Advertisement

Leadership Role Models for Young Professionals - Case Study from Finnish University Students

  • Tero ReunanenEmail author
  • Eyal Eckhaus
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 961)

Abstract

Leadership is a concept that is proven very hard to define unambiguously. Despite of this scientific gap, practical questions still are set towards leadership. Concept of leadership is widely used in other research and it is one of the most interesting research issues in organizations. Good leadership is like good quality; we can recognize it when we experience it, but it is quite hard to define where this feeling of good or bad quality came from. Data was gathered in 2015–2017 from students in Turku University of Applied Sciences. Students analyzed their former leaders with open answers. We employed a mix method design with both quantitative and qualitative analysis. For quantitative analysis, we employed automated content analysis based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques. Results show that autocratic leadership is connected to negative picture of leader with in millennials Future research aspects and recommendations are issued in this paper.

Keywords

Leadership Organizational behavior Role Management style Natural language processing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is partly funded by European Social Fund co-funded project called “Pisku – Pienikin iskussa”. Funder has not affected the research results by any other means than making it possible. Correspondent author, who partly had worked in project, wishes to express sincere thanks to ESF and all collaborators in that project.

References

  1. 1.
    Drucker, P.: Tasks, Responsibilities, Management, Practices. Truman Talley Books E.P. Dutton, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bass, B.M.: Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 8(1), 9–32 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stogdill, R.M.: Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Literature. Free Press, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dinh, J.E., Lord, R.G., Gardner, W.L., Meuser, J.D., Liden, R.C., Hu, J.: Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadersh. Quart. 25(1), 36–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reunanen, T., Kaitonen, J.: Different roles in leadership styles in modern organization. In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 498, pp. 251–262. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lewin, K., Lippit, R., White, R.K.: Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. J. Soc. Psychol. 10, 271–301 (1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    White, J.H.R.: Successful Supervision. McGraw-Hill, London (1975)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tannenbaum, R., Schmidt, W.H.: How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Bus. Rev. 51, 162–180 (1973)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Likert, R.: The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yukl, G.A.: Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. J. Manag. 15(2), 251–289 (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yukl, G.A.: Leadership in Organizations, 8th edn. Pearson, Boston (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blake, R.R., Mouton, J.S.: The Managerial Grid III: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston (1985)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reddin, W.J.: Managerial Effectiveness & Style: Individual or Situational. McGraw-Hill, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Northouse, P.G.: Leadership: Theory and Practice, 5th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fiedler, F.: A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 149–190. Academic Press, New York (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fiedler, F.: Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., Johnsson, D.E.: Management of Organizational Behaviour. Leading Human Resources. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evans, M.G.: The effect of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 5, 277–298 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    House, R.J.: A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 16, 321–339 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    House, R.J., Mitchell, T.R.: Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemp. Bus. 3, 81–98 (1974)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    DuBouis, M., Hanlon, J., Koch, J., Nyatuga, B., Kerr, N.: Leadership styles of effective project managers: techniques and traits to lead high performance teams. J. Econ. Dev. Manag. IT Financ. Mark. 7, 30–46 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sherony, K.M., Green, S.G.: Relationships between co-workers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 542–558 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J.: The implications of transactional and transformation leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Res. Organ. Change Dev. 4, 231–272 (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amy, A.H.: Leaders as facilitators of individual and organizational learning. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 29(3), 212–234 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Amabile, T.M.: How to kill creativity. Harvard Bus. Rev. 76(5), 76–87 (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mackenzie, K.D.: The LAMPE theory of organizational leadership. In: Yammarino, F.J., Dansereau, F. (eds.) Research in Multi-Level Issues: Multi-Level Issues in Social Systems, vol. 5, pp. 345–428. Elsevier, Oxford (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zaccaro, S.J., Rittmana, A.L., Marks, M.A.: Team leadership. Leadersh. Quart. 12, 451–483 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Day, D.V., Gronn, P., Salas, E.: Leadership capacity in teams. Leadersh. Quart. 15, 857–880 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kerr, S., Jermier, J.M.: Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 22(3), 375–403 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goleman, D.: Leadership that gets results. Harvard Bus. Rev. 78(2), 78–90 (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goleman, D.: What makes a leader? Harvard Bus. Rev. 82(1), 82–91 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reunanen, T., Maijala, R.: Management style, focus and purpose in development of LEAN in university hospital. In: Kantola, J., Barath, T., Nazir, S. (eds.) Advances in Human Factors, Business Management and Leadership, AHFE 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 594. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hunter, E.M., Neubert, M.J., Perry, S.J., Witt, L.A., Penney, L.M., Weinberger, E.: Servant leaders inspire servant followers: antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. Leadersh. Quart. 24(2), 316–331 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H., Henderson, D.: Servant leadership: development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadersh. Quart. 19(2), 161–177 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eckhaus, E.: Happiness in fashion. In Kantola J., Barath T., Nazir S. (eds.) Advances in Human Factors, Business Management and Society, AHFE 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 783, pp. 15–25. Springer, Cham (2019)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eckhaus, E., Sheaffer, Z.: Factors affecting willingness to contribute goods and services on social media. Soc. Sci. J. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.08.001
