The Value Based Leadership Theory

                          Managers do things right
                          Leaders do the right things…
                        Value Based Leadership Theory



                                 Moscow 1999



“Leaders are dealers in hope” Bonaparte Napoleon
           “We will build a winning tradition” Vince Lombardi to the Green
                                 Bay Packers



      Consider the above quotations. These statements of leaders reflect
commitment to a value position.  In this paper I am going to describe a
brand new theory of leadership, developed by Professor House  - the Value
Based Leadership Theory. I will also present a preliminary test of several
hypotheses derived from Value Based Theory.  The tests of hypotheses are
based on data descriptive of 25 relationships between chief executives and
their immediate subordinates. As a concrete example, I am going to present
the results of the real interviews, which took plase in  Russia in 1999
among the CEOs. In the process of testing these hypotheses I replicate the
study of charismatic leadership in the U. S. presidency conducted by House,
Spangler & Woycke (1991) using a sample of chief executive officers and
different measurement methods. What I am trying to prove in this paper is
the following: It was considered to think that managers are always the
leadres in the organization. This opinion was proved to be wrong. According
to the first research which appaered in press in the end of 70-s: manager
is the position, and leader is the person who leads others to the desired
result. According to the personal trends and characteristics, managers
should be leaders, and they are, but not always. The question of leadership
is a very interesting topic for me, personally.
     I am deeply interested in the question of leadership, and I  do  think,
that this question and the existing theories  have  a  long  life  to  live.
Leadership is a real fact, which has already been proved. You can be a  born
leader, but you also can create the leader in yourself. You  can  manage  to
influence, motivate and enable others. You can  succeed,  because  there  is
nothing impossible for a human being. Especially, if he  is  intelligent  on
the one hand and really wishes to achieve something on the other.

                          A BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW

     During the period between the mid-seventies  and  the  present  time  a
number of theories have been  introduced  into  the  leadership  literature.
These  new  theories  and  the  empirical  research  findings  constitute  a
paradigm shift in the study of leadership.  The theories to  which  I  refer
are  the  1976  Theory  of  Charismatic  Leadership   (House,   1977),   the
Attributional  Theory  of  Charisma  (Conger  &  Kanungo,  1987),  and   the
Transformational  Theory (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985), and  Visionary  Theories
of Leadership (Bennis &  Nanus,  1985;  Sashkin,  1988;  Kousnes  &  Posner,
1987).
     I believe these theories are all of a common genre.   They  attempt  to
explain how leaders are able to lead  organizations  to  attain  outstanding
accomplishments  such  as   the   founding   and   growing   of   successful
entrepreneurial firms, corporate turnarounds in  the  face  of  overwhelming
competition, military victories in the face of superior  forces,  leadership
of successful social movements and movements for independence from  colonial
rule or political  tyranny.   They  also  attempt  to  explain  how  certain
leaders are able to achieve extraordinary  levels  of  follower  motivation,
admiration,   respect,   trust,   commitment,   dedication,   loyalty,   and
performance.
     The dependent variables of earlier theories are follower  expectations,
satisfaction, and normal levels of performance. The dependent  variables  of
the more recent theories include a number of affective consequences such  as
followers’  emotional  attachment  to  leaders;  followers’  emotional   and
motivational arousal, and thus enhancement of follower valences  and  values
with respect to the missions articulated by leaders;  followers’  trust  and
confidence in leaders; and values  that  are  of  major  importance  to  the
followers.  These more recent theories also address the  effect  of  leaders
on several follower conditions not addressed in earlier  theories,  such  as
followers' self-worth  and  self-efficacy  perceptions,  and  identification
with the leader’s vision.
     Earlier theories  describe  leader  behavior  that  are  theoretically
instrumental  to  follower  performance  and  satisfy  follower  needs   for
support, generally referred to as task-and person-oriented leader  behaviors
(Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Katz & Kahn, 1952; Likert, 1961;  Feidler,  1967;
House, 1971, House, 1996).  In contrast, the  more  recent  theories  stress
the infusion of values into organizations and work through leader  behaviors
that are symbolic, inspirational and emotion arousing.
     Earlier  theories  take  follower  attitudes,  values,   desires,   and
preferences as given.  The more recent theory claim that  leaders  can  have
substantial, if not  profound  effects  on  these  affective  and  cognitive
states of followers.  Accordingly, leaders are  claimed  to  transform  both
individuals and total organizations by infusing  them  with  moral  purpose,
thus  appealing  to  ideological  values  and  emotions  of   organizational
members, rather than by offering  material  incentives  and  the  threat  of
punishment, or by appealing to pragmatic or instrumental values.
     Also, McClelland (1975) introduced a theory intended to explain  leader
effectiveness as a function of a specific combination  of  motives  referred
to as the Leader Motive Profile (LMP).  As will be shown below, this  theory
complements the newer theories referred to above.
     Since the early 1980s, more than  fifty  empirical  studies  have  been
conducted to test the validity of the more recent  theories  of  leadership.
Empirical evidence is discussed in more detail below.  First,  however,  the
valued based leadership theory will be described.


