to attack, this paralysis would have resulted in extinction. Thus this effect, or something like it, may be quite important for the survival of humans.
Those individuals with capabilities to cut options and become committed may have been likely to pass that characteristic on in an evolutionary sense.
As an additional issue, if a person is committed, how can that commit-ment change? For a change to occur requires that a new set of behaviors or choices arise, such that then the commitment changes. But these behaviors and choices will be resistant to change until the person perceives that the current behavior or option does not satisfy him or her any longer, and that it no longer warrants commitment. In other words, the person would become dissatisfied with the current choice and no longer remain committed to it.
Barring such a situation, the original option remains the viable one that the person follows.
A THEORY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
A key assumption of exchange theory is that people are rational, and perhaps hedonistic, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain – or, more realistically, seeking rewards and avoiding punishments. This assumption underlies the law of effect and permits mutual reinforcement – the norm of reciprocity – based on common needs and interests, to hold for exchange formulations (see Gouldner, 1960). This traditional theoretical work from psychology, sociology, and anthropology underlies the giving and receiving (investments and returns) between partners upon which this theory is based.
Specific Formulation
In work organizations, the key partners involved in social exchange relationships of investments and returns are superiors and subordinates.
Superiors make investments (e.g., salary, office space) in and receive returns (e.g., performance) from subordinates. Subordinates, in turn, make investments in and receive returns from superiors. These investments and returns occur on a one-to-one basis in each superior–subordinate dyad (e.g., Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992;Yammarino, 1995).
According to the individualized leadership approach (seeDansereau, 1995;
Dansereau et al., 1995;Mumford, Dansereau, & Yammarino, 2000), a critical superior investment is providing support for feelings of self-worth to a subordinate. This can be accomplished by a superior providing attention, support, and assurance to a subordinate. Conversely, a key subordinate investment is providing exceptional performance to a superior. This can be accomplished by a subordinate providing performance at or beyond standards, particularly, in terms of quality, and doing a job in line with a superior’s preferences. These same sets of variables then also serve as subordinate returns (receiving support for his or her self-worth from a superior) and superior returns (receiving satisfying performance from a subordinate), respectively. Again, whole superior–subordinate dyads are involved; that is, some relationships are rich while others are poor, and the relationships tend to be balanced.
A key element of such dyadic leadership is the notion of support for self-worth that one individual provides another. This concept is defined as (1) supporting another individual’s actions and ideas; (2) assuring the other individual of confidence and his or her integrity, ability, and motivation;
and (3) paying attention to the individual’s feelings and needs. The objective of support for self-worth is not to get people working together (traditional leadership genre) or to establish a vision (new leadership genre), but rather
to develop the individual’s competencies. Individualized leadership is a dyadic theory that involves empowerment. One can have empowerment without goals or visions and without getting people to work together. As such, the latter concepts are different aspects of leadership than support for self-worth and individualized leadership (see Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998b;Yammarino, Dansereau, & Kennedy, 2001).
Of course, not all ‘‘designated leaders’’ become ‘‘real leaders’’ for all subordinates, as the approach is individualized for each unique dyadic relationship. In other words, individuals (superiors) become leaders for (some, but not necessarily all) subordinates by providing a subordinate with a sense of support for the subordinate’s self-worth as an individual. In turn, (some but not necessarily all) subordinates become followers of a leader by perceiving and receiving a sense of self-worth from the leader and performing in ways that satisfy both the leader and themselves. Their performance is valued by the leader, and in the process these subordinates validate their own sense of self-worth.
From a superior’s perspective, subordinates are viewed as independent, unique individuals who can be assessed in terms of specific variables. For example, a superior can assess the degree to which a subordinate’s performance satisfies that superior. Based on exchange theory, one would expect that those subordinates viewed by superiors as performing in ways that satisfy the superior would, in turn, receive reinforcement of their sense of self-worth from the superior.Homans (1961)notes that people give social approval (a sense of self-worth) as a generalized reinforcer to others who have given them commodities they value (satisfying performance), which makes it more likely that the other parties will continue giving valued commodities. Homans (1961) also hypothesizes that individuals who can give rare and highly valued services or commodities as rewards can com-mand in return a great deal of esteem from others. In terms of leadership, then, the key variables are (1) the performance of a subordinate that satis-fies a superior and (2) support by a superior for a subordinate’s sense of self-worth.
Leadership researchers traditionally focus on subordinate performance as perceived by a superior (see Bass, 1990). A focus on performance that satisfies a superior allows for the possibility that a subordinate’s performance may satisfy one superior but not others. As such, a leader is defined, in part, as one who obtains satisfying performance from another person. Therefore, the ability to satisfy a superior reflects differences between individual subordinates, independent of their formal hierarchical arrangement with a superior.
Support for self-worth is a judgment or perception that a superior supports a subordinate’s individual self-worth in a variety of ways. Our focus is on the degree to which a superior perceives himself or herself as supporting a subordinate’s feelings of worth rather than on the self-esteem of a subordinate independent of the superior. A superior’s perception of one assigned subordinate is independent of the same superior’s perception of other subordinates assigned to him or her.
