbaum, & H. A. Goldstein). Journal of Business and Psychology. 2011 346-357.
~Top management and HRM’s due diligence for employee engagement in beyond business as usual teams. The Handbook of Employee Engagement. (Simon Albrecht, Ed.). 2011 San Francisco, CA: Sage Publishing.
~Upgrading your bench for your future business olympics. Chinese Harvard Business Review 2012 (In Chinese).
~What employers want: A post-modern framework, (with M. Wakabayashi & C. Hui). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice 2012.
~Manager-direct report alliances as a context for integrating cross-cultural and diversity research, (with M. Wakabayashi & C. Hui) Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2012.
~How to engage your people: Talk the talk or walk the walk regarding LMX, authentic, or transformational protocol, (with M. Wakabayashi & C. Hui). International Society for the Advancement of Management Proceedings, Limerick University, Ireland, June 27, 2012.
~Expert advice from those who serve. In George B. Graen and Joan A Graen (Eds.), Management of Team Leadership in Extreme Context: Defending Our Homeland, Protecting Our First Responders. LMX Leadership: The Series. 2013 Vol. VIII, Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC.
~Using the advice. In George B. Graen and Joan A Graen (Eds.), Management of Team Leadership in Extreme Context: Defending Our Homeland, Protecting Our First Responders. LMX Leadership: The Series, Vol. VIII. 2013 Information Age Publishing Charlotte, NC.
~Management of Team Leadership in Extreme Context: Defending Our Homeland, Protecting Our First Responders. LMX Leadership: The Series. 2013 Vol. VIII, Information Age Publishing Charlotte, NC.
~Leadership-Motivated Excellence Theory: An Extension of LMX, (with W. Schiemann). Journal of Managerial Psychology 2013.
~Where pure leadership is revealed: Harm’s way, (with M. D. Bowman). In C. M. Grannatonio & Hurley-Nelson (Ed.) Leadership in Extreme Contexts, Edward Elgar Publishing 2013.
~The missing link in managerial network dynamics Chapter in Oxford Handbook of Leadership, (Michael G. Rumsey, Ed). Oxford University Press, 359-375, 2013.
~Overview of future research directions for team leadership. Chapter in Oxford Handbook of Leadership, (Michael G. Rumsey, Ed). Oxford University Press, 167-183, 2013.
~If we took our published research seriously. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. 2013. (with M. Wakabayashi & C. Hui).
~What have we learned that is intersubjectively testable regarding the leadership process and leadership-performance, Industrial and Organzational Psychology Perspectives, 2014.

In Preparation
~Workbook for Defending our Homeland, Protecting our First Responders, Expert Advice from Those Who Serve, (with M. D. Bowman). Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC.
~Guanxi: China’s Secret. Business book.
~East Meets West: Chinese Career Guanxi and Western Interpersonal Strategic Alliance networks. Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC.
~Examining the dyad: The nexus between LMX and conflict management (with Melanie Cohen and Ron Clark.
~Millennial spring: Designing the future of organizations (with Miriam Grace). Vol , Co-editor) VI of LMX Leadership: The Series. Information Age Publishing.
~What if we designed a MBA for the future? Integrating a mix of advances in architecture and mathematics (with M. Grace). Decision Sciences Journal for Innovative Education