                        VALUE BASED LEADERSHIP THEORY

     The theory  is  intended  to  integrate  the  newer  theories  and  the
empirical evidence alluded to above.  Value based leadership is  defined  as
a relationship between an individual (leader)  and  one  or  more  followers
based on shared strongly internalized ideological  values  espoused  by  the
leader and strong follwower identification with these values.    Ideological
values are values concerning what is morally right and wrong.   Such  values
are expressed in terms of personal moral  responsibility,  altruism,  making
significant social contributions to others, concern for  honesty,  fairness,
and  meeting  obligations  to  others  such  as  followers,  customers,   or
organizational stakeholders.  Value based leadership is asserted  to  result
in: a) exceptionally strong identification of  followers  with  the  leader,
the collective vision  espoused  by  the  leader,  and  the  collective;  b)
internalized commitment to the vision of the leader and to  the  collective;
c) arousal of follower motives that are relevant to  the  accomplishment  of
the collective vision; and d) follower willingness to make substantial  self
sacrifices and extend effort above and beyond the call of duty.
     The title Value Based Leadership Theory has been chosen to reflect  the
essence of the genre of  leadership  described  by  the  theory.   The  1976
theory  of  charismatic  leadership  is  a  precursor  to  the  value  based
leadership theory.  The  title  “charismatic  leadership”  has  been  chosen
because of its cavalier popular connotation.  The  term  charisma  is  often
taken in the colloquial sense, rather  than  the  somewhat  technical  sense
conceived by Max Weber. The word charisma commonly invokes impressions of  a
person who is charming, attractive, and  sometimes  macho,  flamboyant,  and
sexually appealing.  In contrast, Value  Based  Leadership  is  intended  to
convey the notion of a leader who arouses follower latent values  or  causes
followers to internalize  new  values.   Such  value  communication  can  be
enacted  in  a  quiet,  non-emotionally  expressive  manner  or  in  a  more
emotionally expressive manner.  Examples of leaders  who  have  communicated
values  to  followers  in  an  emotionally  expressive  manner  are  Winston
Churchill, Lee Iacocca, Martin Luther King, and John F.  Kennedy.   Examples
of leaders who have communicated values to followers in a  less  emotionally
expressive manner are Mother Teresa, Mahatma Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela.
     A second reason for abandoning the term charisma  is  that  in  current
usage it implies that the collectivities  led  by  charismatic  leaders  are
highly leader-centered and that the leader is the source of all,  or  almost
all, organizational strategy and  inspiration  of  followers.   One  popular
conception of charismatic  leadership  is  that  it  is  necessarily  highly
directive and disempowering of followers (Lindholm, 1990).  In  this  paper,
I hope to demonstrate the huge potential for value based  leadership  to  be
empowering and effective.

