We argue that organizations often fail to organize effectively because individuals have lay theories about organizing that lead to coordination neglect. We unpack the notion of coordination neglect and describe specific cognitive phenomena that underlie it. To solve the coordination problem, organizations must divide a task and then integrate the components. Individuals display shortcomings that may create problems at both stages. First, lay theories often focus more on division of labor than on integration. We discuss evidence that individuals display partition focus (i.e. they focus on partitioning the task more than on integration) and component focus (i.e. they tend to focus on single components of a tightly interrelated set of capabilities, particularly by investing to create highly specialized components). Second, when individuals attempt to reintegrate a task, they often fail to use a key mechanism for integration: ongoing communication. Individuals exhibit inadequate communication because the ‘curse of knowledge’ makes it difficult to take the perspective of another and communicate effectively. More importantly, because specialists find it especially difficult to communicate with each other, the

Draft—not to be cited A couple of decades ago, Bass (1990) said compellingly that people are “charisma-hungry ” when it comes to leadership. Invoking charisma and other components of transformational leadership (Burns, 1978; Conger & Kanungo, 1988) has rejuvenated leadership theory and research. To complete the picture, though, we should consider that people also are performance-hungry. Leadership theory and research emphasize leader style, interpersonal relationships, and followers ‟ reactions, and typically (with rare exception) do not include the problem-solving processes that yield desired results attributable at least in part to the leader‟s efforts. Discussing charisma, Madsen and Snow (1991; quoted in Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004) noted an additional, complementary causal sequence: followers ‟ belief in the leader “surely must be inspired by at least some hint of a real ability to deal with the followers ‟ problems. ” It is this possibility that constitutes the domain of interest in this manuscript. I describe a leadership model invoking the essential elements of: 1) leader performance, 2) leader behavior in the form of problem-solving activities that achieve

Intensive Work First draft – please do not cite without author’s permission This paper examines how and why a professional elite – the so-called “Magic Circle” of UK law firms – has become a taken-for-granted, legitimate, and extremely durable categorization of the most highly-reputed firms in the UK legal profession. Using both interview and documentary data, this study examines the process of institutionalization and belief formation in the context of two previously unresearched, and unconnected, models- the discursive model of institutionalization proposed by Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy (2004), and the model of industry belief systems described by Porac, Ventresca, & Mishina (2002). The study traces the historical evolution of this elite group, finding evidence to confirm the status of the Magic Circle categorization as both an institution, and as part of a cognitive belief system about the structure of the UK legal market. In particular, the study presents evidence to suggest that the business and professional media are important

This study focuses on culturally-endorsed implicit theories of leadership (CLTs) Although cross-cultural research emphasizes that different cultural groups likely have different conceptions of what leadership should entail, a controversial position is argued here, namely that attributes associated with charismatic/transformational leadership will be universally endorsed as contributing to outstanding leadership. This hypothesis was tested in 60 cultures as part of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program. Universally endorsed leader attributes, as well as attributes that are universally seen as impediments to outstanding leadership and culturally-contingent attributes are presented here. The results support the hypothesis that specific aspects of charismatic/transformational leadership are strongly and universally endorsed across cultures.

Previous research on charismatic leadership has sought to answer the question “Who has charisma? ” In the present research, we ask, “Who sees charisma? ” In Study 1, we find that lowpower individuals are more willing than those with high power to confer charisma on others. In Study 2, we replicate this effect and demonstrate an interaction between the power of the perceiver and the power of the target—for targets described as high-power, there is no difference in charisma conferral between low- and high-power perceivers, but for targets described as lowpower, low-power perceivers confer more charisma than do high-power perceivers. We find evidence of an underlying psychological mechanism: low-power perceivers are more readily encouraged to take action, regardless of the power of the target, and therefore confer more charisma.

recommendations on earlier versions of this manuscript. We thank Barbara Carlin, Bill Walker, Rick Larrick, and Lehman Benson who assisted us with data collection. We are appreciative to Leigh Plunkett Tost, Moira Praxedes, and Catherine Shea who worked as research assistants on this project. We are especially thankful to our colleagues in our

Notions of sustainability and stakeholders are moving into the mainstream of business practice and scholarship. What are the implications for organizational leadership? Freeman (2000) identified ‘the problem of leadership ’ in business ethics and stakeholder theory, and others (Gemmill & Oakley, 1992) have critiqued the very concept of leadership as ‘an alienating social myth’. This paper draws together these ideas to consider, first, whether the idea of leadership is an unnecessary (or even a counterproductive) construct, and second whether there is an implicit leadership philosophy embedded in a stakeholder approach to sustainability. The paper argues ‘no ’ to the first point, and ‘yes ’ to the second. It concludes by considering what models of leadership appear to be most promising for building and institutionalizing a sustainabilityfocused approach to business.

This research investigates a class of everyday inferences called quasi-magical explanations, which rest on the notion that imperceptible forces produce effects, as opposed to quasi-scientific explanations that are grounded in physical reality. I argue that quasi-magical explanations are likely to occur when an outcome is inexplicable in mechanistic terms and that they engender a different pattern of performance expectancies than do quasi-scientific explanations, such as those based on aptitudes. Study 1 provided evidence that explicable success raises expectancies in activities that use the same aptitude, but inexplicable success raises expectancies in activities that are associated with the same quasi-magical power, such as having insight into hidden qualities. Study 2 investigated quasi-magical explanations of an employee’s success, and found that ascribing success to inexplicable insight leads to perceptions of immeasurable characteristics such as intuition and talent, as well as expected success in leadership tasks that involve uncertainty. Study 3 examines the draw toward charismatic leaders as part of the principle of contagion--that a person’s vital essence of largely positive or negative energy can be transferred through contact. Study 4 investigates

Abstract not found

Urbana-Champaign. I wish to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of several colleagues: Larry