  37. 37.
    Eckhaus, E., Sheaffer, Z.: Happiness enrichment and sustainable happiness. Appl. Res. Qual. Life. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9641-0
  38. 38.
    Hinz, A., Sander, C., Glaesmer, H., Brähler, E., Zenger, M., Hilbert, A., Kocalevent, R.D.: Optimism and pessimism in the general population: psychometric properties of the life orientation test (LOT-R). Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 17(2), 161–170 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M.: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 6(1), 1–55 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tomas, J.R.: The effects of advertising alcohol on young people. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Res. 3(1) (2017)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eckhaus, E.: Barter trade exchange to the rescue of the tourism and travel industry. J. Shipp. Ocean Eng. 1(2), 133–140 (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Eckhaus, E., Kogan, K., Pearlman, Y.: Enhancing strategic supply decisions by estimating suppliers’ marginal costs. J. Supply Chain Manag. 49(4), 96–107 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bedford, D.A.: Understanding and managing taxonomies as economic goods and services. Bull. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 40(4), 15–22 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Eckhaus, E.: Corporate transformational leadership’s effect on financial performance. J. Leadersh. Account. Ethics 13(1), 90–102 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eckhaus, E.: A shift in leadership. Acad. Strat. Manag. J. 16(1), 19–31 (2017)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eckhaus, E., Ben-Hador, B.: Gossip and gender differences: a content analysis approach. J. Gend. Stud. 28(1), 97–108 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1411789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Davidovitch, N., Eckhaus, E.: The influence of birth country on selection of conference destination-employing natural language processing. High. Educ. Stud. 8(2), 92–96 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nguyen, T.D., Nguyen, L.D.P., Cao, T.: Sentiment analysis on medical text using combination of machine learning and SO-CAL scoring. Paper presented at the 2017 21st Asia Pacific symposium on Intelligent and evolutionary systems (IES) (2017)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Davidovitch, N., Eckhaus, E.: Effect of faculty on research cooperation and publication: employing natural language processing. Econ. Sociol. 11(4), 173–180 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789x.2018/11-4/11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Eckhaus, E., Davidovitch, N.: Impact of gender and conference size on conference preferences – employing natural language processing. Int. J. Educ. Methodol. 4(1), 45–52 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.4.1.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Eckhaus, E., Davidovitch, N.: Improving academic conferences – criticism and suggestions utilizing natural language processing. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 7(3), 445–450 (2018)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roa, D.: Analysis of short text classification strategies using out of-domain vocabularies. (Master). KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm, Sweden (2018)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ben-Hador, B., Eckhaus, E.: The different impact of personal social capital and intra-organizational SC. Int. J. Organ. Theory Behav. 21(1), 28–47 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-03-2018-004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Eckhaus, E., Sheaffer, Z.: Managerial hubris detection: the case of Enron. Risk Manag 20(4), 304–325 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-018-0037-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Eckhaus, E., Taussig, R., Ben-Hador, B.: The effect of top management team’s tacit persuasion on the stock market. E-J. Soc. Behav. Res. Bus. 9(2), 9–22 (2018)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Eckhaus, E., Weber, M., Koppel, M., Spiegel, U.: Inequalities among employees with respect to their contributions and rewards. E-J. Soc. Behav. Res. Bus. 9(1), 1–9 (2018)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Klein, G., Eckhaus, E.: Sensemaking and sensegiving as predicting organizational crisis. Risk Manag. 19(3), 225–244 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-017-0019-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Martin, C.A.: From high maintenance to high productivity. Ind. Commer. Train. 37(1), 39–44 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Morton, L.P.: Targeting generation Y: segmenting publics. Public Relat. Q. 47(2), 46–48 (2002)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lowe, D., Levitt, K.J., Wilson, T.: Solutions for retaining generation Y employees in the workplace. Bus. Renaiss. Q. 3, 43–57 (2008)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gürsoy, D., Maier, T.A., Chi, C.G.: Generational differences: an examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 27(3), 448–458 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Eisner, S.P.: Managing generation Y. SAM Adv. Manag. J. 70, 4–15 (2005)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bennett, J., Pitt, M., Price, S.: Understanding the impact of generational issues in the workplace. Facilities 30(7), 278–288 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Deloitte. The Deloitte Millennial Survey – Executive Summary. Deloitte. (2014) https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-dttl-2014-millennial-survey-report.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Turku University of Applied SciencesTurkuFinland
  2. 2.University of VaasaVaasaFinland
  3. 3.Ariel UniversityArielIsrael

Personalised recommendations