              The Process and Effects of Value Based Leadership
     In this section, an overview of what Value Based leadership is and  how
it works is presented. There  is  both  theory  and  empirical  evidence  to
suggest  that  value  based  leadership  has   a   substantial   effect   on
organizational performance. Waldman and his associates reported two  studies
of  value  based  leader  behavior  as  an  antecedent   to   organizational
profitability (Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1996;  Waldman,  Atwater  &  House,
1996).  In these  studies  value  based  leadership  accounted  for  between
fifteen and twenty five percent of firm profitability over the  three  years
following the time at  which  value  based  leadership  was  assessed.   The
design  of  these  studies  controlled  for  executive  tenure,  firm  size,
environmental turbulence, and prior firm profitability.
     The theoretical process by which value-based  leadership  functions  is
described  in  the  following  paragraphs.  Evidence  for  this  process  is
presented in more detail in later sections in which  the  specific  theories
contributing to value based leadership theory is discussed.
     Value based leaders infuse collectives, organizations,  and  work  with
ideological values by articulating an ideological  vision,  a  vision  of  a
better future to which followers are claimed to  have  a  moral  right.   By
claiming that followers have this right,  the   values  articulated  in  the
vision are rendered ideological - expressions of what is morally  right  and
good. Ideological values are usually, if not always, end  values  which  are
intrinsically satisfying in  their  own  right.  In  contrast  to  pragmatic
values such as  material  gain,  pay,  and  status,  end  values  cannot  be
exchanged for other  values.   Examples  of  end  values  are  independence,
dignity, equality, the right to education  and  self-determination,  beauty,
and a world of peace and order.  Ideological values  theoretically  resonate
with the deeply held values and emotions of followers.
     Acccording to value based leadership theory the visions articulated  by
this genre of leaders are consistent with the  collective  identity  of  the
followers, and are emotionally and motivationally  arousing.  Emotional  and
motivational arousal induces follower  identification  with  the  collective
vision and with the collective, results  in  enhncement  of  follower  self-
efficacy and self-worth, and have powerful motivtional effects on  followers
and on overall orgnizational performance.
     Leaders of industrial and  government  organizations  often  articulate
visions for their  organizations.   Such  visions  need  not  be  grandiose.
Visions of outstanding leaders in the normal work  world  can  embrace  such
ideological  values  as  a  challenging  and  rewarding  work   environment;
professional development  opportunities;  freedom  from  highly  controlling
rules and supervision; a fair  return  to  major  constituencies;  fairness,
craftsmanship and integrity; high quality services or products;  or  respect
for organizational members, clients or customers and for the environment  in
which the organization functions.  Whether conceived solely by  the  leader,
by  prior  members  of  the  collective,  or  jointly  with  followers,  the
articulation of a collective ideological  vision  by  leaders  theoretically
results in self-sacrifice and effort, above and beyond the call of duty,  by
organizational  members  and  exceptional  synergy  among  members  of   the
collective.
     Follower  respect,  trust,  and  self-sacrifice   are   stimulated   by
identification with the values inherent  in  the  leader's  vision  and  the
leader's demonstration of courage, determination and self-sacrifice  in  the
interest  of  the  organization  and  the   vision.    According   to   this
perspective, value based leaders use follower value identifiction,  and  the
respect and trust they earn to motivate high  performance  and  a  sense  of
mission  in  quest  of  the  collective  vision,  and  to  introduce   major
organizational change.  For some individuals, latent values are  brought  to
consciousness as a result of the vision articulated by value based  leaders.
Also, some individuals change their values to be consistent  with  those  of
the leader.
     Visions articulated by value  based  leaders  need  not  be  formulated
exclusively by a  single  leader.   The  collective  vision  may  have  been
initially conceived by leaders and members of the  collective  who  preceded
the current leader.  In this case, the leader is  one  who  perpetuates  the
vision by continuing to communicate it  and  institutionalizing  it  through
the  establishment  and  maintenance  of   institutional   means   such   as
strategies,   policies,   norms,   rituals,   ceremonies,    and    symbols.
Alternatively, organizational  visions  can  be  formulated  by  leaders  in
conjunction with organizational members.
     The effects of the articulation of and emphasis on  ideological  values
are rather profound.  Organizational members  become  aware  of  ideological
values that they share  with  the  leader  and  as  a  collective.   Members
identify with the collective vision and with the organization--thus  a  high
level of  collective  cohesion  is  developed.   Collaborative  interactions
among organizational members is enhanced.  Individuals  experience  a  sense
of collective efficacy and a heightened sense of self-esteem as a result  of
their cohesion and the leader's expressions of confidence in  their  ability
to attain the vision.  Further, motives relevant to  the  accomplishment  of
the vision are aroused and organizational members come to judge their  self-
worth in terms of their contribution to the collective  and  the  attainment
of the vision.
     The result is strongly internalized member  commitment,  and  intrinsic
motivation to contribute to the organization and to the  collective  vision.
Members are more inclined to support changes in  technology,  structure  and
strategies  introduced  by  top  management,  which   may   result   in   an
organizational culture characterized by values oriented toward teamwork  and
meeting customers', clients', constituents' and  competitive  needs.   There
ensues a marked  reduction  in  intra-organizational  conflict  and  a  high
degree of team effort and effectiveness.  As  noted  above,  members  expend
effort above and beyond the call of duty, and sacrifice their  self-interest
in the interest of the organization.  As a  result,  individual  motivation,
organizational culture, strategy and structure are likely to become  aligned
with the collective vision.
     A reinforcing process may also  occur  whereby  organizational  members
increase their respect for and confidence  in  the  leader  and  each  other
based on the resulting organizational success.  As a result,  their  initial
confidence  and  motivation  is  further  reinforced.   Such   effects   are
consistent with the notion of romanticized  leadership  (Meindl,  Ehrlich  &
Dukerich, 1985).  The resulting increased confidence in the leader  in  turn
gives the leader  more  influence  and  thus  contributes  to  the  leader's
ability to further influence organizational performance.
     This is an “ideal type” theoretical scenario.  Clearly all the  aspects
of this scenario will not always come  to  fruition  in  response  to  value
based leadership.  No such  claim  is  made.   Rather,  it  is  argued  that
organizational  members  will  be  motivated  on   the   basis   of   shared
internalized values and identification with the leader and  the  collective,
which are far more motivational than alternative bases of motivation.
     It  is  possible  that  value  based  leaders  may   introduce   flawed
strategies and that the result may  be  organizational  decline  or  failure
rather than improvement and success.  It is also possible  that  the  leader
may stand for socially undesirable values  such  as  ethnocentrism,  racism,
persecution,  dishonesty,  or  unfair  or  illegal   competitive   practices
(Lindholm 1990).  Regardless of the strategy  or  values  expressed  by  the
leader, it is argued that  a  relationship  based  on  value  identification
between leader and organizational members will result  in  increased  member
commitment and motivation, as well as increased organizational cohesion.

                             EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

      There is extensive empirical evidence with respect to the  effects  of
behaviors  specified  by  value  based  leadership   theory.    Charismatic,
visionary, and transformational theories of  leadership  are  precursors  of
the leader behaviors specified by value based leadership theory.   Tests  of
these theories have been based on various operationalizations  that  qualify
as measures  of  value  based  leadership  including  interviews  (Howell  &
Higgins,  1990),  laboratory  experimentation   (Howell   &   Frost,   1989;
Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), questionnaires (Lowe, Kroeck &  Sivasubramaniam,
1995), and quantified archival data (House, Spangler &  Woycke,  1991).   In
all of these tests, the leader behavior measured  consists  of  articulating
an organizational vision and behaving in  ways  that  reinforce  the  values
inherent in the vision, thus qualifying as  indirect  evidence  relevant  to
the  effects  of  value  based  leadership.   Space  limitations  prevent  a
detailed review of the evidence.  However, Bass  and  Avolio  (1993),  House
and Shamir (1993), Lowe et al,. (1995), and Yukl (1994),  present  overviews
of these studies. With surprising consistency these empirical  studies  have
demonstrated consistently that value based leader behavior predicts  unusual
levels of leader  effectiveness  directed  toward  enhancing  organizational
performance.
     Support for the effects of value based leadership is illustrated  by  a
recent meta-analysis of the charisma subscale of the Bass and Avolio  (1989)
Multifacet  Leadership  Questionnaire  (MLQ).   The  MLQ  charisma  subscale
describes relationships between subordinates and superiors.   Superiors  who
receive high scores on this scale are described by  subordinates  as  having
an exciting vision of the future for the organization they lead,  and  being
exceptionally motivational, trustworthy, and deserving of respect.
     Support for  the  theoretical  main  effects  of  value  based  leader
behavior has been demonstrated at  several  levels  of  analysis  including
dyads, small informal groups, major departments of  complex  organizations,
overall performance of educational and  profit  making  organizations,  and
nation states.  The evidence is derived from  a  wide  variety  of  samples
including military officers, educational administrators,  middle  managers,
subjects  in  laboratory  experiments  and   management   simulations,   US
presidents and chief executive  officers  of  Fortune  500  firms  (Bass  &
Avolio, 1993; House & Shamir, 1993; Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1996).
     The evidence shows that the effects of value based leader behavior  are
rather widely generalizable in the United States  and  that  they  may  well
generalize across cultures.   For instance, studies based  on  the  charisma
scale of the MLQ have  demonstrated  similar  findings  in  India  (Periera,
1987), Singapore (Koh, Terborg &  Steers,  1991),  The  Netherlands  (Koene,
Pennings & Schreuder, 1991), China, Germany, and Japan (Bass, 1997).
     In summary, the studies based on various operationalizations  of  value
based leadership clearly show that this genre of  leadership  results  in  a
high level of follower  motivation  and  commitment  and  well-above-average
organizational  performance,  especially  under  conditions  of  crises   or
uncertainty (Pillai  &  Meindl,  1991;  House,  Spangler,  &  Woycke,  1995;
Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1996; Waldman, Atwater & House, 1996).