Papers
~Differential perceptions of work motivation by high and low job satisfied engineers. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, April, 1965.
~A "study of values" for high school students. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1966.
~Pay promotion, and work itself: Where can they lead? Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May, 1967.
~ An instrumentality approach to path-goal models of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested hypotheses. Paper presented at a symposium at the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, September, 1968.
~Strategies for research in complex organizations. Invited address presented at the Academy of Management, Atlanta, August, 1971.
~Role making processes and administration. Presented at a symposium at the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August, 1973.
~Role making processes and organizational entry. Presented at a symposium at the American Psychological Association. New Orleans, August, 1974.
~Role making processes and administrative leadership. Presented at the third Leadership Symposium, Carbondale, Illinois, March, 1975.
~Boundary conditions for motivation models. Presented at the Midwestern Meeting of the Academy of Management. St. Louis, 1976.
~Organizational behavior in the seventies and beyond. Invited address at Wayne State University, Detroit, 1978.
~Role making processes of leadership development. A paper delivered in the symposium entitled "New Light of Leadership Processes." American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, February, 1978.
~The interface of organizational behavior and management, American Psychological Association Meetings, Toronto, September, 1978.
~Leadership in organizations. Invited address at Ohio State University, Columbus, 1978.
~Concept of 'the principal' in organizational research, Society of Organizational Behavior Meetings, Houston, October, 1978.
~Leader-member exchange model of leadership, Invited address at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, April, 1979.
~Generalizability of the vertical dyad model of leadership, Midwestern Academy of Management Meetings, (with R. Liden), Cleveland, April, 1979.
~Management development in the 1980's. Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference, Cincinnati, June, 1979.
~Leader-member exchange research in organizations, Society of Organizational Behavior Meetings, Houston, October, 1979.
~Testing the job characteristics and leader-member exchange models in a field experiment. Army Research Institute, Washington, DC, November, 1980.
~Strategic management in the gas and electric utility industry. Keynote address at the Accounting Division of AGA and EEI. Phoenix, Arizona, December, 1980.
~Residential energy efficiency in the 1980's. Invited address Cincinnati Mayor's Energy Committee, Cincinnati, Ohio, June, 1981.
~Organizational behavior and strategic management research. Society of Organizational Behavior, Chicago, October, 1981.
~Organizational conflict and ambiguity. AIDS, San Francisco, November, 1982. Managing through creative leadership. Invited address McMasters University, Hamilton, Canada, October, 1983.
~A dyadic approach to managerial effectiveness, AIDS, Toronto, November 7, 1984. An on-the-job management development model. Academy of Management, San Diego, CA, August 12, 1985.
~Career mobility framework for understanding position change dynamics. Symposium at Decision Sciences, Las Vegas, November 12, 1985.
~When managers share decision influence, (with T. Scandura), Academy of Management, Chicago, August 15, 1986.
~Mentorship in the executive suite. Midwest Academy of Management, Bloomington, Indiana, April 10, 1987.
~Dyadic analyses of career investments. Midwest Academy of Management, Bloomington, Indiana, April 11,1987.
~Relational characteristic of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management, New Orleans, August 10, 1987.
~Building management teams through responsibility statements, Purdue University, February 12, 1988.
~The current state of leadership theories: Integration, research, applications. Symposium at the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology meetings in Boston, Mass., April 30, 1989.
~Unwritten rules for our research. Invited Address at McMasters University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, November 27, 1989.
~Japanese transplants in America: Direct foreign investment. Association of Japanese Business Studies, Nashville, TN, January 5, 1990.
~Leadership as a prototypical meso concept in the study of behavior in organizations. Symposium at the First Annual Meeting of MESO, Wharton Business School, University of Pennsylvania, March 18, 1990.
~International competitiveness: Lessons from the Japanese transplants in America. Invited Address, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, March 26, 1990.
~Unwritten rules for research on leadership. Invited Address, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, March 26, 1990.
~Our new Japanese neighbors in the golden triangle. Invited Address pre-MITI Minister Seminar, Cincinnati, OH, June 27, 1990.
~Leader-member relations for facilitating creative work culture of Kaizen work group, (with M. Wakabayashi and M. Basadur) Presented at the 22nd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Kyoto, Japan, July 21, 1990.
~Unwritten rules for career management in Japanese Kaisha. Invited address Osaka Personnel, Osaka, Japan, July 22, 1990.
~International competitiveness in the machine tool industry. Invited Address Chu-San-Ren (Central Japan Industries Association) Nagoya, Japan, July 23, 1990.
~Japanese manufacturing viewed from the American business society. Invited Address Aichi Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan, July 23, 1990.
~A model of management technology transfer process, (with M. Wakabayashi) Presented at the 22nd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Kyoto, Japan, July 24, 1990.
~Hidden investment among Japanese managers in Japanese corporations. Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA, August 14, 1990.
~Japanese use of the Toyota team organization in Japan and U.S. 1990, International Conference on Self-Managed Work Teams, Denton, Texas, September 27, 1990.
~Transformation of work group professionals into self-managing teams: Toward a theory of leadership making. 1990 International Conference on Self-Managed Work Teams, Denton, Texas, September 27, 1990.
~Issues faced by self-managed work teams: A leadership challenge. 1990 International Conference on Self-Managed Work Teams, Denton, Texas, September 27, 1990.
~International competition and its implications for marketing. Business/Professional Advertising Association. Cincinnati, Ohio October 16, 1990.
~Company paternalism and the "right type" for Japanese corporations. Association of Japanese Business Studies. Honolulu, Hawaii, January 5, 1991.
~Hidden investment and careers in Japanese organizations. Association of Japanese Business Studies. Honolulu, Hawaii, January 5, 1991.
~International competitiveness center's study of the machine tool industry. National Machine Tool Builders Associating Meeting, January 25, 1991.
~Pitfalls and pratfalls in cross-cultural research. Symposium at the Midwestern Academy of Management Meeting, Cincinnati, April 12, 1991.
~Lean team production and getting the U.S. internationally competitive in lagging industries. CEIC Seminar on International Competitiveness, April 24, 1991.
~Job redesign: Managing for high performance. Total Employee Involvement Conference, Dallas, Texas, June 7, 1991.
~Transformational and transactional leadership as components of leadership and followership making among professional cross-discipline teams. American Psychological Society, Washington, DC, June 16, 1991.
~Transformational leadership as a compliment of transactional leadership: An empirical test, (with M. Uhl-Bien) Center For Creative Leadership, Colorado Springs, Colorado, July 30, 1991.
~Cultural universals in leadership, Academy of Management Panel, Miami, Florida, August 12, 1991.
~Super-leadership may be dangerous to the performance of cross-discipline project teams. Academy of Management Panel, Miami, Florida, August 13, 1991.
~Leadership as a means of creating supportive climates for research and development, Academy of Management Panel, Miami, Florida, August 14, 1991.
~Cross-cultural team leadership-making in Japanese transplants in the United States. Association of Japanese Business Studies, Denver Colorado, January 5, 1992.
~Cross-cultural partnership-making between American and Japanese colleagues. Presidential address at the Association of Japanese Business Studies, New York, January 8, 1993.
~Toward a contingency model of empowerment, (with M. Uhl-Bien). Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA, August 9, 1993.
~Leadership of 'blue skyers' and 'tinkerers' in industrial research and development, (with P. Tierney), Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA, August 10, 1993.
~Cross-cultural partnership process at Hong Kong University of Science & Technology. Society of Organizational Behavior, Virginia Beach, VA, October 3, 1993.
~Culture can no longer be ignored by business schools. Invited address at Southern Academy of Management, November 6, 1993.
~Leadership as leader, follower, and relationship: A twenty-five year perspective. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, February 24, 1994.
~Leadership-making theory and research. City Poly Tech College, Hong Kong, April 14, 1994.
~Cross-cultural partnerships in Japanese plants in North America. Hangzhou University, April 28, 1994.
~Third culture development training for Asian managers. Making Asian Managers conference, Hong Kong, May 19, 1994.
~Leadership in Asian organizations. University of New South Wales, Australia, June 1, 1994.
~Twenty-five years of leader-member exchange research. Academy of Management, Dallas, TX, August 17, 1994.
~Problems with Japanese management in the United States. Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan, September 15, 1994.
~Cross-cultural research methodology. Invited address at University of Science & Technology, Hong Kong, September 16, 1994.
~Enhancing international competitiveness of Chinese managers. Keynote address at First Annual International Joint Venture Conference, Hangzhou University, China, September 19, 1994.
~Leadership of International Joint Ventures in China. First Annual Joint Venture Conference, Hangzhou University, China, September 21, 1994.
~Transculturals in cross-cultural research: Alliances that work. Society of Organizational Behavior, October 22, 1994.
~An integration of eastern and western leadership models. Invited address, Nagoya University, December 7, 1994.
~Leadership research and the growing acceptance of relational models. University of Washington, February, 1995.
~Twenty-five years of leader-member exchange research, University of Oregon, February, 1995.
~Strategic management in joint ventures, Hangzhou University, China, March, 1995.
~Doing business in East Asia, Thomas More University, Kentucky, April, 1995.
~Contingency leadership in international joint ventures. Invited address, Hangzhou University, February 10, 1996.
~Beyond leadership to partnership. Developing an engaging third culture. Invited address Tel Aviv, Israel, February 27, 1996.
~Strategy implementation, Hangzhou University, China, April 26, 1996.
~Leadership choice across cultures, Hong Kong, May 11, 1996.
~Leadership in China’s joint ventures. Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China, May 23, 1996.
~Cross-cultural leadership. Conference in Taiwan, May 28, 1996.
~World-class leadership, Tammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand, June 7, 1996.
~Twenty-three year management progress study. AJBS, Nagoya, Japan, June 12, 1996.
~Self-management in multifunctional teams of professionals, (with M. Uhl-Bien). Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH, August 12, 1996.
~Creativity in research and development and leadership, (with P. Tierney). Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH, August 12, 1996.
~Third culture development in Sino-Foreign joint ventures: A strategy component for multinations. Keynote address at the International Human Resources Management Conference, Hangzhou University, China, March 19, 1997.
~What we’ve learned from this conference. Summation address IHRM Conference, Hangzhou University, China, March 21, 1997.
~What went wrong? A need for “third culture.” Symposium entitled “Mitsubishi Motors (America) sexual harassment case, AJBS, Washington, DC, June 13, 1997.
~Predicting managerial advancement of 23 years: Japanese management progress study. AJBS Symposium, Washington, DC, June 14, 1997.
~New formulations of leadership for century XXI. Symposium (all academy) at Academy of Management Conference, Boston, August 1, 1997.
~My Fulbright scholar experience in Japan. Academy of Management Conference, Boston, August 11, 1997.
~Project teams performance and development under punctuated equilibrium (with E.T. Phillips & C. Hui), Academy of Management Conference, Boston, August 13, 1997.
~International business plans for USL: What we need and when we need it. Presented at CBA, USL Alumni meeting, March 20, 1998.
~International business research: What can industrial psychology contribute? Presented at Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology meetings, Dallas, Texas, April 25, 1998.
~Japanese career progress study: Twenty-three year assessment. Presented at the Association of Japanese Business Studies meetings at McDonald’s University, Oakbrook, Illinois, May 29, 1998.
~Taking Japanese firms to court in the United States: Analysis and discussion, presented at the Association of Japanese Business Studies meetings at McDonald’s University, Oakbrook, Illinois, May 29, 1998.
~Third culture training for employees in Sino-foreign joint ventures in coastal China: What we’ve learned in the last five years. Presented to general managers at Zibo High Technology Economic Zone, Zibo City, P.R. China, June 12, 1998.
~Graen’s Leader-Member Exchange theory of leadership applied to directed teams. Presented at Academy of Management meetings, August 10, 1998.
~The new China, Phi Beta Delta, USL, September 17, 1998.
~Doing business in China (with A. Lamson). World Trade Club, Lafayette, Louisiana, October 15, 1998.
~What do high and low LMX dyads talk about at work? (with J. Komaki), Society of Organizational Behavior meetings, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., October 17, 1998.
~Third culture research in China and team leadership research, Society of Organizational Behavior meetings, Washington D.C., October 17, 1998.
~Leadership research needs. Allied Business Administration, New Orleans, November 5, 1998.
~Cross-cultural research on third cultures in People's Republic of China. Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, April 30, 1999.
~Graduate Research and Teaching at UL COBA. Dean's Advisory Board, Lafayette, March 2, 1999.
~Issues in cross-cultural research using Graen's China studies. Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), Atlanta, GA, April 30, 1999.
~Leader-Member Exchange theory and human asset competitive advantage. Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, May 1, 1999.
~Master mentor of creative technicians: M. Dunnette. Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, May 1, 1999.
~Look back over the last 30 years of leadership research: LMX theory reigns. SIOP, Atlanta, GA, May 1, 1999.
~Mentor, monitor and motivator of creative technicians: Marv Dunnette. SIOP, Atlanta, GA, May 1, 1999.
~Sino-foreign joint ventures in Shanghai area: Third culture, East China University, Shanghai, China, May 28, 1999.
~International Business at University of Louisiana. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, July 12, 1999.
~Foreign ventures in People's Republic of China. Procter & Gamble, Fayetteville, AR, July 13, 1999.
~We are University of Louisiana's International Business: Progress and goals. World Trade Club, Lafayette, LA, September 9, 1999.
~International Business at the University of Louisiana and our China connection. Chinese Trade Delegation Conference, Hilton Hotel, Lafayette, LA, September 13, 1999.
~International Business Research and Domestic Sanitation. Society of Organizational Behavior (SOB), Toronto, Canada, October 10, 1999.
~Doing creative and rigorous leadership research. Southern Academy of Management, October 29, 1999.
~Japanese business studies of the third culture and leadership. Rennes University, Rennes, France, December 13, 1999.
~Leader-member exchange theory of leadership: A thirty-year review. Keynote address, Southwestern Academy of Management meeting, San Antonio, Texas, March 16, 2000.
~Team leadership functions performed by followers on leaders, peers on peers, and leaders on followers. Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology meeting, New Orleans, LA, April 16, 2000.
~Japanese firms operating in the United States: Issues in managing the American workforce. AJBS, Oiso City, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan, June 10, 2000.
~Third culture theory and research applied to Sino-Western joint ventures in the People's Republic of China. Presented at East China University in Shanghai on June 6, 2000.
~LMX and the third culture. Invited Seminar. Southwestern Academy of Management. New Orleans, LA, March 2-3, 2001.
~LMX future research directions. Seminar presented at the Academy of Management, Washington, DC, August 7, 2001.
~Interview as management laureate for Management Journal, Washington, DC. August 7, 2001.
~Current state of LMX leadership theory and research. Colloquium at the University of Arkansas, February 15, 2002.
~Current state of LMX research and theory. Address to University of Science and Technology of Hong Kong. May 10, 2002.
~Cross-cultural conflict and Chinese manager turnover in Shanghai. Presentation at Dong Hua University, Shanghai, PRC. May 17, 2002.
~Is a radical change in Kaisha’s approach to bicultural ventures needed?: Not your company’s culture or mine — but ours. Paper presented at AJBS meetings, St. Louis, MO, and special issue of Annual of International Management, June 6, 2002.
~Does Japan need third cultures for its foreign ventures?, Academy of Management, proceedings, August, 2002.
~Chinese manager’s cultural conflicts in Shanghai area Sino-Foreign joint ventures. Presentation at Don Hua University, Shanghai, PRC, October 9, 2003.
~Self-efficacy exchange (SEE) in the east and west. Presentation at University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, October 13, 2003.
~Dealing with diversity in the east and the west. Presentation at Chinese University of Hong Kong, October 14, 2003.
~Self-efficacy exchange (SEE) leadership and organization citizenship behavior (OCB) as brothers in the east and the west. Presentation City University of Hong Kong, October 14, 2003.
~“Third cultures” in Sino-Foreign joint ventures in Asia. Lingnan University of Hong Kong, October 15, 2003.
~Negotiating and enforcing contracts in PRC. Presentation at Zhong Shan University, Guangzhou, PRC, October 16, 2003.
~Self-efficacy exchange (SEE) leadership and dealing with diversity. Presentation at Society of Organizational Behavior, October 18, 2003.
~Leadership of technology in the knowledge industries, presentation to Hong Kong Polytechnical University, September 7, 2004.
~A team leadership model of LMX, presentation to Lingnan University Hong Kong, September 9, 2004.
~Chinese manager study in Western joint ventures, presentation to Donghau University, Shanghai, China, September 22, 2004.
~Leadership sharing via LMX consequences for team performance, presentation at SIOP, Los Angeles, CA, April 16, 2005.
~Cross-cultural working relationship development for Eastern College, Chiangmai, Thailand, February 17, 2006.
~Dealings between American's and Thais, Chiangmai, Thailand, February 17, 2006
~Transcultural negotiations with Americans Payap University Graduate School of Business, Chiangmai, Thailand, February 18, 2006.
~Working with Americans, Chiangmai, Thailand, February 20, 2006.
~Contracting with Americans, Chiangmai, Thailand, February 22, 2006.
~Letting Americans help. Chiangmai, Thailand, February 24, 2006.
~Working more effectively with Americans. Chang Puak Rotary Club, Chiangmai, Thailand, February 24, 2006.
~Career opportunities for doctoral graduates in Asia. Chinese University of Hong Kong, February 27, 2006.
~Doctoral dissertation topics in leadership in China. Chinese University of Hong Kong, March 1, 2006.
~It Takes Two to Tango, Society of Organizational Behavior, Fayetteville, Arkansas, October 7, 2006.
~Shared network leadership for coping with dangerous 21st century contexts. Invited address at the Global Leadership Conference, April 14, 2007 at West Point Military Academy, New York.
~Joe McGrath was right about focusing on the ABCs. Society of Organizational Behavior, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, October 21, 2007.
~LMX in the twenty-first century. New Zealand, 2008,
~LMX theory. Anaheim, 2008.
~Leadership motivating excellence (LMX). New Orleans, 2009.
~LMX as a proper leadership theory. University of Maryland, 2009.
~Misguided leadership training. Debate. SIOP Atlanta, 2010.
~Hong Kong University - May 9, 2011. LMX versus Transformational Leadership.
~Hong Kong City University - May 11, 2011. The missing link: Interpersonal Alliance .
~Chinese University, Hong Kong - May 12, 2011. New Scientific Approaches to Leadership.
~Donghau University, Shanghai - May 20, 2011 Guanxi and Interpersonal Business Alliance.
~Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand - May 28, 2011. New Ways Out of the Box of Administrative Leadership.
~SIOP April, 2012. LMX research after 40 years: Correcting misleading interpretations. Symposium on LMX research.
~How to engage your people: Talk the talk or walk the walk or both or neither, June 27, 2012. IFSAM meetings, Limerick, Ireland.
~Saving our new millennium work force. July 12, 2012. Fayetteville Rotary Club, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
~Academy of Management Meeting, Boston. PDW Wicked Problems in Organizational Behavior August 4, 2012.
~Academy of Management Meeting Symposium paper: Leadership is revealed in extreme contexts, Boston, August 4, 2012.
~LMX symposium at Academy of Management Meeting. LMX research over the last 40 years: We’ve come a long way baby! August 6, 2012.
~Two disciplines of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Society for Organizational Behavior, Fort Collins, Colorado, September 30, 2012.
~Do-it-yourself leadership development. University of Hawaii, Manoa. Invited address, March 15, 2013.
~Leadership-motivated excellence incubator. Academy of Management, Orlando, Florida, August 11, 2013.
~Design thinking in management. Academy of Management, Professional Development Program, Orlando, Florida, August 12, 2013.
~Butterfly Designs for Millennials, Society of Organizational Behavior, November 3, 2013.





THE MISSING LINK IN NETWORK DYNAMICS

George B. Graen

Center for Strategic Management Studies, Inc.

University of Illinois (Retired), Champaign-Urbana.

