La importancia de la diada entre líder y seguidor
Resumen
El liderazgo en diadas ha sido ampliamente estudiado, no obstante, la teoría diada líder-seguidor cobra vigencia para seguir siendo estudiada, investigada y aplicada, debido a la disrupción provocados por los avances tecnológicos producto de la cuarta revolución industrial, las pandemias y conflictos armados, justifican su repensamiento en aras de la eficiencia organizacional. Desde luego que el tema del liderazgo es muy diverso e incluye un amplio espectro de teorías y definiciones. El concepto más usual y admitido es que es un proceso natural de influencia que ocurre entre una persona que lidera y otra que lo sigue. Los fenómenos diádicos líder-seguidor se han visto desde diversas perspectivas teóricas que caen en el dominio general del liderazgo o las relaciones líder-seguidor. Cada teoría ve los fenómenos diádicos desde diferentes perspectivas, diferente nivel de análisis, capturando los fenómenos diádicos de manera diferente al enfocarse en el proceso o en los resultados. A manera de conclusiones se destaca que el liderazgo es una acción que requiere de dos actores clave: líder y seguidores, y que el estilo o tipo de liderazgo elegido por el primero, guarda una estrecha relación con la madurez y características de los segundos.
Descargas
Citas
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Leader–Member social exchange (lmsx): development and validation of a scale. Journal of organizational behavior, 28(8), 979–1003. Https://doi.org/10.1002/job. 443.
Brower Hh, Schoorman Fd, Tan Hh. 2000. A model of relational leadership: the integration of trust and Leader-member exchange. Leadersh. Q. 11:227–50
Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of vocational behavior, 31(3), 248–267. Https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-x.
Chiaburu Ds, Harrison Da. 2008. Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, ocbs, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93(5):1082–103
Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader–member exchange: relationships with performance and work attitudes. The leadership quarterly, 20(3), 452–465. Https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.010.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1995). Leadership: the multiple-level approaches. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95) 90030-6 97–109 and 251–263.
Keller, T. (1995). Individualized leadership: a new multiple-level approach. The leadership quarterly, 6(3), 413–450. Https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95) 90016-0.
De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects Of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of applied psychology, 87, 858–866.
Dionne, S. D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K. L., Shirreffs, K. A., Serban, A., Hao, C., ... Yammarino, F. J. (2014). A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research. The leadership quarterly, 25(1), 6–35. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.002.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta- analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of management, 38(6), 1715–1759. Https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A Role-Making Model Of Leadership In Formal Orga- Nizations: A Developmental Approach. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.). Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–166). Kent, oh: kent state university press.
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. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. Https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.
Graen Gb, Scandura Ta. (1987).Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Res. Organ. Behav. 9:175–208
Hogg, M. A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In m. P. Zanna (ed.), advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 35, pp.1–52). San diego, ca: academic press.
Johns G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31:386–408
Kelley, Robert (1992) Líderes Y Seguidores. Cooperación Mutua En Beneficio De La Empresa. Editorial mcgraw-hill. España.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review Of Its Conceptualizations, Measurement, And Implications. Personnel psychology, 49(1), 1–49. Https://doi. Org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of in- dividuals' fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person- group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 281–342. Https://doi. Org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.
Liden rc, antonakis j. 2009. Considering context in psychological leadership research. Hum. Relat. 62:1587– 605
Lussier, R. & Achua, C. (2002). Liderazgo. Teoría, aplicación, desarrollo de habilidades. México: thomson learning.
Mathieu Je, Tannenbaum Si, Donsbach Js, Alliger Gm. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. J. Manag. 40(1):130–60
Marstand, A. F., Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2017). Complementary person-supervisor fit: an investigation of supplies-values (sv) fit, leader-member exchange (lmx) and work outcomes. The leadership quarterly, 28(3), 418–437. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Leaqua.2016.10.008.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: temporal changes in individual-group relations. In l. Berkowitz (ed.), advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 15, pp. 137–192). New york: academic press.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization In Organizations And Workgroups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and Research (pp. 69–112). Hillsdale, Nj: Erlbaum.
Rockstuhl T, Dulebohn Jh, Ang S, Shore Lm. (2012). Leader-Member Exchange (Lmx) And Culture: A Meta- Analysis Of Correlates Of Lmx Across 23 Countries. J. Appl. Psychol. 97(6):1097–130
Shamir, B., R, J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self- Concept based theory. Organization science, 4, 577–594.
Sin, H. P., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). Understanding why they don't see eye to eye: an examination of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement. Journal of applied psychology, 94(4), 1048–1057. Https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014827.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of lea- dership and organizing. The leadership quarterly, 17(6), 654–676. Https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: a review and research agenda. Leadership quarterly, 15, 825–856.
Wallis, N. C., Yammarino, F. J., & Feyerherm, A. (2011). Individualized leadership: a qualitative study of senior executive leaders. The leadership quarterly, 22(1), 182–206. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.015.
Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K., & Shuffler, M. L. (2012). Collectivistic leadership approaches: putting the “we” in leadership science and practice. Industrial and organizational psychology, 5(4), 382–402. Https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01467.x.
Derechos de autor 2022 José Hugo Vázquez Mendoza;Rosa Alejandra Vázquez Martínez;Nallely Vázquez Martínez
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0.
.jpg)