                          NEWLY INTEGRATED THEORIES

     The value based theory of leadership integrates the precursor  theories
discussed  above  with  a  number  of   assertions   advanced   in   several
psychological theories of motivation and behavior.   Following  is  a  brief
review of the psychological theories that  are  integrated  into  the  Value
Based Leadership Theory.

              McClelland's Theories of Non-conscious Motivation
     According to this theory, the motivational aspects of human beings  can
be  understood  in  terms  of  four   non-conscious   motives   in   various
combinations (McClelland, 1985). These motives are the  achievement,  power,
affiliation, and social responsibility motives.  McClelland has developed  a
theory of entrepreneural effectiveness based  on  the  role  of  achievement
motivation, and a more general theory of leader effectiveness consisting  of
theoretical assertions concerning the optimum combination of the above  four
motives for effective  leadership.   This  theory  is  entitled  the  Leader
Motive Profile Theory (LMP).  In the following sections we discuss the  four
motives discussed by McClelland and the LMP theory.

                           Achievement Motivation
     Achievement motivation  is  defined  as  a  non-conscious  concern  for
achieving excellence in accomplishments  through  one's  individual  efforts
(McClelland,  Atkinson,  Clark,  &  Lowell,  1958).   Achievement  motivated
individuals  set  challenging  goals   for   themselves,   assume   personal
responsibility  for  goal  accomplishment,  are  highly  persistent  in  the
pursuit of goals, take  calculated  risks  to  achieve  goals  and  actively
collect and use information for feedback purposes.   Achievement  motivation
is theoretically  predicted  to  contribute  to  effective  entrepreneurship
(McClelland, 1985) and effective leadership of small  task  oriented  groups
(House  et  al.,   1991).    Litwin   and   Stringer   (1968)   demonstrated
experimentally that small groups led by  managers  who  enacted  achievement
oriented and  arousing  behaviors  were  more  effective  than  groups  with
managers who did not.
     In  management  positions  at  higher  levels  in  organizations,   and
particularly in organizational settings  where  technical  requirements  are
few  and  impact  on  others  is  of  fundamental   importance,   managerial
effectiveness depends on the extent to which managers  delegate  effectively
and  motivate  and  co-ordinate  others.   Theoretically,  high  achievement
motivated managers are  strongly  inclined  to  be  personally  involved  in
performing the work of their organization  and  are  reluctant  to  delegate
authority and responsibility.  Therefore,  high  achievement  motivation  is
expected to predict poor  performance  of  high-level  executives  in  large
organizations. House et al. (1991)  found  that  achievement  motivation  of
U.S. presidents was significantly inversely related to archival measures  of
U.S. presidential effectiveness.

                           Affiliative Motivation
     Affiliative motivation  is  defined  as  a  non-conscious  concern  for
establishing, maintaining, and restoring close personal  relationships  with
others.  Individuals with  high  affiliative  motivation  tend  to  be  non-
assertive,  submissive,  and  dependent  on   others   (McClelland,   1985).
Theoretically,  highly  affiliative  motivated  managers  are  reluctant  to
monitor the  behavior  of  subordinates,  to  convey  negative  feedback  to
subordinates even when required, or to discipline subordinates  for  ethical
transgressions   or   violations   of   organizational   policies.    Highly
affiliative motivated managers are also theoretically expected to manage  on
the basis of personal relationships with  subordinates  and  therefore  show
favoritism toward some.  House et al.  (1991)  found  that  the  affiliative
motive  was  significantly  negatively  correlated  with  U.S.  presidential
charismatic  leadership  and  archival   measures   of   U.S.   presidential
effectiveness.

                              Power Motivation
     Power motivation is defined as a non-conscious  concern  for  acquiring
status and  having  an  impact  on  others.   Individuals  with  high  power
motivation tend to  enjoy  asserting  social  influence,  being  persuasive,
drawing attention to themselves, and having an  impact  on  their  immediate
environment including the people with whom they interact. Theoretically,  if
enacted in a socially constructive  manner,  high  power  motivation  should
result  in  effective  managerial  performance  in  high   level   positions
(McClelland, 1975;  1985).  However, unless constrained by a  responsibility
disposition, power motivated managers will exercise power in an  impetuously
aggressive manner for self aggrandizing purposes to the detriment  of  their
subordinates and organizations.
     High power motivation induces highly competitive behavior.   Therefore,
when unconstrained by moral inhibition, power  motivation  is  theoretically
predictive of leader effectiveness when the role demands of leaders  require
strong individual competitiveness, aggressiveness,  manipulative  exploitive
behavior, or the exercise of substantial  political  influence.   The  power
motive  was  found  by  House  et  al.  (1991)  to   significantly   predict
presidential charismatic behavior  and  archival  measures  of  presidential
effectiveness.