~~Chapter in The Many Sides of Leadership: A Handbook Edited by Michael G. Rumsey Oxford University Press, London, UK

~~The author would like to thank his personal editor Joan Graen, Michael Rumsey, Nina Gupta, Robert Hogan, Cynthia McCauley, and his colleagues at the Society of Organizational Behavior meeting at the University of Maryland for their helpful comments. Correspondence concerning this chapter should be sent to lmxlotus@aol.com


Abstract

~~Two most pressing problems confronting American business today involve a drought of leadership talent ready to replace top executives. This was the answer of 500 C-suite executives in a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (2010). These top executives listed “Leadership Succession”, which meant that the pipeline developing prepared leaders to fill open top positions was failing and “Leadership Retention” which indicated promising leaders were finding their opportunities to lead elsewhere. These executives admitted that they needed to do a better job of identifying, developing and enabling their most needed high potential leadership talent for top positions. This chapter describes what we know about managerial leadership today, how we came to know it, and how leadership development protocols using the strategic alliance model can enable more business managers of human talent to become leadership competent.

~~In business and innovation, communications have one primary, overriding purpose - to build relationships. Not to inform or persuade, not to plan or contract, not to document or account, not to direct or report, not to buy or sell, but to build lasting relationships. Hard to accept, isn't it? That means that product brochures are not really about products. Business plans not about businesses. Project reviews not about projects. “Sales calls not about sales.” (Lundquist, 2006).


Introduction

~~Hogan and Ahmad (2010) reviewed the progress of the field of leadership and concluded that it had largely failed to guide practice for four primary reasons. First, the leadership literature is awash with popular books and articles containing “minimal truth value”. Second, the research literature typically defines leadership mistakenly as the persons in charge. Third, the literature ignores followers. Finally, the literature ignores the issue of “return on investment” (Harter, Schmidt & Hays, 2002). In spite of this, Hogan and Ahmad (2010) conclude that leadership is a major contributor to a corporation’s health including turnover, customer loyalty, and financial performance. In addition to these misdirections, they might have added that most approaches to leadership provide no practical reason to become a follower for those below, above, or at the same organizational level. Without any reasonable driver for followers, such approaches can be dismissed easily by executives. One approach to leadership that has successfully avoided these problems will be presented in this chapter. This approach focuses on the dynamic that produces a realistic driver for business associates to join in leadership missions. LMX Leadership Is Independent Of Administration

~~According to the new LMX theory, administrative competence and leadership competence refer to different functions (Graen, 2009). As shown in Table 1, administrative competence is the degree of mastery of the art of operating and maintaining a set of business systems as efficiently as feasible within the parameters of business as usual. In contrast, leadership competence is the degree of mastery of the art of forging and maintaining strategic alliances and then using them to perform the four classic functions of group leadership (described later in this chapter) with the goal of innovating a change beyond business as usual. Administrative competence involves staying within the design parameters of business as usual; leadership competence is concerned with changing part or all of the design by going beyond business as usual. In terms of resources, administrative competence assumes adequate availability, but leadership competence requires the generation of supra-organizational resources.












~~Managers are trained to establish and maintain interpersonal tactical alliances with those associates specified. When these alliances are managed efficiently the result is performance that is expected for “business as usual”. This practice works satisfactorily when the corporation’s environment is calm. But, when conditions affecting the firm become turbulent, c-suite executives need performance “beyond business as usual”. This level of performance requires going beyond the limits of company know how and resources. It depends on finding resources that are unavailable through normal business channels. When a group of associates finds such resources and uses them to perform beyond business as usual, we call this an “emergence of leadership” and associates who are proactive in this achievement are called “leaders”. Our definitions are based on programmatic research focusing on what associates in business units practice that separates those performing at the business as usual (BU) level from those performing beyond business as usual (BBU). The theory based on our research program is called “LMX” . In this chapter, the problem of misguided leadership talent in companies is described; then the LMX theory is presented; the research base is discussed; future research is suggested; and finally, the summary conclusions are made.


The New LMX Leadership Theory

~~At a time when our corporate executives are most concerned about “leadership succession” and “leadership retention”, they deserve a clear protocol to develop leadership talent (Schiemann, 2009a). Unfortunately, much of our leadership literature is either in popular books by celebrities or academic work written in a technical language or in a journal unavailable to those responsible for filling the leadership succession pipelines or ensuring leadership retention. Our executives are searching for answers to the drought that has rendered their leadership pipeline inadequate. Executives generally agree that those proactive in groups that have performed beyond business as usual should be in their leadership pipeline. These people can forge multidisciplinary forces and get seemly impossible things done. LMX research indicates that forging a network of strong strategic alliances is a fundamental dynamic in the functions that we call “leadership” (Graen, 2009).


Resources for LMX Leadership

~~The new LMX theory postulates that only a part of the energy of employees who are driven by professional growth and contributions is engaged in the duties and responsibilities specified in their employment contracts. The remaining energy finds expression in other pursuits. Some are invested in improving the quality of their lives, including that part lived in the place where they are employed. Ways to improve one’s employment situation include: (a) identifying a higher mission than wages and benefits, (b) enlarging one’s social network at work, (c) increasing control over the job and its environment, and (d) seeking greater involvement in the organization (McGrath, 1962). Few people find that their employment offers adequate means to achieve the performance level they want. Some employees understand that one of the tested ways to increase their ability to bring about desired changes in their job situation otherwise beyond their power is to form strategic alliances with those of like disposition.


Interpersonal Strategic Alliance

~~Although the concept of an alliance between organizations has been used to describe interorganizational agreement for mutual benefit (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996), it also is most appropriate to characterize the interpersonal agreements for mutual benefit. Alliances may be differentiated into those employed routinely for “business as usual” and those used for crisis occasions for “beyond business as usual” as shown in Table 2. A strategic alliance is a special agreement with specified rights and responsibilities. It is different from interpersonal friendship or satisfaction (Graen, Hui, & Taylor, 2006), because it is first and foremost an instrumental agreement that mutually empowers the alliance partners. It follows that characteristics of new targets for strategic alliance would be evaluated in terms of the unique utility offered. As with interfirm alliances, interpersonal alliances are divided into routine or tactical and special or strategic. Interpersonal tactical alliances are those specified by the formal position description, but strategic alliances are those selected by the position incumbent. In addition, tactical alliances are supported by employment contracts, but strategic alliances depend on appropriate actions by both parties. Those managers who forge and maintain proper strategic alliances possess the resources to become executive leaders (Graen, Dharwadkar, Grewal, & Wakabayashi, 2006).








 




~~Employment contracts specify both the job responsibilities and “tactical” alliances, among other things. Employees, by accepting a contract, agree to carry out the responsibilities and use the tactical alliances specified. In our dynamic information age, market turbulence shows increased speed of obsolesce of such alliances. Employees who do not enlarge their strategic alliances to cope with changes rapidly are overwhelmed. In response to this dynamic, employees search for strategic alliances with those who can assist when needed. Strategic alliances are instrumental agreements between two or more associates that go beyond the scope of tactical alliances, e.g., watch each other’s back for mutual defense and provide timely influence and resources to capitalize on special opportunities for contributions. Those employees who develop strategic alliances become those who make the deals and are called “power brokers”. At the level of employees, strategic alliances deliver extra-position resources to get things done that cannot be done with only the employment contract’s tactical alliances. Building strategic alliances is often a reaction to reaching out to tactical allies and being turned away. Without strategic alliances, employees' ability to get critical things accomplished and protect their backs is severely limited.

~~How do managers and professionals get their associates to communicate, cooperate and engage across the silos of organizations? They do it by building a strategic alliance network one person at a time, as follows. Employees can show their interest in such an alliance by going beyond business as usual. They do extra things to aid their boss, their peers, and the other people with whom they work. These people even assist those in different silos. These have been called “organizational citizenship behaviors”. These are not altruistic, but involve building strategic alliances. Once an alliance is built, those involved may provide persuasive introductions to those players in each other’s network of alliances.

~~Strategic alliances generate additional resources, both human and material, for participants. Not only do partners act to benefit and protect each other, but they may also share resources. When one party has unemployed resources that the other could use, loans may be made. Also, when one party needs a recommendation for a proposal, the other may provide a glowing one. In fact, the race to forge the more valuable strategic alliances can be very competitive, because the potential benefits of alliances determine one’s relative influence in the organization (Sparrowe & Liden, 2005). Lundquist (2006) disclosed that the fundamental objective of business and innovation actions is to build lasting relationships. And the kind of lasting relationship found most useful we call “strategic alliance”.

~~On what research base can the above radically different approach to managerial leadership be appreciated? To address this question, turn to a brief review of the research that directed our new LMX theory.


In Search of Leadership

~~In an early investigation directed at documenting the development of managerial leadership, we studied an organization whose entire life cycle was 12 months (Graen, 2002; 2003a). Each year the organization of 60 managers and professionals was staffed with many new people. In the year of our study, 95 percent of the direct reporting relationships contained at least one new person. We were hoping to find the dynamics of leadership over and above managership once and for all with hard data, but we failed abysmally (Graen, 1976). Not only did the employees not agree on the interpersonal dynamics of their manager in terms of the classic styles of “structuring of delegations” and “consideration toward employees”, but the descriptions by employees of their alliance with their manager were found to be a good predictor of going “beyond business as usual”, e.g., helping other employees with client problems and helping the organization with unexpected gaps in procedures.

~~ Examining the data within business units revealed that managers had forged strategic alliances with only a subset of all direct reporting employees. When managers were interviewed about this, they informed us that not everyone was eager to go beyond business as usual for the good of the organization and its customers. Those that did were seen as a more valuable human resource that should be tested for dependability and asked to go beyond business as usual once they passed.

~~The results of this study alerted us to the reality of the concept of “leadership in organizations”. It was not about the romantic notions of Hollywood nor was it about transforming people through a leader’s words into “believing” followers. It was a more humble human feeling of vulnerability in the face of the task of organizing a business unit in an organization that was staffed by many new faces. The expected human reaction to this threatening situation was to seek interpersonal strategic alliances. The decision as to who might be interested was based mainly on whose work responsibilities were interdependent and who else was seeking the personal insurance of an alliance. Only those who could promise relevant support and protection, and proved dependable became alliance members. Within each business unit, we found that interpersonal alliances were formed early and were strengthened over the life cycle of the organization. Members of alliances were found to do most of the important problem solving and dispute settlement in their business units. Both alliance members and nonmembers did about the same amount of business as usual. Alliance members also were more satisfied with their jobs and more engaged in their organization. In addition, they were rated as higher performers.

~~In the next early longitudinal investigation of managers and professionals of three organizations, we sought to answer the question: to what extent were the alliances, once established, transparent to all those in the business unit? The findings of this study were that the alliances were transparent to the members of the business units, but were not transparent concerning the business unit directly above. Managers’ ratings of alliance strength agreed with those of their employees and employees within units agreed with one another. In addition, those with fully developed alliances showed higher agreement than those without alliances (Graen & Cashman, 1975). In a related investigation by Schiemann (1977), those managers and professionals with strong alliances communicated more with each other about the challenging new projects and new problems than those without alliances. In sum, interpersonal alliances allow the members to combine their resources to engage in the more interesting and challenging work and report more satisfaction on their jobs.

~~The next question was to what extent this stronger engagement would translate into lower turnover. Two independent studies found that this was the case (Graen, Liden & Hoel, 1982; Ferris, 1985). At this point, we had the opportunity to begin a career-long investigation of alliance forging’s impact on managers in real time over their careers in a multinational corporation (Graen & Wakabayashi, 1994). This career study included 85 college graduates from the best schools who were recruited in 1971. Human resource management alliances with our senior research partner permitted us to analyze confidential company data along with our specially developed measures. Thus, we used company selection test results from standard measures of intelligence and personality, and company evaluations of performance, promotability, and speed of promotions. In addition, we collected measures of alliance information and job experiences every six months for three years from the new hires and their managers.

