Leadership Comparison Matrix

Comparison Matrix Paper-Leadership Ethics
Grand Canyon University
Ethical Dilemmas and Stewardship
LDR 800

Introduction This assignment looked comparatively at three empirical articles that addressed leadership practices relating to ethical use of authority, persuasion, power or motivation. Article one was titled “Achieving High Organizational Performance through Servant Leadership” by Melchar, D. and Bosco, M. (2010). The second article, titled “When Power Makes Others Speechless: The Negative Impact of Leader Power on Team Performance”, was authored by Tost, L., Gino, F. and Larrick, R. (2013). Finally, the third article was titled “The Relationship Between Ethical Leadership and Core Job Characteristics” by Piccolo,
(2010) results of the three studies were fully in support of the initial arguments. Specifically. Study 1 clearly demonstrated support in that a formal leader’s experience of power leads to increased leader talking, reducing his or her openness, and thereby diminishing team performance. Study 2 and 3 both replicated the findings of study 1, further supporting the notion that formal leaders’ experience of power produced greater team verbal collaboration from leaders, less team open communication, and decreased overall team performance. Comparatively, results of all three studies were structured slightly different. Melchar and Bocso (2010) and Piccolo, et al. (2010) recorded results of all presented hypotheses’ in one common results section. Alternatively, Tost, et al. (2013) recorded its research findings at the conclusion of each its three sub-studies. However, with the exception of one, there was strong evidence in all three articles to support the studies original hypotheses.
Limitations and
(2013) research findings have shown strong theoretical and practical implications as to the impact formal leaders can have on overall team performance. The intent of this research was to examine as well as measure the impact of the subjective experience of power on leadership dynamics as well as on general team performance. Both were accomplished and final conclusions were that all hypotheses were proven true. While there were many positive contributions that stemmed from these studies, several limitations need to be acknowledged. One limitation was that conducting the study in control settings such as a laboratory or classroom potentially limited external validity. A second limitation was that conversations that took place amongst teams were not recorded, thus relying on self-reporting as opposed to observational