                         Responsibility Disposition
     According to McClelland, individuals who have a high  concern  for  the
moral exercise of power will use power in an  altruistic  and  collectively-
oriented  manner.   Indicators  of  high  concern  for  responsibility   are
expressions of concern about meeting  moral  standards  and  obligations  to
others, concern for others, concern about consequences of one’s own  action,
and critical self judgment.
     Winter and Barenbaum  (1985)  developed  and  validated  a  measure  of
concern for  moral  responsibility,  which  they  label  the  responsibility
disposition1.  The measure is based  on  quantitative  content  analysis  of
narrative   text   material.    Winter   (1991)   demonstrated   that    the
responsibility  disposition,  in  combination  with  high  power   and   low
affiliative motivation, was predictive of managerial success over a sixteen-
year interval.
     The responsibility motive should be predictive of leader integrity  and
leaders' concern for the  consequences  of  their  own  actions  on  others.
Leaders with high responsibility disposition  are  expected  to  stress  the
importance  of  keeping  one's  word,  honesty,   fairness,   and   socially
responsible behavior.  Thus, we expect the responsibility disposition to  be
associated with value based leader  behavior,  supportive  leader  behavior,
fairness, follower trust and respect for the leader and  commitment  to  the
leader’s vision, and consequently organizational effectiveness.

                        Leader Motive Profile Theory
     McClelland  (1975)  argued  that  the  following  combination  of  non-
conscious motives are generic to, and predictive of,  leader  effectiveness:
high power motivation, moderate achievement  motivation,  high  concern  for
the moral exercise of power, and power motivation greater  than  affiliative
motivation.  This combination  of  motives  is  referred  to  by  McClelland
(1975) as the Leader Motive Profile (LMP).
     According to LMP theory, the power motive is necessary for  leaders  to
be  effective  because  it  induces  them  to  engage  in  social  influence
behavior, and such behavior is required for effective leadership.   Further,
when the power motive is higher than the affiliative motive, individuals  do
not engage in the  dysfunctional  behaviors  usually  associated  with  high
affiliation motivation  -  favoritism,  submissiveness,  and  reluctance  to
monitor and discipline subordinates.  Finally, when  high  power  motivation
is coupled with a high concern for  moral  responsibility,  individuals  are
predicted to engage in the exercise of power in an  effective  and  socially
desirable manner. Earlier research, also  reviewed  by   McClelland  (1985),
suggests that the  achievement  motive  is  a  better  predictor  of  leader
effectiveness and success in entrepreneurial organizations than LMP.
     Theoretically the leader motive profile  is  predictive  of  managerial
effectiveness  under  conditions  where  leaders  need  to  exercise  social
influence in the process  of  making  decisions  and  motivating  others  to
accept and implement decisions.  In formal  organizations  these  conditions
are found at higher levels and in non-technical functions.  By contrast,  in
smaller technologically based  organizations,  group  leaders  can  rely  on
direct contact with subordinates (rather than  delegation  through  multiple
organizational levels),  and  technological  knowledge  to  make  decisions.
Thus LMP theory is limited to the boundary conditions of moderate  to  large
non-technologically  oriented  organizations   (McClelland,  1975;   Winter,
1978; 1991), and to  managers  who  are  separated  from  the  work  of  the
organization by at least one organizational level.
     Several studies have demonstrated support for  the LMP theory.   Winter
(1978) found that LMP was predictive of the career success  of  entry  level
managers in non-technical positions  in  the  US  Navy  over  an  eight-year
interval.  Both McClelland  and  Boyatzis  (1982),  and  Winter  (1991),  in
separate analyses of the same data but  with  different  operationalizations
of LMP,  found  similar  results  at  AT&T  over  a  sixteen-year  interval.
McClelland and Burnham (1976) found high-LMP managers  had  more  supportive
and rewarding organizational climates, and higher  performing  sales  groups
than low-LMP managers did in a large  sales  organization.   House,  et  al.
(1991)  found  that  the  motive  components  of  the   LMP   predicted   US
presidential charisma and presidential performance effectiveness.
     Since high LMP leaders have greater power than  affiliative  motivation
it is  expected  that  they  will  be  assertive  and  at  least  moderately
directive.  Further, since they have high responsibility  motivation  it  is
expected that thay will have highly internalized idological values -  values
concerning what is morally right and wrong - and that they will thus  stress
ideological value orientation, integrity, and fairness, as explained  above,
both verbally and through personal example.

                     The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
     The essence of path-goal  theory  is  that  leader  behaviors  will  be
effective when such behaviors  complement  formal  organizational  practices
and the  informal  social  system  by  providing  direction,  clarification,
support  and  motivational  incentives  to  subordinates,  which   are   not
otherwise provided (House, 1971;  House  &  Mitchell,  1974;  House,  1996).
According to  the  1996  version  of  path-goal  theory,  leaders  who  give
approval and recognition of subordinates, contingent on performance  and  in
a fair manner, will clarify expectancies  of  subordinates  concerning  work
goals and rewards, and will effectively motivate subordinates.  This  theory
also predicts that leader consideration  toward  subordinates  provides  the
psychological support subordinates require, especially in  times  of  stress
and frustration.
     Path-goal  theory  suggests  that  either  participative  or  directive
leader behavior  can  provide  psychological  structure  and  direction  and
therefore clarify  subordinates'  role  demands.   Theoretically,  directive
leader behavior will be  dysfunctional  and  participative  leader  behavior
will be functional when subordinates are  highly  involved  in  their  work,
perceive themselves as having  a  high  level  of  task  related  knowledge,
and/or prefer a high level of autonomy.  Meta-analyses of 135  relationships
tested in prior studies provide support  for  these  assertions  (Wofford  &
Liska, 1993).