~~During the first three years, new hires averaged three different extremely demanding managers whose assignment was to teach the new hires the value of hard work and perseverance. The value of the strength of the alliance over three years was used as a measure of alliance competence. Fortunately, we were able to track the career progress for most of their careers. We found that strength of alliance was the best predictor of speed of promotion throughout their management careers. Management trainees who forged the strongest alliance with their tough managers over the first three years later experienced faster and more promotions. To answer the question about whether the alliance forging continued into higher management, we surveyed and interviewed our sample in 1985. We found that the alliance forging continued and was related to engagement in more responsible duties with greater satisfaction. In sum, we found that our star performers were not more intelligent, did not have more beneficial personalities, and did not work harder than their slower peers, but their careers were characterized by their alliance forging throughout.

~~Another study focused on enabling new alliances (Sparrowe & Liden, 2005). In this investigation, managers who forged an alliance with their boss were found to have alliances with their boss’ alliance partners. This suggests that the boss may enable new alliances that strengthen the overall alliance network. Not surprisingly, managers who had alliances with their boss and the boss’ alliance partners were seen as the most influential in the company.

~~We concluded that interpersonal strategic alliances were a reaction to felt inadequacy of influence in a position. These alliances with dependable fellow employees were seen as means of gaining greater control and engagement. The ability to get assistance from alliance members when needed allows a measure of personal confidence. The question arises: was leadership as a human process anything more than forging interpersonal strategic alliances and employing them to go beyond business as usual? Even if something more can be documented in the future, the process of forging strategic alliances must represent a critical dynamic.

~~After my career of searching for an intersubjectively testable definition of leadership in organizations, the conclusions arrived at are as follows. We can document that interpersonal strategic alliances are forged in organizations as a reaction to felt lack of adequate influence. We also can document that such alliances are used to go beyond business as usual. We find that those who begin the alliance building process early and well have an advantage in their career progress in terms of speed of promotions over their career (Graen, Dharwadkar, Grewal, & Wakabayashi, 2006). In fact, the number of desirable outcomes of alliances for both those involved and their organizations continues to grow (Graen, 2010). We find that both parties to the alliance must work hard to make it successful (Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003). Managers who forge alliances with their employees also have been found to include these employees in their alliance pool (Sparrowe & Liden, 2005). Hence, the ability to go beyond business as usual expands outside of the business unit.

~~Many of the remaining defining scientific moments of the LMX theory development are presented in Table 3. The reader may use Table 3 as a chronological event calendar beginning with the first formal statement of the theory in Dunnette’s Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Graen, 1976). Next, a linking-pin investigation found that the alliances of bosses’ LMX with their directly reporting managers and the managers’ alliances with their direct reports both influenced management and unit performance (three levels). In this study, the strategic alliances between one’s boss and one’s immediate supervisor was a significant contributor to one’s job performance and resources. Following this was the first multilevel study of the leader’s average style (between teams) and the leader’s alliances within teams on — turnover. The same findings that alliances within teams, but not those at the between teams level, predicted turnover were confirmed by a completely independent replication by Ferris (1985). Results from all business units in both studies showed that only alliances within units predicted turnover of professionals. As shown in Table 3, ten years later the much anticipated first revision of the LMX theory was published in 1995, and the second revision followed in 2003. The first LMX team leadership theory was published in 2006.


Table 3 Brief History of Leadership-Motivated Excellence Theory

~Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand-McNally. (FIRST PROPOSED).

~Graen, G. B., Cashman, J. F., Ginsburg, S., & Schiemann, W. (1977). Effects of linking-pin on the quality of working life of lower participants. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 491-504. (ADDED LINKING-PIN).

~Schiemann, W. A. (1977). Structural and interpersonal effects on patterns of managerial communications: A longitudinal investigation. S. Rains Wallace Award Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois. (FIRST NETWORK).

~Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131. (FIRST TRAINING EXPERIENCED).

~Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, M. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872. (FIRST MULTILEVEL).

~Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777-781. (REPLICATION OF MULTILEVEL).

~Graen, G.B., Scandura, T., & Graen, M. R. (1986). A field experimental test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 484-491. (TRAINING EXPERIENCED).

~Graen, G. B. & Wakabayashi, M. (1994). Cross-cultural leadership making: Bridging American and Japanese diversity for team advantage. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 414-446). Chicago: Rand-McNally. (MANAGEMENT CAREERS).

~Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. (FIRST REVISION).

~Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct ideas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844. (FIRST META-ANALYSIS).

~Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. Ferris, (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 18, pp. 137-185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. (SOCIAL CAPITAL).

~Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction employee engagement, and business outcome: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-379. (META-ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES).

~Hackett, R. D., Farh, J-L, Song, L. J. & Lapierre, L. M. (2003). LMX and organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the links within and across Western and Chinese samples. In G. Graen (Ed.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 1. Dealing with diversity (pp. 219-263). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. (META-ANALYSIS OF LMX AND OCB).

~Uhl-Bien, M. & Maslyn, J. (2003). Reciprocity in manager-subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 29(4) 511-532. (ALLIANCE BUILDING).

~Graen, G. B. (2003a). Interpersonal workplace theory at the crossroads: LMX and transformational theory as special cases of role making in work organizations. In G. Graen (Ed.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 1. Dealing with diversity (pp. 145-182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. (SECOND REVISION).

~Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 505-535. (ALLIANCE PATTERN).

~Graen, G. B., Hui, C., & Taylor, E. (2006). Experience-based learning about LMX leadership and fairness in project teams: A dyadic directional approach. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(4) 448-460. (FIRST TEAM).

~Graen, G. B. Dharwadkar, R. Grewal, R., & Wakabayashi, M. (2006), Japanese career progress over the long haul: An empirical examination, Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 148-161. (CAREER OUTCOMES).

~Scherbaum, C. A., Naidoo, L. J., & Ferreter, J. M. (2007). Examining component measures of team leader-member exchange: Using item response theory. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 5. New multinational network sharing (pp. 129-156). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. (ITEM RESPONSE ANALYSIS).

~Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2006, August). Why doesn't my feedback seeking improve my relationship with my boss? Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta. (AUTHENTICS ONLY).

~Naidoo, L. J., Scherbaum, C. A., & Goldstein, H. W. (2008). Examining the relative importance of leader-member exchange on group performance over time, Knowledge driven corporation: A discontinuous model. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 6. Knowledge driven corporation: Complex creative destruction (pp. 211-230). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. (LONGITUDINAL IMPORTANCE ANALYSIS).

~Mehra, A., Marineau, J., Lopes, A. B. & Dass, T. K. (2009). The co-evolution of friendship and leadership networks in small groups. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 7. Predator’s game changing designs: Research-based tools (pp. 145-162). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. (NETWORK CHANGE).

~Furst, S. A. (2009). Middle managers as game changers: Strategies for reducing resistance and the role of LMX. In G. B. Graen and J. A. Graen (Eds.) LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 7. Predator’s game-changing designs: Research-based tools (pp. 99-122). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. (RESISTANCE TO CHANGE).

~Graen, G. B., Rowold, J. & Heinitz, K. (2010). Issues in operationalizing and comparing leadership contracts. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 563-575. (PERFORMANCE FOCUS)

~Graen, G. B. (2010). Enhanced employee engagement through high engagement teams: A top management challenge. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement. Cheltenham, UK: Edwin Elgar Publishing. (PROBLEM SOLVING TEAMS).

~Naidoo, L. J., Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W. & Graen, G. B. (in press). A longitudinal examination of the effects of LMX, ability, and differentiation on team performance. Journal of Business and Psychology. (TEAM PERFORMANCE).

~Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., Ferris, G. R. (in press). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management. . (LATEST META-ANALYSIS).

~Graen, G. B. (2012). The missing link in network dynamics. In M. Rumsey (Ed.), The many sides of leadership: A handbook. London, UK: Oxford University Press (LEADER MOTIVATED XCELLENCE THEORY).


~~Overall, meta analysis studies find that LMX (our measure of the strength of the interpersonal alliance) is related to employee job satisfaction, organizational citizenship, engagement, and performance (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Hackett, Farh, Song & LaPierre, 2003). In addition, Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) demonstrated how employees view their work engagement with their supervisor is related to their overall level of satisfaction and business unit performance. This last investigation included 198,514 employees in 7,939 business units from all business sectors, and found that engagement at the business unit level correlated .37 with a composite of performance that included financial performance, company loyalty, and turnover.


Forging Alliances Can Be Trained

~~This brings us to the question of can the alliance building process be learned? Our research demonstrated solid improvements by accountants in their hard, computer-recorded productivity from before to after the trained supervisor’s alliance negotiating interview (Graen, Novak & Sommerkamp, 1982). This result was replicated (Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986). At the team level, the percentage of productivity improvement for alliance-trained leaders was a 17% gain and the transformational trained control leaders showed no significant gain. When the organization supported the training of managers in technology and the enacting of the process over time in operating units, results showed strong improvement in overall team progress and hard measures of performance.

~~Not all workers accepted the offer by their manager in the experimental group. However, those showing strong growth needs (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) reacted positively with productivity gains of about 50% without any quality losses in both the first and the replication study. Those with weak growth needs were not tempted by the manager’s sincere offer. Nonetheless, teams integrated both strong and weak bonds in ways that allowed those who merely wanted to do their job (BU) to do so while those with developing alliances were allowed to grow out of their formal jobs for the benefit of the entire team and organization. Finally, fairness in alliances was based on inducement equated with contributions (March & Simon, 1958). Apologies to Northouse (2001), but rewarding everyone the same regardless of relative contributions is not fair and does not motivate.

~~Alliances also foster team performance. Investigations of engineers in design project teams by Graen, Hui, and Taylor (2006) found that strategic alliances were related to augmented team functioning and overall team performance. Each of three studies involved forty or more project teams. In all three studies, team functioning and team project excellence was a positive function of the proportion of strategic alliances: The larger the proportion the better. The researchers concluded that when new design project teams find their team in danger of failure, they may forge strategic alliances and succeed, or not and fail (Naidoo, Scherbaum, Goldstein, & Graen, 2010).

~~Researchers testing hypotheses derived from LMX leadership theory span the globe (Graen, 2005), however, most research has focused on China, Japan, and the USA. Recently, Chinese researchers have concentrated on testing team leadership (Wang, Law, Hackett, R. Wang, & Chen, 2004) from which they found strong support for the LMX team theory. Leaders with teams with higher proportions of LMX alliances consistently perform significantly better than those without. Please keep in mind that these studies are not performed at old state owned enterprises, but are done at new private companies. Europe has recently joined the LMX team of researchers (Schyns, 2009).

~~Next, we consider the fundamentals of forging useful strategic alliances that should be included in managerial leadership training.


Fundamentals

~~Instead of fighting the competition up the career ladder, one appropriately approaching an alliance partnership can gain greater career advantage. New alliance seeking emphasizes mutual benefit and sharing information. By comparing managers who use these fundamentals effectively with those who do not, we have found that a cadre of managers and professionals actively support their strategic alliance partners’, but decline non-partners’, requests for privileged assistance. Those who use the LMX protocol forge alliances with many office holders in diverse functional areas of business. These alliances can become so dependable that a manager can employ them as part of his/her strategic plans. This alliance-based credit is used wisely to capitalize on exceptional opportunities to improve the organizational quality of life for many colleagues and enhance performance. Such opportunities usually require the carefully planned and coordinated actions involving a number of different functions of the organization. These include successfully implementing new technology, closing gaps that disrupt business as usual, changing the game, and the like.

