Search

Follower insubordination violates the social hierarchy inherent to leader-follower relationships. In this vein, past research focused on insubordination as dysfunctional behavior that is to be sanctioned (DeCelles & Aquino, 2020; Klaas, Olson-Buchanan, & Ward, 2012). However, we argue that insubordination can also be functional when followers' alternative actions prove more successful than the leader's instructions. It is thus the outcome, i.e., the success of insubordination, that determines the effects of insubordination on leaders and leader-follower relationships. Based on three scenario experiments with four samples (N = 214, N = 299, N = 439, N = 395), we find that followers' successful insubordination, i.e., followers' disobedience to their leaders' orders in favor of alternative actions that successfully promote organizational goals, increases leader status. We find further that this status threat decreases social leader-member exchange perceptions (SLMX) but increases economic leader-member exchanges (ELMX). Taken leaders' increased self-interest when interacting with successful but insubordinate followers, we thus point to leaders' taking advantage of successful insubordinate followers despite their status threat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the role of professional degrees in employee selection by businesses. Because of accreditation practices, schools with smaller resources are now able to offer programs that are consistent with those of much larger and more well-known institutions. For may, this has created a common perception of MBA programs that they are undifferentiated and that school strategies and characteristics are fairly broad. The authors examine the effects of schools pursuing similar sets of objectives on employee selection.

Traditionally, leadership is seen as a something that leaders inherit (e.g., through their position in a hierarchy or through physical or personality traits) or enact (e.g., through behaviors or discourse). Recently, a new stream of research has emerged that flips this framing and sees leadership as a collective achievement that emerges within generative human (inter)actions as individuals seek to coordinate their activities in order to act cooperatively toward collective goals. This symposium intends to start a conversation about these apparently incommensurable framings and to identify and explore any conceptual conflicts that might arise as leadership researchers develop and test theories from both of these points of view. More specifically, the discussion will look at different perspectives about whether, and if so how both hierarchical leadership, that is focused on the individual leader, and collective leadership, that is focused on joint (inter)actions, are able to coexist in today's increasingly diverse and inclusive organizations. Overall, the aim of the symposium is to deepen scholarly understandings of the agency and mechanisms that define leadership for the complex inclusive organizations of tomorrow. The symposium is organized around by five papers presented interactively from different perspectives. This will be followed by a structured discussion that engages symposium participants in an interactive dialogue that we hope will articulate a series of specific research questions that demand future study. A Social Psychological Perspective on Collective and Hierarchical Leadership Presenter: Anson Seers; Virginia Commonwealth U. Collective Leadership or Leading in a Collective? Exploring Network Effects and Scaling Dynamics Presenter: Jim Hazy; Adelphi U. Presenter: Murat Sakir Erogul; Adelphi U. Differences Between Collective and Hierarchical Leadership: With and Without Distinction Presenter: Gail T. Fairhurst; U. of Cincinnati Presenter: Brad Jackson; Victoria U. of Wellington Inclusivity and Exclusivity, 'Cousins' of Collective and Hierarchical Leadership? Presenter: Howard Youngs; Auckland U. of Technology Hierarchy: First among 'Unequals' Presenter: Joseph A. Raelin; Northeastern U. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]