                   Dissonance Theory and Competing Values
     According  to  cognitive  dissonance  theory,  individuals   experience
anxiety-inducing   cognitive   dissonance   when    their    self-evaluative
cognitions,  feelings  and  behavior  are  in  conflict  with   each   other
(Festinger,  1980).   Under  such  conditions,  individuals   are   strongly
motivated to reduce the dissonance by changing one or more of the  dissonant
components--either their behavior, their cognitions, or their feelings.   It
follows from dissonance theory  that  when  leaders  appeal  to  ideological
values of followers and also administer extrinsic material rewards  strictly
contingent on follower performance, they will  induce  cognitive  dissonance
in followers.  Offering  strong  extrinsic  incentives  for  doing  what  is
claimed to be morally correct will theoretically induce dissonance,  and  is
likely to undermine the effects of leaders' appeals to  ideological  values.
From dissonance theory, we would expect that with the  exception  of  social
rewards such as approval and recognition, contingent reward behavior on  the
part of leaders will undermine the effects of value based leader behavior.

                                Equity Theory
     Equity theory asserts that  when  individuals  perceive  the  ratio  of
their contributions to their rewards (intrinsic or extrinsic)  to  be  equal
to the ratio of contributions to rewards of others, they will  believe  that
they are treated fairly (Adams, 1963).  We expect that under  conditions  of
perceived unfairness followers will feel resentment,  be  demotivated,  will
not support and may even resist attempts by leaders to influence them.

                            Situational Strength
     Mischel  (1973)  has  argued  that  the   psychological   strength   of
situations influences the degree to which individual  dispositions  such  as
motives  or  personality  traits   are   expressed   behaviorally.    Strong
situations are situations  in  which  there  are  strong  behavioral  norms,
strong incentives for specific types of behaviors,  and  clear  expectations
concerning what behaviors are rewarded.   According  to  this  argument,  in
strong situations, motivational or personality  tendencies  are  constrained
and there will be little behavioral expression of  individual  dispositions.
Thus, in organizations that are highly  formalized  and  governed  by  well-
established role expectations, norms, rules, policies and procedures,  there
is less opportunity  for  organizational  members  to  behaviorally  express
their dispositional tendencies.
     Theoretically, in strong psychological situations, leader motives  have
less influence on leader behavior, and leader behavior  has  less  influence
on subordinates and on organizational outcomes than  in  weak  psychological
situations.  Studies by Monson, Healy and  Chernick  (1982),  Lee,  Ashford,
and Bobko (1990), and Barrick and Mount  (1993)  have  demonstrated  support
for Mischel's situational strength argument.

                      THE VALUE BASED LEADERSHIP THEORY

This theory consists of six axioms and twenty-seven propositions that
relate leader behavior, leader motives, and situational variables to leader
effectiveness.
         The Parsimonious Meta–Proposition of Value Based Leadership
     Value based leadership theory is based  on  the  meta–proposition  that
non-conscious motives and motivation based on strongly  internalized  values
is stronger, more pervasive, and more  enduring  than  motivation  based  on
instrumental calculations of anticipated  rewards  or  motivation  based  on
threat and avoidance  of  punishment.   The  axioms  and  propositions  that
follow are derived  from   and  can  all  be  explained  in  terms  of  this
parsimonious meta-proposition.

                  The Value Based Leader Behavior Syndrome

     Behaviors  that  characterize  value  based   leadership   include   a)
articulation of a challenging vision of a better future to  which  followers
are claimed  to  have  a  moral  right;  b)  unusual  leader  determination,
persistence, and self-sacrifice in  the  interest  of  the  vision  and  the
values  inherent  in  the  vision;  c)  communication  of  high  performance
expectations of followers and confidence in their ability to  contribute  to
the collective; d) display of self-confidence, confidence in followers,  and
confidence in the attainment of the vision; e)  display  of  integrity;   f)
expressions of concern for the interests of followers  and  the  collective;
g) positive evaluation of followers and the collective; h) instrumental  and
symbolic behaviors that emphasize and reinforce the values inherent  in  the
collective vision; i) role modelling behaviors that set a  personal  example
of  the  values  inherent  in  the  collective  vision;  j)  frame-alignment
behaviors--behaviors intended to align followers' attitudes,  schemata,  and
frames with the values of the collective  vision;  and,  k)  behaviors  that
arouse follower motives relevant to the pursuit of the vision.  We refer  to
these behaviors collectively as the value based leader behavior syndrome.
     This specification of value  based  leader  behaviors   integrates  the
behaviors specified in prior extensions of the 1976  theory  of  charismatic
leadership as well as behaviors specified in other theories of  charismatic,
transformational and visionary leadership.  House and Shamir (1993)  provide
the rationale for inclusion  of  the  above  behaviors  in  the  theoretical
leader behavior syndrome.

                                   Axioms
     Axioms are statements, the validity of which  are  taken  for  granted,
either because the enjoy  substantial  empirical  evidence  or  becuse  they
cannot  be  tested.   Axioms  provide  a  foundation   for   more   specific
statements, such as  propositions.   The  axioms  stated  here  provide  the
foundation for the selection of leader  behaviors  from  among  all  of  the
leader behaviors specified in the various theories described above.