~~To clarify the concept, an example of leadership contrasted with no leadership is the following. Identical twins, Joe and Jake, attend the same schools, participate in the same activities, earn MBAs, and join the same company as management trainees. After a few years, Joe has developed a large and diverse group of colleagues who stand ready to assist him when he discovers an opportunity to improve his part of the organization. In contrast, Jake has spent his time learning new technical skills and working to upgrade the technical sophistication of his business unit. Both Joe and Jake are rated as outstanding performers, but Joe is promoted faster and further up the managerial hierarchy. The difference between Joe and Jake is that Joe learned the power of leadership produced by forging effective use of the protocol for interpersonal strategic alliances at work. As with alliances between companies, a protocol is followed closely and carefully.

~~This network of alliances that yields so much power may begin with two professionals who desire strategic alliances and who meet working on an interdependent project. They seek answers to three critical questions before they can reasonably consider an alliance. We call these the “big 3”. The first question is: Do we respect each other’s business competence? When the answer is negative, the courtship is terminated. The next question is: Do we trust each other’s motives and ethics? Again, a negative answer terminates the process. The third and final question is: Do we accept each other’s commitments to the organization and the alliance? A negative to any one of these three is an alliance killer. Three maybes allow an alliance to proceed. At the heart of an alliance should be the best interests of the organization and its people. In a time of severe turbulence in the organization’s environment, new and complex gaps may disturb or cease routine process. When this happens executives turn to managers and professionals with the relevant alliances, because only alliances can deliver the expertise and resources needed. Admittedly, contemporary organizations have not promoted this necessary process and these networks are in short supply. The question becomes, how can organizations change the game from what clearly is not working to something that can work?

~~For over forty years our research teams have studied the dynamic of forming strategic alliances between those of unequal position power (Graen, 2009). Our research has discovered the processes that are used by those who are not content to be limited to only the power of their office and profession to get things done. This dynamic that we called “alliance building” lies at the heart of many different forms of innovative, collective action including the phenomenon we call “leadership in organizations”. Alliance building begins with two or more people who understand the incremental power to get things done that strategic alliances can provide. When these people find each other, they begin the process of reinforcing the value of the alliance. They communicate about distinctively different issues concerning the details of their alliance (Fairhurst, 1993). Comparing those who had not begun the alliance building process with those who were beginning the process and those who had completed it, Fairhurst found three distinct patterns of communication content and style that were significantly correlated with the strength of their strategic alliance.

~~Forming strategic alliances must be done carefully, because some potentially powerful allies may not see the benefit or overestimate the risk. One way is to approach those whose work is interdependent and help them in ways that demonstrate one’s competence and trustworthiness. If they respond in a positive manner, the next opportunity to serve would be augmented. In this courting process, the target is served beyond any reasonable expectancy.

~~Senior managers who have acquired both business competence and interpersonal influence from a large and diverse network of strategic alliances get amazing things done in their companies. Mainly due to their alliances, they are commonly referred to as “leaders”. Comparable senior managers with equal business competence but without the extensive strategic network of alliances are not called “leaders”. Only those employees who engage in their organization to the extent of investing in and employing alliances should be designated leaders. This generally rules out managers and professionals who do not practice the collaborative style, because the directive style seeks few alliances. The difference between collaborative and directive management styles was described in detail by Kramer (2006). Three stages of the collaborative style were proposed: (1) Creating the collaborative alliance by communicating willingness to go beyond business as usual for mutual benefit and defense, (2) Creating strategies for maintaining an alliance, and (3) Developing methods to deal with tensions over the balance of collaboration. Finally, building strategic alliances works better when both parties invest energy (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001).


The Dynamic of Forging Alliances

~~Employees with strong needs for professional growth are driven to gather the available resources to get the right things done. They want to accomplish objectives that are beyond the scope of their job’s limits. They have discovered that to enlarge their resources requires that they form strategic alliances with those who possess the resources to help. Typically, the first choice for an alliance is the immediate manager. This position is higher in the power hierarchy and thus contains greater authority, information, and other resources. An alliance with one’s manager has been documented to be the most pervasive of all alliances. Without a well-established alliance with one’s manager, most attempts to accomplish a collaborative objective fall short. Therefore, we focused initially on the dynamic of forging alliances with one’s manager. The next alliance targets are direct reports.

~~The process begins with the growth-motivated employee making a comprehensive study of the manager’s aspirations, engagements, and frustrations on the job. The manager may want greater faith in his/her mission, more opportunity for friendship, enhanced control over the job situation, or opportunity to fully engage in making a more significant difference. Similar wants are expressed by the growth-motivated employee.

~~As the manager and employee work together on their assigned responsibilities, they learn about their respective competence, aspirations, trustworthiness, and ability to make career relevant commitments. Early in the process of working interdependently, the desirability of a strategic alliance is discussed. Either party may initiate the conversation. When each passes the tests of the other on the big 3, they have forged a strategic alliance. This alliance will be instrumental in achieving objectives beyond the scope of the two official positions. The increment in power to get extraordinary things done is created by both people serving beyond the limits of their jobs. Other subordinates of the same boss may or may not forge a similar alliance. Unless both parties work earnestly and pass each other’s tests, an alliance is not formed. Thus, the dynamic is fragile at the early stage and becomes more robust as the process advances to a fully established alliance. During the early stages, both parties are careful to judge the authenticity of the other. After the alliance is established, each party relies on the other’s commitments to lend a helpful hand and watch one’s back for attacks.

~~After the growth-motivated employee has forged an alliance with his/her manager, the next target persons can be identified by the manager from among those of his/her alliances. This facilitates the alliance building dynamic. As the alliance network is enlarged, the facilitation factor multiples. Soon the alliance network becomes pervasive and those people most central to the network are seen as most influential and most ready to initiate a leadership action to change a game that members of the alliance agree needs changing. Such leadership missions may include the closing of new gaps in routine work processes caused by the intense turbulence of the organization’s environment (Graen, 2010).

~~This alliance building dynamic can be truncated by management practices that discourage the growth-driven employee’s initial efforts to get their immediate manager to consider the idea of an alliance. When managers are not rewarded for encouraging the development of alliances, employees may have little interest. Without the active support of the manager, only the most growth driven employees would forge ahead. Even these people can become “burnt out” by lack of support from the organization. Those c-suite executives who see the lack of available leadership talent and failure to retain leadership talent as the top two issues facing their corporations should look at how their standard management practices encourage or discourage the development of those who possess the growth strengths to forge alliances — the building blocks of leadership.

~~After a substantial network of alliances is forged, the four classic functions of team leadership (McGrath, 1962) are performed by those who agree to become members of the team: (1) They collectively develop a plan to change a problem situation that they can only do with teamwork backed by strong alliances; (2) They collectively mold themselves into a leadership team; (3) They collectively acquire the needed new toys and training; and (4) They collectively prepare to adapt as needed during execution of the plan. These functions are needed to support execution of the plan. These functions are made feasible by the presence of established interpersonal alliances that have been tested and found dependable. Attempts to perform the four functions without the benefit of established alliances can be expected to fail. Without the big 3 between all team members, the four functions become too difficult. Clearly, leadership in organizations is not possible with strangers or even close friends without the big 3. Therefore, leaders should first work to forge the big 3 alliances with those who can help them create effective leadership teams when needed. Finally, leadership is a collective activity involving all four functions. We tend to give a single individual too much credit when we attribute the emergence of leadership to any one person and not the team.












~~The major components of the LMX theory are presented in Figure 1. As shown, the protocol starts with recruiting the people with the right alliances. Next, selected alliance members collectively author a plan to achieve an objective beyond business as usual, which is beyond the upper limits of the group’s employment contracts. This leads to recruiting the people with the right alliances. Using the plan and the right people as input, the right protocol is used to gather the right toys and the training as a team to execute the plan. Finally, these components require the right opportunity to adapt and change the game. The process requires intense communication, cooperation, and commitment that can come from the interpersonal alliance dynamic. Attempts to undertake the entire leadership process without first forging the appropriate network of interpersonal alliances is unlikely to succeed. The difficulties of the alliance forming dynamic tend to overwhelm even the best efforts. Without the big 3, the four functions of leadership become empty gestures.

~~By way of review of LMX theory, the following points are provided. Each point has been elaborated in this chapter.

• A formal organizational hierarchy of authority and tactical alliances are required tools of managers for motivating business as usual (BU) performance, but may be inadequate to motivate beyond business as usual (BBU).

• Some employees develop tactical alliances and may not want strategic alliances (“not my job”). No leadership participation is expected to emerge from them.

• Some employees develop strategic alliances to go beyond business as usual (BBU). Leadership participation is expected to emerge from some of them.

• Competence to forge strategic alliances can be trained.

• Strategic alliances produce resources over and above that of a job.

• A collection of strategic alliance members that emerges as an organized team when change is needed is called a “leadership team”.

• A leadership team is built using the building blocks of strategic alliances that have been developed to the quality of excellence (Graen’s LMX Leadership: The Series, 2003-2009).

• A leadership team requires a set of alliances motivated to serve and competent to lead before it can aid in BBU problems.

• An actively supported climate is beneficial for strategic alliances development.


Attracting an Alliance

General Principles

~~When we asked over one thousand managers in five leading manufacturing companies how they attempted to demonstrate their potential to be selected as alliance members (Graen, 2007), thirteen actions significantly (p < .01) distinguished between company-defined “high promotable” employees and their “low promotable” peers. They were as follows.

1.   I demonstrate initiative to get things moving (Self-starter)

2.   I attempt to exercise leadership to make things more effective (Show the way)

3.   I show a willingness to take risks to accomplish assignments (Be bold)

4.   I strive to add to the value of assignments (Go beyond)

5.   I actively seek out new assignments for self-improvement (Volunteer)

6.   I persist on a valuable project after others give up (Stay the course)

7.   I build elaborate leadership sharing networks to extend capability (Push the envelope)

8.   I influence others by doing something extra (Set an example)

9.   I deal constructively to resolve ambiguity (Think it out)

10. I seek wider exposure to people outside the home division (Get outside)

11. I apply technical training on the job, and build on that training to develop broader expertise (Stay current)

12. I work to build and maintain a close working relationship with the immediate supervisor and colleagues (Seek leadership sharing links)

13. I work to get the members of the leadership sharing networks promoted (Boost your network members)

~~These findings suggest that from a highly promotable follower’s perspective, if you pass an initial test, you should seek another larger project. After a few of these exchanges, your partner will begin to respect your competence and to trust your promises. But, never make a promise that you cannot keep. When your target manager offers challenges, seek more and see the developmental process in terms of mutual benefit. If your target at first rejects your offer, keep working until hope is lost. If you continually reject the target’s offers, they will cease being offered. You cannot rightly complain after you reject a target’s offer, so be careful. You may opt back into the process later when you see the growth and achievements of your peers who completed the process from the first offer. These early adapters appear to be on “fast-track escalators” compared to the folks who only do business as usual (BU). The late bloomers generally progress beyond the BU bunch, but they seldom catch-up to the early alliance network builders.

~~Through these informal episodes of seeking and meeting appropriate challenges based on current work flows and the developing needs, getting support for your projects, and rewards after the projects are completed, the “big 3” of mutual trust, respect, and commitment grow. Over this process, the challenging projects become associated with higher levels of responsibility and the corresponding informal rewards become more significant. The process of building leadership-sharing teams and networks flows once the initial tests are passed and parties continue to construct ever-stronger bonds of mutual trust, respect, and commitment. Strategic alliance teams are built gradually by the process of mentoring and peer-to-peer training and experience on beyond business as usual projects.

~~Research investigations have shown that those who complete this process gain the advantages of the opportunity to learn to perform beyond business as usual (BBU), gain greater satisfaction and engagement in their jobs and their careers, and have mutual trust, respect, and commitment, and optimism about the future. Over their careers, they consistently develop these alliances with colleagues, as they rapidly move up the hierarchy of their companies until they find their dream job. Overall, college graduates who forge strategic alliances move up higher and faster than their peers do over their careers (Graen, Dharwadkar, Grewal, & Wakabayashi, 2006).

