ARTÍCULOS

 

Prototipos de liderazgo en población civil y militar^*

 

Leadership prototypes in civilian and military population

 

 

Alejandro Castro Solano^**; Luciana Becerra^***; María Laura Lupano Perugini^****

^* Trabajo realizado en el marco del Proyecto PIP 6432 financiado por el Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET).
^** Doctor en Psicología. Miembro de la Carrera del Investigador del Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). Director del proyecto PIP 6432: Estudios sobre el liderazgo en población civil y militar. Teorías implícitas y efectividad de los líderes. Jean Jaures 437, 8° Piso, Dpto. 19, (1215) Buenos Aires. República Argentina. E-Mail: a.castro@fibertel.com.ar
^*** Psicóloga. Docente de la Facultad de Psicología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA).
^**** Psicóloga. Docente de la Facultad de Psicología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA).

 

 

---

RESUMEN

El presente estudio pretende identificar (en población civil y militar) los prototipos internalizados de liderazgo, los atributos que tienden a ser asignados a los líderes y las dimensiones de liderazgo privilegiadas en di­chos entornos. Participaron 488 cadetes militares (el 64% tenía personal a cargo) y 194 civiles, todos ocupaban cargos directivos y tenían personal a cargo. Se diseñó un instrumento ad-hoc, en el que se solicitaba a los participantes que nombraran a un líder efectivo, justifiquen su elección y señalen en una lista aquellos atributos que creían corresponder al líder elegido. Los resultados señalan que la población militar exhibe preferencia por personajes de trayectoria política y militar. Los civiles mostraron mayor variación en el prototipo de líder elegido, aunque se inclinaron a identificar como tales, a jefes cercanos a su ámbito laboral. Con respecto a los atributos asignados, los civiles identificaron con mayor frecuencia características individualistas como innovación, talento y logro de ob­jetivos; mientras que los militares privilegiaron las ca­rac­terísticas personales asociadas a la relación con el subalterno (consideración, motivación, abnegación). En el ámbito castrense se reconocieron atributos correspondientes al liderazgo orientado al grupo, en tanto los civiles se orientarían hacia un liderazgo carismático. Además, tanto civiles como militares exhibieron una actitud negativa hacia el liderazgo orientado hacia sí mismo. Los resultados obtenidos aportan evidencias sobre la existencia de diferencias significativas en la percepción del liderazgo en ambos contextos ya que se han observado discrepancias en los prototipos de líderes internalizados.

Palabras clave: Prototipos - Liderazgo - Civiles - Militares.

---

ABSTRACT

Leadership can be described as a natural process of influence that occurs between one person -the leader- and their followers. This process can be explained through different factors: the characteristics and leader behaviors, follower's perceptions and attributions, and the context in which this process occurs. The characteristics which are attributed to the leader vary across the context in which he or she is immersed, so the followers privilege some attributes above others. Different leadership prototypes can be found in different social groups because they are highly idiosyncratic. The objectives of this research consisted in identifying, in civilian and military population, leadership internalized prototypes, attributes which are frequently assigned to leaders, and leadership dimensions that are privileged in these contexts. Participants of this study were 488 cadets (90% male, 10% female), which were in different stretches of their military career. 64% (n = 312) of cadets directed other people. They were going through the third and fourth year of their military career. They directed groups of five people approximately. The other cadets (36%, n = 176) did not direct people. On the other hand, 194 civilians participated (37% males, 63% females), all of them directed people and occupied management positions. Data collection was realized in an anonymous and collective way using instruments designed ad-hoc, in which the participants were requested to name a person perceived by them as an effective leader and justify their choice. Moreover, the people would have to indicate, in a list, the attributes which they believed corresponded to the selected leader. These attributes were extracted from a larger list of adjectives which was proved, in transcultural studies, to evaluate the implicit leadership theories of effective leaders (Hanges & Dickson, 2004). In a previous study (Castro Solano, 2006) the four dimensions in which these 16 adjectives are structured were verified using factorial analysis. These dimensions are: charismatic leadership, group's oriented leadership, participative leadership, and self's orientated leadership. An analysis of the obtained answers was realized to verify if differences exist between both contexts. In military context there is preference for leaders who have a political or military background. Civilians show more variety in the selected internalized prototypes, but they selected people from their work contexts. In relation to selected attributes by the interviewed people, civilian participants identified individualistic characteristics with greater frequency, as innovation, talent and attainment of objectives; while the military participants assigned greater importance to the characteristics related to the consideration of the followers -consideration, motivation, abnegation. In the military context, attributes related to group orientation were selected; for example participants selected attributes related to effective resources administration, the solving of problems and appropriate group coordination. On the other hand, military and civilian participants, show a negative attitude towards self orientated leadership. This means that a leader shouldn't lack enough explicitness, shouldn't be poorly sociable, lonely, neither competitive with the members of his group. In summary, the results contribute to show evidences on the existence of significant differences in the attribution of leadership in the general population and the military context. Discrepancy was identified between the internalized prototypes of leadership in both contexts. Some limitations of the study are related to the dissimilar number of civilian and military participants, the unequal proportion of men and women and the great heterogeneity of ages. Future studies should revert these limitations. Furthermore, it can be relevant to verify the influence of contextual variables in the conformation of internalized leadership prototypes, as well as to demonstrate if the major congruence between conceptions of followers and the characteristics of their leaders generate more work satisfaction and efficacy.