                     Axioms Concerning Human Motivation
1.  Humans tend to be not only pragmatic and  goal-oriented,  but  are  also
self-expressive.  It is assumed that  behavior  is  not  only  instrumental-
calculative, but also expressive of feelings,  aesthetic  values  and  self-
concepts.  We "do" things because of who we "are," because by doing them  we
establish and affirm an identity for  ourselves,  at  times  even  when  our
behavior does not serve our materialistic or pragmatic self-interests.
2.  People are motivated to maintain and  enhance  their  generalized  self-
efficacy and self-worth.  Generalized self-efficacy is based on a  sense  of
competence, power, or ability to cope with and  control  one's  environment.
Self-worth is based on a sense of virtue and moral worth and is grounded  in
norms and values concerning conduct.
3.  People are also motivated to retain and increase their  sense  of  self-
consistency.  Self-consistency refers to correspondence among components  of
the self-concept at a given time, to continuity  of  the  self-concept  over
time, and to correspondence between the self-concept and  behavior.   People
derive a sense of "meaning" from continuity between the  past,  the  present
and  the  projected  future,  and  from  the  correspondence  between  their
behavior and self-concept.
4.   Self-concepts  are  composed  of  values,  perceptions  of  self-worth,
efficacy, and  consistency,  and  also  identities.   Identities,  sometimes
referred to as role-identities, link the self-concept  to  society.   Social
identities locate the self  in  socially  recognizable  categories  such  as
nations, organizations and  occupations,  thus  enabling  people  to  derive
meaning from being linked to social collectives.
5.  Humans can be  strongly  motivated  by  faith.   When  goals  cannot  be
clearly specified or the  subjective  probabilities  of  accomplishment  and
rewards are not high,  people  may  be  motivated  by  faith  because  being
hopeful in the sense of having faith in a better future is an  intrinsically
satisfying condition.
6.  When individual motives are aroused in the interest  of  the  collective
effort, and when  individual  identify  with  the  values  inherent  in  the
collective vision, they will evaluate themselves on the basis of the  degree
to which they contribute to the  collective  effort.   Under  conditions  of
motive arousal and  value  identiication  individuals  experience  intrinsic
satisfaction from their contribution to the collective effort and  intrinsic
dissatisfaction from failure to contribute to collective efforts.
     These  axioms  incorporate  the  extensions  of  the  1976  theory   of
charismatic leadership offered by  Shamir,  House  and  Arthur  (1993),  and
House and Shamir (1995) and provide the integrative framework for the  Value
Based Theory of Leadership.

                                PROPOSITIONS
      The theory is expressed in the form of twenty-seven propositions which
assert specific ways in which leader motives and behaviors,  in  conjunction
with situational variables, affect follower motivation and  performance  and
organizational performance.  These propositions are based on the  leadership
and psychological theories reviewed above and reflect the extensions of  the
1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership contributed by House  et  al.  (1991),
Shamir et al. (1993), House and Shamir  (1993),  and  Waldman,  Ramirez  and
House (1996).

           Propositions Concerning Leader Behavior and Its Effects

1. The motivational effects of the  behaviors  of  the  value  based  leader
behavior
syndrome described above will be heightened follower recognition  of  shared
values  between  leaders  and  followers,  heightened  arousal  of  follower
motives, heightened follower self-confidence, generalized self-efficacy  and
self-worth,  strong  follower  self-engagement  in  the   pursuit   of   the
collective  vision  and  in  contributing  to  the  collective,  and  strong
follower identification with the collective and the  collective  vision.  We
refer to these psychological reactions  of  followers  as  the  value  based
motive syndrome .
2.  The behavioral effects of  the  value  based  motive  syndrome  will  be
heightened  commitment  to  the  collective  as   manifested   by   follower
willingness to exert  effort  above  and  beyond  normal  position  or  role
requirements, follower self-sacrifice in the interest of the vision and  the
collective, and increased  collective  social  cohesion  and  organizational
collaboration.  We refer to  these  effects  as  the  value  based  follower
commitment syndrome.  While the value based  motive  syndrome  described  in
proposition one is not directly  observable,  the  behaviors  of  the  value
based follower commitment syndrome are.

                  Propositions Concerning Leader Attributes

3.  Self-confidence and a strong conviction  in  the  moral  correctness  of
one's beliefs will be predictive of proactive leadership.  This  proposition
is a slight  modification  of  proposition  three  of  the  1976  Theory  of
Charismatic Leadership.   This  proposition  has  been  supported  by  Smith
(1982), House et al. (1991), and Howell and Higgins (1991).
4.  Strong leader concern for the  morally  responsible  exercise  of  power
will be  predictive  of  constructive,  collectively  oriented  exercise  of
social influence by leaders and predictive of the  value  based  motive  and
follower commitment syndromes specified in propositions 1 and 2 above.
5.   Power  motivation  coupled  with  a  strong  concern  for  the  morally
responsible exercise of  power  will  be  predictive  of  the  constructive,
collective-oriented exercise of social influence by leaders.
6.  Power motivation, unconstrained  by  a  strong  concern  for  the  moral
exercise of power, will be predictive of impetuously  aggressive  and  self-
aggrandizing exercise of social influence.
7.  Power motivation, in conjunction with a strong  concern  for  the  moral
exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the  role
demands  of  leaders  require  substantial  delegation  of   authority   and
responsibility and the exercise of social influence.
8.  Power motivation, unconstrained  by  a  strong  concern  for  the  moral
exercise of power, will be predictive of effective leadership when the  role
demands   of   leaders   require    strong    individual    competitiveness,
aggressiveness, manipulative and exploitive behavior,  or  the  exercise  of
substantial political influence.
9.  Affiliative motivation will be predictive of  non-assertive  leadership,
close relationships with a small subgroup of  followers,  partiality  toward
this subgroup, and ineffective leadership.
10.  The leader motive profile will be predictive  of  proactive  leadership
and  leader  effectiveness  when  the  role  demands  of   leaders   require
substantial delegation of authority and responsibility and the  exercise  of
social influence.
11.   Achievement  motivation  will  be  predictive  of   effective   leader
performance in entrepreneurial contexts and for small  task-oriented  groups
in which members have direct interaction with the leader.
12.   Achievement  motivation  will  be  predictive  of  ineffective  leader
performance for the leadership of organizations in which  the  role  demands
of leaders require substantial delegation of  authority  and  responsibility
and the exercise of substantial social influence.
     Propositions four  through  twelve  are  derived  from  the  motivation
theories reviewed earlier.