~~By the way, research also suggests a word to the wise--that it’s not nice to attempt to fool your alliance targets (Lam, Huang & Snape, 2006). Those who were seen as being self-serving actors were rejected. Only those viewed as authentic were permitted to negotiate an alliance. Clearly, both appropriate values and performance are necessary. What motivates people is difficult to judge early, but becomes clear over repeated cooperation. Clearly, being authentic and taking career risks is the better way to forge strategic alliances. Next, we turn to a set of practical techniques that can be used to train managers in the art of forging strategic alliances.


Practical Advice

~~The list of the “dos” and the don’ts” by McKenna and Davis (2009) is relevant to the forging of alliances (Graen, 2009). Applying their same recommendations to the LMX process requires that managers be properly prepared (Graen, 2007). The potential targets for alliance should include all those whose work is interdependent with that of the manager (Graen, Hui, & Taylor, 2006).

~~Finally, let me briefly comment from an LMX perspective on each of the main coaching recommendations of McKenna and Davis (2009).

Q. Is your target of a strategic alliance ready for partnership?

A. Discuss the benefits and costs with target.

Q. What else is the target doing to cooperate in alliance change?

A. If nothing, suggest something.

Q. Do you believe it’s about your intervention?

A. No, it’s about your negotiation.

Q. Is target taking full responsibility for alliance?

A. Targets must do their parts.

Q. Do you have a growing alliance?

A. Ask yourself the big 3 questions.

Q. Is your reality shared by target?

A. Ask target the big 3 questions.

~~I especially recommend these points to managers learning to build alliances with their people, be they strangers or acquaintances. Clearly, this is no place for amateurs, and proper training and supervised practice for managers should be available. Additionally, training recommendations are:

~~With strangers:

• Make building the LMX alliance a high priority right from the start.

• Organize your thinking and interaction with the target around establishing the three elements of the alliance: goals, tasks, and bonds.

• Set the target’s expectation that you will have regular conversations about the alliance itself and how it’s working for them. Then follow up and ask them for their evaluation of the elements of the alliance.

~~With acquaintances:

• Take stock of the quality and strength of your LMX alliances; ask yourself how the state of the alliance is affecting progress in each engagement and what you can do to improve each relationship.

• Assess your own strengths and weaknesses in building target alliances; where are your opportunities for improvement?

• Recognize that you are half the equation in an alliance. You can’t be effective when distracted, anxious, fatigued, or unprepared. Take care of yourself to be a more effective partner.

~~When in doubt, refer to LMX Leadership: The Series (Graen, 2003b; Graen, 2004; Graen, 2005; Graen & Graen, 2006; Graen & Graen, 2007; Graen & Graen, 2008; Graen & Graen, 2009; Hackman, 1990; Orton, 2000; Schiemann, 2009b).

~~The progress of alliance team building can be tracked statistically and clinically employing the LMX-alliance measure. The psychometric characteristics of the LMX-alliance measure was documented for reliability using item response theory (Scherbaum, Naidoo, & Ferreter 2007) and validity using longitudinal importance analysis (Naidoo, Scherbaum, & Goldstein 2008).


Future Research

~~Research to this point has revealed the hidden resources of LMX theory, namely, an instrumental set of strategic alliances. These alliances are supra-organizational and are generated by each individual’s need to perceive, predict, and control his/her environment. This generates a competition for strategic alliances as instruments. Once these alliances are forged and maintained, they become the drivers of leadership emergence. Those alliance partners that sell the most attractive cooperative plan toward a common objective to their partners are called ”leaders”. We now understand the sources of the hidden resource base of leadership over and above institutional authority. The new research challenge is to understand the decision models that alliance partners use to accept the most attractive cooperative plan. I have speculated (Graen, 1976) that the calculus includes the relative alternatives’ valence, instrumentality and expectancies. For practical application, research can identify leaders by studying those people who maintain strategic alliances and sell their plans to their partners. Also, research is needed to improve leadership training along the lines suggested in this chapter. Business associates can be trained to remain competitive in negotiating and maintaining a set of strategic alliances as a right of entry and can learn to develop attractive cooperative plans toward common objectives. Longitudinal research designs should be used to monitor the growth of strategic alliance structures and consequent leadership incidents over managerial careers. As managers move up the hierarchy, they tend to establish new strategic alliances that provide entry to new sets of alliances both inside and outside of the corporation. The more successful at these processes gain a reputation of strong leadership. These are the skills and experiences that top management teams are seeking. As the European handbook of leadership author, Ingo Winkler states:

            ~~I think introducing the concept of the strategic alliance contributes much to advance LMX theory.

                Particularly, as the concept includes the aspect of collaboration and cooperation but also leaves

                room for more strategic (or may I say interest related) thinking. That means, as I understand the

                new version of LMX, people in organisations form interpersonal strategic alliances first and

                foremost to reach an instrumental agreement that mutually empowers the alliance partners but 

                also allows them to cope with challenges and to get their own interests through, at least to some

                degree. In this sense, I think it is very much up to definition (or perspective) whether leadership 

                should be seen as alliance with shared direction and process or not. For the individual it could

                also be that he or she can perfectly live with the interpersonal alliance even if it is not necessarily

                serving the other party to the same extent that it serves the individual.

~~In sum, the new LMX  indeed opens the black box in terms of providing reasons why to form such alliances. At the same

time it points at issues that might be in play when the individuals evaluate their interpersonal alliance in terms of whether they have linked to the right partners or not. From my perspective, the new LMX comes closer to the experience reality leaders and followers perceive at the workplace and the actions that can be observed with organisational actors. (Winkler, 2010)


Technical Notes

~~Agreement on Alliances Some researchers have not found adequate agreement between the two parties on questions regarding their strategic alliances. Suggestions below are offered to improve the empirical agreement. A strategic alliance is between two business associates who agree to collaborate with each other when needed to perform beyond business as usual. Characteristics of strategic alliances include agreements to defend and support one another, and the “big 3” of mutual respect for competence, trust in motives, and commitment to the welfare of both the corporation and the alliance. These characteristics can be strengthened with beneficial experiences or weakened with negative ones. These characteristics can be assessed validly and reliably using the below protocol.

~~This assessment protocol’s first requirement is that the business associates of the strategic alliances to be assessed approve the use of such information. The second requirement is that the properly worded same questions about the alliance be asked of both parties. The third requirement is that only reputational reports be employed and not identity reports (Hogan, 2007). The fourth requirement is that when the alliance partners disagree significantly, the disagreement be resolved before being subject to analysis. The fifth requirement is that the alliance must be tested by both parties for effectiveness in delivering assistance when needed. The final requirement is that the respondent be informed that the alliance statement will be checked with the partner. This protocol, when properly followed, produces acceptable agreement between alliance partners (Graen, Hui & Taylor, 2006).

~~When a requirement is not met, this can contribute to lack of agreement. When no personal approval is obtained, socially desirable responses can be expected. When different questions are asked of each party, little agreement should be expected. When identity questions are asked of a manager and reputational questions are asked of a direct report, a mismatch occurs. A common mistake is to mix identity and reputation (Hogan, 2007). Reputation is a description by an observer of another person’s behavior. Identity is a self-report of a person’s self-concept. Reputation is used to predict future behavior and identity is used to explain one’s own behavior. When parties disagree on their alliance and the discrepancy is not resolved before the analysis, error is added. Until the alliance has been tested by both parties, the strength of the alliance is unknown. Finally, the protocol requires that a check for agreement will be told to both parties before the ratings.


Network Power

~~The potential power of a set of strategic alliances maintained by a person may be estimated by the sum of the position power of all relevant strategic alliances that are confirmed as described above. Potential power of alliances permits the proactive involvement in needed leadership incidents. Therefore, the relationship between potential power of alliances and involvement in leadership incidents is positive. Other measures of this potential power that do not employ the above reputational methods may not tap this embedded power (Ng & Feldman, 2010). Simply asking for a self-report on one’s networking success at work is unlikely to reveal the reputational value of the potential power of the person’s set of strategic alliances are easy to claim but difficult to accomplish. In addition, adding a new name and address may count as networking, but it does not approach what is required to count as a new strategic alliance.

~~The recent adoption of network analysis in corporations should not be confused with the assessment of strategic alliances (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993). Asking employees who they talk to or who they go to for advice on a work or personal problem are very different questions from asking about those with whom they have forged strategic alliances. Until the right questions are asked about the characteristics of reciprocated alliances, the potential power of network analysis remains ambiguous. Finally, the use of strategic alliances depends upon the cooperation of the respondents. This cooperation can be enhanced by corporate policies treating strategic alliances as additional productive resources for the corporation (Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000) and by demonstrating to respondents that their information will be both protected and used properly. Strategic alliances are valuable yet fragile agreements which deserve to be protected from outsiders (Graen, 2009).


Summary

~~Progress in the field of managerial leadership has largely failed to guide the training of future executives because of several misguided practices. These include: failing to understand that administrative talent is independent of leadership talent for managers and that all competent administrators are not competent leaders. Administrators are hired to maintain a business unit at peak efficiency using a production system, a power hierarchy, and supplied resources. In contrast, leaders are developed to forge interpersonal strategic alliances and use them to make needed changes. As a consequence, administrators may legitimately command their subordinates; while leaders must persuade their followers. Thus, the administrative function and that of leadership are conflicting in terms of both source of influence and objectives. This suggests that the administrator who is also a leader has a delicate balancing task. All administrators have not mastered this balancing task. Those who have not eventually cease trying to become leaders.

~~Research that assumes all managerial influence is only due to leadership confounds administrative authority (power to command) with leadership (ability to forge and use strategic alliances). Moreover, business as usual does not require managerial leadership and can be adequately conducted through administrative management, but leadership is needed when business units must deal with crisis or change to remain competitive. In addition, the development of leadership by administrators is a long-term and insider procedure that is only visible when it is active. An administrator’s job behavior when no leadership development is in progress should not be interpreted as leader behavior. Consequentially, the game-changing discoveries presented in this chapter were only possible with our LMX approach, which avoided making the above false assumptions and employed appropriate long-term and insider research methods.

~~The fundamental process discovered by our systematic program of research was what we call “interpersonal strategic alliances leading to the four functions of leadership”. Without the forging of strategic alliances, little supra-organization innovation (leadership) is expected. As we sought the reasons employees become followers, we found that they seek to be more aware of, better predict, and gain greater control over their employment situation. Contrary to many models of leadership which assume that potential followers are passively waiting to be transformed (Burns, 1978), we find them to be actively searching for opportunities to achieve greater influence over the events at work. As each individual searches for influence mechanisms, a competitive process is initiated for strategic alliances. Each individual faces choices among alliances with different potential benefits and costs. Some individuals may opt out of the competition and go without any strategic alliance, while others compete for alliances with the most potential utility. As this chapter has shown, this dynamic of forging strategic alliances with colleagues has been the focus of the Leadership Motivated Xcellence theory. Once a set of strategic alliances is established by an individual, a program of action around which alliance partners engage can be recommended. This begins the leadership dynamic. When one or more individuals is able to persuade the required strategic alliance partners that a proposed action program’s mutual benefits are worth the costs, the four functions of leadership become feasible. The cycle is completed when a leadership group makes sense of its environment and convinces its members that it possesses adequate control. When new fears arise about their situation, the leadership group may re-emerge and take action.

~~An important point of this chapter is that before the potential leaders can progress, they need to forge a proper set of strategic alliances as defined and discussed. Colleagues do not follow even close friends without an established alliance (Graen, Hui, & Taylor, 2006). The missing sets of skills for individuals who seek executive leadership are those that are needed to forge strategic alliances with those above, below and across the hierarchy. These are the prerequisites. Guided leadership training should include: (1) opportunities to practice forging proper strategic alliances and avoiding false ones, (2) developing a program of action around which partners can be engaged, (3) organizing for change, (4) implementing the program developed, and (5) adapting as necessary.