From the perspective of subordinates, subordinates perform in a satisfying manner for superiors based on their perceptions of the superiors.
Given social exchange theory, when a subordinate perceives that a superior supports his or her sense of self-worth, the subordinate takes more personal responsibility for the support received because this support focuses on the subordinate’s individual differences in terms of elements such as needs, feelings, and integrity. Based on exchange theory, subordinates reciprocate by adjusting the degree to which they satisfy a superior.
Moreover, the perceptions of any one subordinate are independent of the perceptions of the other subordinates who are formally assigned to the same superior. Thus a subordinate’s perceptions of self-worth support and satisfying performance are independent of the perceptions of other subordinates who are formally assigned to the same superior.
Combining the subordinate and superior perspectives, subordinates are viewed by themselves and by their superiors as unique individuals, regardless of their formal group assignments. This is the essence of an individualized viewof superiors and subordinates. Overlaying leadership concerns on this individualized view requires the notion of reciprocal interdependence between superiors and subordinates (seeBass, 1990). Although there may be a lack of interdependence when superiors and subordinates interact initially, inter-dependence develops over time in more well-established superior–subordi-nate (dyadic) relationships.
For less well-established superior–subordinate interactions, support for self-worth and satisfying performance, as viewed by both superiors and subordinates, are not reciprocally interdependent. When superiors and subordinates first enter into a social exchange relationship, their relationship can be characterized as pooled interdependence. Over time, however, reci-procal interdependence will increase and superiors’ and subordinates’ percep-tions will become related. This evolution will occur because subordinates begin to reciprocate with satisfying performance when they perceive that superiors provide them with support for their sense of self-worth. Superiors then complete the cycle by actually reinforcing perceptions of self-worth in exchange for satisfying performance.
For more well-established superior–subordinate interactions, support for self-worth and satisfying performance are reciprocally interdependent. This dyadic notion – the dyad level of analysis – means that there is inter-dependence between superiors and subordinates on the dimensions of support for self-worth and satisfying performance. Variation or disagree-ment within dyads (i.e., differences between superiors and subordinates) is viewed as ‘‘error’’ and occurs rarely. If it does happen, usually one party terminates the relationship by transferring to another department or leaving the organization. In contrast, variation between dyads occurs more often.
Thus support for feelings of self-worth and satisfying performance from a superior’s perspective depend on the specific subordinate with whom a superior interacts. Feelings of support for self-worth on the part of sub-ordinates vary from one subordinate to another (who report to the same superior). This is a very individualized view, in which the individual is the subordinate and the individuality of the subordinate is enhanced by the superior. The leadership component of individualized leadership is evident because a superior and a specific subordinate (leader and follower) are interdependent. This linkage occurs between the follower as a person and a
‘‘part’’ of the leader (superior) that views the subordinate as a unique person.
Such a dyadic perspective depends on the leader’s view of the follower and the follower’s view of the leader – that is, a superior–subordinate dyad.
The most typical source of the initiation of this individualized leadership process is superior investments as perceived by the subordinate. A key pivotal event – the initial investment – usually initiates a rich interpersonal connection if it is reciprocated. Beyond the general investments and returns noted previously, specific dimensions of investments and returns can include showing respect, cooperativeness, openness, being task-centered, endorsing values, benevolence, acceptance, authenticity, having fun, providing learning opportunities, communication, and allowing self-responsibility and mistakes.
Specific behavioral indicators of investments and returns can include head nods (i.e., agreement), direct eye contact (i.e., attention), praise, questions (by one party), and answers (by the other party). In these behavioral ways, the dyadic bonds can be enhanced and reinforced to richer levels. (For an extended discussion of these notions, see Dansereau et al., 1984, 1995;
Mumford et al., 2000;Wallis, 1999;Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002b).
In summary, these notions result in the following specific testable formulation:
Superior investments (support for self-worth) and returns (satisfying performance) are positively related to subordinate investments (satisfying performance) and returns
(support for self-worth) based on between-superior–subordinate dyad differences (whole superior–subordinate dyads).
Etiology of the Effect
Why do we expect this dyad-level hypothesized effect to hold? Stated differently, from an evolutionary theory perspective (Gould, 2002), does the effect make a difference in terms of the human condition and survival? We believe that this effect may matter because without it, or an effect like this one, it seems unlikely that individuals would have seen benefits from interacting with others (making investments), even if only for a very short time. For example, those individuals who are likely to see returns (e.g., of a sexual nature) from interacting with others are those who are more likely to have children. Thus the capability implicit in the effect would be passed on in an evolutionary sense. Moreover, without this effect, it would be difficult for a child to survive because a child cannot fend for himself or herself.
Thus, if providing for the child did not provide some benefit to the parent or other caregiver, the child would be unable to survive.
An additional issue regarding this effect relates to change. The basic idea is that if a focal individual’s investments in another individual do not relate to that focal individual’s returns from the other individual, the dyadic relationship may collapse because it will be perceived as unfair. This effect can be viewed as underlying equity theory. For example, various changes may be made by members of the dyad to equalize or balance the investments and returns. In addition, the manner in which people learn what is equitable is expected, in part, to be a function of the previous reinforcement contingencies.