Keywords: Prototypes - Leadership - Civilians - Military.

---

 

 

Texto completo

 

Referencias bibliográficasx

1 Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. & Sternberg, R. (2004). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.        [ Links ]

2 Brown, D.J., Scott, K.A. & Lewis, H. (2004). Information processing and leadership. En J. Antonakis, A.T. Cianciolo & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 125-147). London: Sage.        [ Links ]

3 Cantor, N. & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. En L. Berkovitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 3-52). NY: Academic Press.        [ Links ]

4 Castro Solano, A. (2006). Teorías implícitas del liderazgo, contexto y capacidad de conducción [Implicit leadership theories, context and leadership position]. Anales de Psicología, 22(1), 89-97.        [ Links ]

5 Castro Solano, A. & Casullo, M.M. (2003). Concepciones de civiles y militares argentinos sobre el liderazgo [Conceptions of leadership among military and civil argentinian]. Boletín de Psicología, 78, 63-79.        [ Links ]

6 Castro Solano, A. & Fernández Liporace, M. (2005). Predictores para la se­lección de cadetes en instituciones militares [Predictors for the selection of cadets in military institutions]. Psykhe, 14(1), 17-30.        [ Links ]

7 Castro Solano, A. & Lupano Perugini, M.L. (2005). Diferencias individuales en las teorías implícitas del liderazgo y la cultura organizacional percibida [Implicit leadership theories and organizational culture perception]. Boletín de Psicología, 85, 89-109.        [ Links ]

8 Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C. & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.         [ Links ]

9 Eden, D. & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736-741.        [ Links ]

10 Gervey, B.M., Chiu, C., Hong, Y. & Dweck, C.S. (1999). Differential use of person information in decisions about guilt versus innocence: The role of implicit theories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 17-27.        [ Links ]

11 Hanges, P.J. & Dickson, M.W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales. En R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 91-101). London: Sage Publications.        [ Links ]

12 Jacobs, T. (1991). Leadership in military performance. En R. Gal & D. Mangelsdorff (Eds.), Handbook of military Psychology (pp. 387-393). NY: Wiley and Sons.        [ Links ]

13 Kats, D. & Kahn, R. (1978). The social Psychology of organizations. NY: Wiley.        [ Links ]

14 López Zafra, E. (1998). Liderazgo carismático: Utilizando niveles de análisis para la comprensión de la relación carismática [Charismatic leadership: Using levels of analysis for the comprehension of the charismatic relation]. Tesis doctoral no publicada. Universidad de Jaén. España.        [ Links ]

15 Lord, R. & Maher, K. (1991). Leadership and information processing. London: Routledge.        [ Links ]

16 Morales, J. & Molero, F. (1995). Leadership in two types of healthcare organization. En J.M. Peiró & J.L. Oto Luque (Eds.), Work and organizational Psychology: European contributions of the nineties (pp. 209-221). UK: Erlbaum.         [ Links ]

17 Munford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Harding, F.D., Jacobs, T.O. & Fleishman, E.A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11-20.        [ Links ]

18 Olid Martínez, P. (2002). Liderazgo militar [Military leadership]. Military Review, 20-29.        [ Links ]

19 Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. En E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 28-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.        [ Links ]

20 Shaw, J. (1990). A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435-454.        [ Links ]

21 Wofford, J.C. & Goodwin, V.L. (1994). A cognitive interpretation of transactional and transformational leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 161-186.        [ Links ]

22 Wofford, J., Godwin, V. & Wittington, J. (1998). A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 55-84.        [ Links ]

23 Yekeay, G. (2002). El liderazgo situacional [Situational leadership]. Military Review, 42-53.         [ Links ]

 

 

Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET).
Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA). Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires - República Argentina.

Fecha de recepción: 18 de julio de 2006
Fecha de aceptación: 12 de febrero de 2007