References

~~Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Free Press. Eisenhardt, K. M. & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organizational Science, 7, 136-150.

~~Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 312-351. Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in employee withdrawal process: A constructive replication of Graen’s study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 777-781.

~~Furst, S. A. (2009). Middle managers as game changers: Strategies for reducing resistance and the role of LMX. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 7. Predator’s game-changing designs: Research-based tools (pp. 99-122). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

~~Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct ideas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.

~~Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

~~Graen, G. B. (2002). It’s about LMXs stupid: Collect high quality data, follow it, trust LMXs and seek serendipity always. In A. Bedeian (Ed.), Management Laureates: A collection of autobiographical essays (Vol. 6, pp. 52-81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

~~Graen, G. B. (2003a). Interpersonal workplace theory at the crossroads: LMX and transformational theory as special cases of role making in work organizations. In G. Graen (Ed.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 1. Dealing with diversity (pp. 145-182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B. (Ed.) (2003b). LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 1. Dealing with diversity. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B. (Ed.) (2004). LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 2. New frontiers of leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B. (Ed.) (2005). LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 3. Global organizing designs. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B. (2007). Jessica’s web: Women’s advantages in the knowledge era. Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B. (2009). Strategic development of competence networks to implement adaptation. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 7. Predator’s game-changing designs: Research-based strategies (pp. 43-63). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B. (2010). Enhanced employee engagement through high engagement teams: A top management challenge. In S. Albrecht (Ed.) Handbook of employee engagement. Cheltenham, UK: Edwin Elgar Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B. (in press). The new LMX theory: the missing link of interpersonal strategic alliances. In M. Rumsey (Ed.), The many sides of leadership: A handbook. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

~~Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143--165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

~~Graen, G., Cashman, J., Ginsburg, S,. & Schiemann, W. (1977). Effects of linking-pin quality on the quality of working life of lower participants. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 491-504.

~~Graen, G. B. Dharwadkar, R. Grewal, R., & Wakabayashi, M. (2006), Japanese career progress over the long haul: An empirical examination. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 148-161.

~~Graen, G. B., & Graen, J. A. (2006). LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 4. Sharing network leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B., & Graen, J. A. (2007). LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 5. New multinational network sharing. Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B., & Graen, J. A. (2008). LMX leadership: The series, Vol. 6. Knowledge-driven corporation: Complex, creative, destruction. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G. B., & Graen, J. A. (2009). LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 7. Predator's game-changing designs: Research-based strategies. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

~~Graen, G., B., Hui, C., & Taylor, E. A. (2006) Experience-based learning about LMX leadership and fairness in project teams: A dyadic directional approach. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(4), 448-460.

~~Graen, G., Liden, R., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.

~~Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.

~~Graen, G. B., Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2010). Issues in operationalizing and comparing leadership contracts. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 563-575.

~~Graen, G.B., Scandura, T., & Graen, M.R. (1986). A field experimental test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 484-491.

~~Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

~~Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi, M. (1994). Cross-cultural leadership making: Bridging American and Japanese diversity for team advantage. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 415-446). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

~~Hackett, R. D., Farh, J-L, Song, L. J., & Lapierre, L. M. (2003). LMX and organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the links within and across Western and Chinese samples. In G. Graen (Ed.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 1. Dealing with diversity (pp. 219-263). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

~~Hackman, J.R. (1990). Leading groups in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

~~Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes. A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279). Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

~~Hogan, R., & Ahmad, G. (2010). Leadership. In A. Furnham, & S. VonStumm (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

~~Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. P. (1993). Informal network: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104-111.

~~Kramer, M. W. (2006). Communication strategies for sharing leadership within a creative team: LMX in theater groups. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), LMX Leadership: The series. Vol. 4. Sharing network leadership (pp. 1-24). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

~~Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2006, August). Why doesn't my feedback seeking improve my relationship with my boss? Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta. Lundquist, G. (2006). Personal communications.

~~March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organization. New York: Wiley.

~~Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 697-708.

~~McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Washington, DC: U. S. Civil Service Commission, Office of Career Development.

~~McKenna, D. D., & Davis, S. L. (2009). Hidden in plain sight: The active ingredients of executive coaching. Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. 2(3), 244-260.

~~Mehra, A., Marineau, J., Lopes, A. B., & Dass, T. K. (2009). The co-evolution of friendship and leadership networks in small groups. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 7. Predator’s game changing designs: Research-based tools (pp. 145-162). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

~~Naidoo, L. J., Scherbaum, C. A., & Goldstein, H. W. (2008). Examining the relative importance of leader-member exchange on group performance over time, Knowledge driven corporation: A discontinuous model. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 6. Knowledge driven corporation: Complex creative destruction (pp. 211-230). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

~~Naidoo, L. J., Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., & Graen, G. B. (In press). A longitudinal examination of the effects of LMX, ability, and differentiation on team performance. Journal of Business and Psychology.

~~Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Effects of organizational embeddedness on development of social capital and human capital. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 696-712.

~~Northouse, R. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

~~Orton, J. D. (2000). Enactment, sensemaking, and decision-making in the 1976 reorganization of U.S. intelligence. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 213-234.

~~Scherbaum, C. A., Naidoo, L. J., & Ferreter, J. M. (2007). Examining component measures of team leader-member exchange: Using item response theory. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), LMX leadership: The series. Vol. 5. New multinational network sharing (pp. 129-156). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

~~Schiemann, W.A. (1977). Structural and interpersonal effects on patterns of managerial communications: A longitudinal investigation. S. Rains Wallace Award Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois.

~~Schiemann, W. A. (2009a). Reinventing talent management: How to maximize performance in the new marketplace. John Wiley and Sons and the Society for Human Resource Management.

~~Schiemann, W. A. (2009b, April 3). Applying I-O tools to achieve strategic results: Metrus Group experience. Paper presented at the 24th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference, New Orleans.

~~Schyns, B., & Day, D. (2010). Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 1-29. Society for Human Resource Management, 2010

~~Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 4.

~~Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. Ferris, (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 18, pp. 137-185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

~~Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. (2003). Reciprocity in manager-subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 29(4) 511-532.

~~Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2004). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.

~~Winkler, I. (2010, December 1). Personal communication.


LMX LEADERSHIP: THE SERIES Millennial Spring: Designing the Future of Organizations

The world is changing fast, and the millennials – the generation of people who became adults around 2000, or in the decade or so after – have been right in the middle of it. From Independence Square in Kyiv to the streets of Caracas, from Taksim Square in Istanbul to Zuccoti Park in New York, and from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, it’s the 30-and-under crowd courageously leading the quest for different ways. Less invested in past approaches, tech-savvy to a fault, and painfully aware of the challenges left to them by earlier generations, they’re not willing to “settle” – to make the same compromises (and mistakes) they think their parents made. And although they sometimes get rapped for being self-centered, all the evidence I see – and I’ve taught thousands of them on two continents, and even have one in my own family -- suggests that the millennials represent real hope for the future. Consider this a call to all millennials – here, in the pages of this book, are some of the means. Get out there and create the under-30s revolution. Solve the problems your parents couldn’t. Do it together, with a conscientious eye to what works for all involved. Get out there and save the world.

Robert D. Austin, Professor

Management of Creativity and Innovation Copenhagen Business School

Co-author of The Soul of Design and Artful Making


A BRIEFING

Miriam Grace and George Graen

~~This book is designed to bring you along on a flight into alternate futures. Please keep your seat harness firmly locked and your disappearing apps stored during take offs, landings and weightless periods. Our mission is to open your minds and hearts to the wonderful tools for improving our quality of life from educating perspective parents and their children in child rearing through college, career, retirement and the completion of life with dignity. We can make available to everyone better ways to do most everything. We know that most of our tools and ways to use them were the product of past trial and error. They were not designed (typically) by having empathy for the problem in depth and/or considering multiple possible alternatives. Man, by nature, is pragmatic and seldom initially designs the right tools for the job. This is changing. In an age when we have the tools to mine the secrets of the universe and see back to the beginning of time (Hubble Telescope), we are learning to leverage tools to explore what is an even more mysterious cosmos, our human capacities. Exploring these capacities and figuring out how to employ them in service of individual and organizational goals is the purview of leadership and, we would argue, the tool leaders can depend on to do this work is design. If you are willing to explore the notion that modern corporations are the most powerful institutions governing modern life, then what affects these institutions affects the whole. Designing organizational systems for the future, therefore, becomes vitally important work both for those working inside those systems and for the stakeholders.

~~In this book, we have asked a virtual team of organizational-designers, -engineers, - information technologist, - managers and – psychologists to look into the future and predict the impact design will have on organizational systems over the coming decade. A decade back, Richard Boland and Fred Collopy (2004) glimpsed the future employing something that they called the “design attitude.” They appropriately proceeded to acknowledge the pioneering work of Herbert Simon, (1976) Nobel Laureate in economics and thought leader in matters of the talents and limitations of both humans and computing devices. Simon’s work comparing human and artificial intelligence of computers enabled him to discover that the design of searching for the needle in the haystack made a difference employing either human or computer thinking. He had the breakthrough insight that the needle was the designerly identification of the root problems. As Boland and Collopy point out “a decision attitude carries with it a default representation of the problem being faced, wherever a design attitude begins by questioning the way the problem is represented” (2004, page 9). This insight proved meaningful for innovation.

~~This book, appearing a decade later, adds to the themes explored by our forefathers in 2004 with the benefit of hindsight and new tools. For example, when environmental change renders a faithful system obsolete, a decision must be made by management either to band-aid the old or innovate a new system. But, how can a new system be designed when a number of different conditions have changed? Which are the root causes of the present system failures? Fortunately, you can learn a design discipline that helps to avoid the default of needing to proceed by trial and error and repeatedly solving the wrong problem. This default may eventually succeed by a process of elimination, but at the expense of time, resources and overlooking the diamonds.

~~Systematic improvement of systems by creating new ones when old ones become obsolete using the design attitude is becoming accepted by business. We have developed new protocols for the discovery phase of research relations (Meehl, 1977). We have been searching for such systematic protocols for the discovery phase since we realized that careful observation of the secrets of the man-made world began to yield ideas that were consistently validated. This book suggests the breath and depth of the applications of the design attitude. An example of a minimalist description of this attitude might be systematically researching the question: What if we built a structure that would permit instant access to the world’s knowledge by households? Those employing the design attitudes begin by investigating all aspects of this question by describing the actors, their behavior and their context – the ABCs of specification. As we now know this process of development produced Wikipedia. Natural science’s strength is demonstrated in the search for man’s understanding of our world, where the design attitude strength is aimed at improving the operation of man-made adaptations to our world. Design questions become relevant when established systems become dysfunctional or obsolete due to changes in conditions. It is the search protocol for innovation in security, social service, health, education, psychology, economic, and world peace to name a few. Recent candidates for the design attitude would include health care, immigration, government collaboration, education, the design of work systems friendly to new generations of employees and the very careers of those who design. Too often our top leaders in the above arenas are certain they know what kind of innovative system they want only to find out latter that their new system does not work and it’s back to the drawing board. Proper design thinking as described above is designed to make the new system successful the first time, because it is based on proper investigation of its proposed context. For example when an artery bridge in Minneapolis on August 1, 2007 fell into the Mississippi carrying traffic, we witnessed a failure in design attitude. One size seldom fits all conditions.


DESIGN THEMES

~~Recall that the themes explored by Boland and Collopy’s set of thought pieces in their Managing as Designing (2004) were:

         • Managers must solve problems and act on time and budget. • Design attitude is at the core of strategizing development, and collaborative cascading of execution.

         • Managing design is a collaborative process. • Unmet challenges for the next decade on a global scale for better organizational environments.

         • We are often trapped by our vocabulary.

         • Using multiple models of design problems is helpful to stay fluid. 

         • Sketching, mapping and story telling also aid staying fluid.

         • Beware of pet ideas. • Seek widely functional designs.

         • Break from default! (adapted from pages 17 & 18)

~~As one major gift derived from Managing as Designing, to our book was that we could compare progress to the past decade of contributions to the art and science of design. Clearly, our authors stand on the shoulders of creative and purposeful talents. We have discovered that when “artistry” and “functional” describe a product or service people flock to possess it. We find that our understanding of this new approach has advanced significantly in the last decade. This marriage of the mysterious world of the artist and the wonderful world of science presents different means of understanding ourselves at work. Graen was trained in logical positive science and practiced the same throughout his career until he was introduced to the approach of design. Since then, he has incorporated the power of design thinking into his Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) collaborative research and theory development (Graen, 2013a, b). This book reveals the potential of whiz kids who will achieve “star” status from this marriage of art and math that we discuss as design. All of us have our inner artist struggling to be recognized. This idea is not new, but our improving understanding seems innovative. You, as a young or even a mid-career professional, can fast-track your career with these “collaborative-design” competences.


AIRWORTHINESS

~~This book proceeds with Miriam Grace, Executive Information Architect at Boeing, looking into the future of organizational systems within a business context. She lays out the progress made in the last decade to evolve one of the few organizational competencies that is proven to directly drive innovative behavior. She provides a clear roadmap for how you can enhance your professional career opportunities by focusing on a strategic set of capabilities and framing them in a context of organizational systems renewal. As a master craftswoman of the art and science of creating and implementing innovative designs, she has seen both the triumphs and tears from designing new and improved man-made systems. She finds that the best designed products are the work products of networked collaborative design teams, who continuously learn from each other during the iterative process of designing. Miriam recommends practical methods, tools, and mental models you will need to contribute effectively inside an innovative design team culture. Ultimately, she challenges you to lead from a whole system design perspective and enable virtuous feedback loops in your organization to foster and sustain a holistic culture of innovation and creativity.

~~George Graen, Center for Advanced Study at the University of Illinois, C-U (ret.), suggests that new designs are being constructed for entire organizations to overcome inefficiencies and the dehumanization aspects of hierarchical power. He recommends that you realize the global value of collaboration through designed alliances in both business and voluntary enterprises. His leadership-motivated excellence processes of collaboration among people and across organizational boundaries allows people the respect and trust that underlies lasting interpersonal growth (Graen & Schiemann, 2013). This breakthrough approach Graen calls the “collaborative-design mindset”, promises improvements in global understanding through active team participation in purposive collaboration.

~~Andrea Cifor and Sarah Mocke from Microsoft discuss realities you are undoubtedly facing if you are in an organization that is feeling the whiplash of technological change – and who is immune from that in this new millennium? This chapter gives you an insider’s insight into the commitment to change and disruption that comes with a decision to pursue a technology-focused career direction. But, you also experience the angst of those who have achieved expert status in their fields and who still find themselves at-risk and vulnerable with ageing networks and shrinking options. The ability to be a versatilist, to diverge and consider situations from multiple perspectives, to develop deep empathy for the customer, to collaborate in all things may be counter-culture to your current organizational culture, but the authors identify them as competencies that can break a fall from expert status or accelerate your trip to that status – these are design competencies.


EVENT HORIZONS

~~Min Basadur, a business consultant and professor at DeGroote University, gives us the practical application of his theory, bringing concepts to life through real stories of engagement. He details the process of inventing and learning that provides a roadmap to organizational survival in the new millennium. His synthesis of paradigm-shifting, learning and designing change through a structured innovation process beginning with problem finding, sensing, defining (prior to problem solving) and ending in implementing change makes this new technology digestible and very doable.

~~Colleen Ponto and Peter Coughlan from the Bainbridge Graduate Institute have designed a breakthrough composition of design and systems thinking, which is profound in its simplicity. They clearly make the case for the synthesis of design and systems thinking in order to address the human interaction dynamics and emergent problem spaces that populate today’s complex work environments. Ponto and Coughlin chart a path for effective leadership in this new world as a design-in-action model where leaders operate to develop and facilitate a constantly in-work design to achieve organizational direction. The example they provide of how they are evolving this method designed to shift organizational forms is easy to follow and replicate and provides techniques that you can immediately apply in your work.

~~Jim Hazy and Tomas Backstrom describe their collaborative leadership design that they developed from their work at Mälardalen University in Sweden. Their chapter expands the conversation by bringing forward the complexity perspective. They posit that the reality of malleable and ever-changing processes, structures, and technologies that drives the need to continually reshape perceived problems requires a new kind of leader for this new millennium.


NEW LANDS

~~Deborah Gibbons from the Naval Postgraduate University promises to uncover your cultural predispositions about managing across cultures and to educate you on how to influence your organization to make a positive impact on its international employees, partners and communities. This chapter is a deep dive into a cultural competencies knowledge base that composes the essential elements of this multidimensional subject, and it’s an easy read.

~~Marcus Jahnke and Ulla Johansson Skoldberg from the University of Gothenburg enlarge the context by discussing the creation of meaning in design praxis. In a recent field experiment funded by the Swedish Governmental Innovation Agency, they studied “non-designerly” companies from a variety of industries in the act of integrating design as an approach to innovation into their daily operations. In these experiments artistically trained designers involved multi-disciplinary groups in experiencing design hands-on. The question of what design as a practice brings the rationale for engaging designers in the processes of business, and the far-reaching challenges for managers are discussed in relation to stories from the different cases. Their research is one of the few recent explorations of the value-add of design within operations processes and in varied business contexts.

~~Ben Zweibelson, (MAJ. US Army), Grant Martin, (LTC. US Army), and Chris Paparone, (Col. US Army), officers in the U.S. Army, share how design thinking is still very much a “toe in the water” of Army operational art, but also describe how it is misinterpreted as design seeps into Army manuals. These authors describe their efforts to heighten understanding of design thinking and how well the design mindset better suits the patterns of disruption that characterize modern warfare. Their stories, some of which come fresh from the battle fields of Afghanistan and Iraq, tell of teachers who are serving as “early adopters” of design science. They share their journey to enable the Army to see and exploit the competencies of design methods and the adaptability of a design mindset – a survival skill-set for the next generation of military practitioners.

~~Skip Rowland, a whole systems designer who consults with entrepreneurs and multicultural small business owners in the urban core, took on a project intended to help military service members transition out of the military and successfully enter civilian life and the civilian workforce. Skip shares his personal story and some of the stories of the soldiers he works with who are essentially mid-career professionals They may be like you, who have a very different work experience from most people in the job market, and who are getting that sinking feeling that finding a living wage job may be the toughest fight they’ve ever been in. Skip helps veterans understand and adopt an “entrepreneurial mindset” to meet the challenges of shifting cultures. He works through existing organizational structures in military and civilian organizations to create a bridge of shared responsibility between military and civilian cultures and values, which in turn, creates a bridge to jobs for veterans.

~~Collopy and Boland revisit their ideas of a decade ago and conclude that design has been strong, but not strong enough. They suggest that we probe deeper into our human-made world and develop and employ our creativity to improve our future. They advocate for “strong design” that emphasizes a synthesis of design action with design thinking for an integration of left brain and right brain functions into holistic solutions. Their message for the millennial manager is to develop a strong design attitude, with strong design skills and a strong sense of design space. With those three qualities, the new millennial generation can indeed do better than we have done before.


DEBRIEFING

~~Michael Erickson is saved for last. He created our cover design. Michael is from Boeing. He describes himself as a “systems analyst that draws” and he will inspire you to improve your visual communications skills. The relaxed style of this chapter and the graphics that punctuate the pages fly cover for the author who has flipped the script on himself, recording his ideas and reflections in text and revealing how his thoughts run all the time he is creating visual representations of others. His direct style will engage you and his graphics are fun. He takes you on a flow of consciousness of a design-artist. When you’re done, he will have taught you how to recognize and surrender to the emergent dynamics in life. Design doesn’t just happen! “Come ride with him into the other side of the creative element, to a place that may be a little less academic, and certainly more experiential, where we may see if we too can catch a glimpse of the potential we all have to leap beyond our egos, certainly beyond our fear of ridicule, into dimensions where, if we dare, join with those unruly elements of our existence (that terrifying aspect we call ‘the chaos’) where we begin to co-create in it the answers that are beyond our expectations.


DISCLAIMER

~~Projecting the nonlinear future is a risky venture for a new approach from art and architecture such as collaborative design. Designers must get it right the first time for their patrons and stakeholders or suffer historic abuse from present and future generations. When a tower leans too much or falls or becomes a white elephant, the designers reputations also crash. Designers have learned by their mistakes and success that the design must be right the first time. Unfortunately, those who design special purpose work environments for people typically copy what someone tells them is the “best practice” and design one to fit all. Sponsor’s gut feelings often establish the parameters. The good news is that in the last 10 years, design thinking has emerged to question “best practices” as universals. Designers realize that what may work in a particular environment may not work even in similar environments. Moreover, today’s designers emphasize who the actors will be, what they will be doing, and where they will be doing it. To accomplish this, designers must empathize with these actors, the behaviors in their home organizations and ask, what conditions would enable the workers to make their space more friendly and productive?


WHY MILLENNIALS RESIGN

~~“It will be necessary to transform the core dynamics of the workplace”. (PwC, 2013). The time has arrived to design large firms friendly to the colleagues who were treated as gifted from the cradle through professional education. Alerted by alarming trends in resignations of new hires at two years, Price-Waterhouse-Cooper, LTD. contracted with the University of Southern California and the London Business School to perform the largest (over 40,000) survey of a private firm. They found that there has been a sea change which requires a new design for the millennials entering the work force because:

        • Design of careers was unattractive

        • Concept of work should be a “thing” not a “place”

        • Workplace culture should create “teamwork and community.” (adapted from PwC, 2013, pp 8-9)

~~Gratifyingly, the recommendations of this comprehensive investigation generally are supportive of those described in this book.


CONCLUSION

~~Today, large corporations are buying entire design firms (Hurst, 2012). They think that their customers and their mother organizations require full range and continuous design service. Rather than form a business alliance with a design firm, corporate executives find that design thinking is the future. They are placing design people on their top management teams (TMT). Moreover, this trend is international and local. Even the decision systems content of MBA programs is experiencing pressure to enhance the content and new tools of design thinking (Grace & Graen, 2014). This book introduces new perspectives of understanding the world as if it were a new ride into a wonder filled future for patrons that are not seeking simple thrill rides, but are composed of readers like you . . . readers that are ready to buckle in for a new experience to take your minds to different slipstreams of understanding reality. This is the essence of game-changing design!


REFERENCES

~Boland, B. J. & Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as designing, Stanford University Press.

~Grace, M. & Graen, G. B. (2014) What if We Designed A MBA for the Future? Decision Science.

~Graen, G. B., (2013a). Overview of future research directions for team leadership. In M. G. Rumsey (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, (pp. 167-183).

~Graen, G. B. (2013b). The missing link in network dynamics. The Oxford Handbook of Leadership, Michael G. Rumsey (Ed.). London, UK: Oxford University Press, 359-375.

~Graen, G. B. & Schiemann, W. (2013). Leadership-Motivated Excellence Theory: An Extension of LMX. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 5, 452-469.

~Hurst, N. (2012). Large corporations are buying design firms. Industry Week, May.

~Meehl, P. E. 1977. Specific etiology and other forms of strong influence: Some quantitative meanings. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2, 33-53

~PwC. (2013). PwC’s next Gen: A global generational study. www.pwc.com.

~Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (Third ed.). New York: The Free Press.