              Propositions Concerning Specific Leader Behaviors
13.  Leader behaviors intended  to  enhance  followers  cognitive  abilities
will increase follower and  overall  organizational  performance  when  such
behaviors  complement  formal  organizational  practices  and  the  informal
social   system   by   providing   direction,    clarification,    feedback,
encouragement, support, and motivational incentives  to  subordinates  which
are not otherwise provided.
14.   When  leader  behaviors  intended  to  enhance   followers   cognitive
abilities  are  redundant  with  formal  organizational  practices  and  the
informal social system they will be viewed as excessively controlling,  will
cause follower dissatisfaction, and will be resented and resisted.
15.  To be accepted  by  followers,  it  is  necessary  for  leaders  to  be
perceived by followers as acting in the interest of the collective  and  the
followers, to be perceived as fair and  trustworthy  in  their  interactions
with followers, and to be perceived as not self-aggrandizing.
16.  Leader support behavior will be  predictive  of  low  follower  stress,
trust in by followers, and follower satisfaction  with  their  relationships
with leaders.
17.  Leader contingent  recognition  and  approval  will  be  predictive  of
follower  role  clarity,  follower  perceptions  of  leaders  as  fair,  and
heightened follower satisfaction and motivation.
18.  Directive leader behavior will result in  follower  role  clarification
but will be dysfunctional when  followers  prefer  to  exercise  independent
actions and initiative, are highly involved in their work,  and/or  perceive
themselves as having requisite  knowledge  and  skills  for  effective  task
performance.
19.   Participative  leader  behavior   will   result   in   follower   role
clarification and will be  functional  when  followers  prefer  to  exercise
independent actions and initiative,  are  highly  involved  in  their  work,
and/or when followers perceive themselves as having requisite knowledge  and
skills for effective task performance.
20.  Leader fairness behavior will be predictive of follower  acceptance  of
leaders, and the leader's vision and values.
21. Perceived lack of  fairness  will  result  in  follower  resentment  and
resistance to the leaders vision and  directions.   These  propositions  are
based on equity theory of motivation.
     Propositions 13 through 21 are based on the 1996 version of  Path  Goal
Theory of leadership (House, 1996).
22. Leaders arouse motives of followers by enacting specific motive  arousal
behaviors relevant to each motive. For example, defining tasks and goals  as
challenging  arouses  the  achievement  motive;  invoking  the  image  of  a
threatening enemy, describing combative or highly competitive situations  or
describing  the  exercise  of  power  arouses  the  power   motive;   making
acceptance of the leader contingent on mutural acceptance of  followers,  or
stressing the importance of collaborative behavior arouses  the  affiliative
motive.
23.  Leaders  who  engage  in  selective  behaviors  that   arouse   motives
specifically relevant to the accomplishment of the  collective  vision  will
have positive effects on followers' value based  motive  syndrome  described
in Proposition 2.
24. The more leaders engage in the value based leader behavior syndrome  the
more  their  followers  will  emulate  (a)  the  values,   preferences   and
expectations of the leader, (b) the emotional responses  of  the  leader  to
work-related stimuli, and (c) the attitudes of the leader  toward  work  and
the organization.
     Propositions  22  through  24  are  slight  revisions  of  propositions
advanced in the 1976 Theory of Charismatic leadership (House, 1977).
25.  The use of strong extrinsic material rewards contingent on  performance
will conflict with appeals to ideological values  and  will  thus  undermine
the effects of the value based leader behavior syndrome.   This  proposition
is based on  dissonance  theory  (Festinger,  1980)  and  supported  by  the
findings of Korman  (1970),  and  Dubinsky  and  Spangler  (1995)  described
above.

                   Propositions Concerning Social Context

26.  Two necessary conditions for leaders to have the effects  specified  in
proposition two are that leaders have the  opportunity  to  communicate  the
collective vision to potential followers and that the role of  followers  be
definable in ideological terms that appeal to them.  This is a  modification
of one of the propositions originally advanced by House (1977).
27.  The  emergence  and  effectiveness  of  value  based  leaders  will  be
facilitated to the extent to which a) performance  goals  cannot  be  easily
specified  and  measured,  b)  extrinsic  rewards  cannot  be  made  clearly
contingent on individual performance, c) there  are  few  situational  cues,
constraints and reinforcers to guide behavior  and  provide  incentives  for
specific performance, and d) exceptional  effort,  behavior  and  sacrifices
are required of both the leaders and followers. This  proposition  is  based
on the earlier discussion of strength of situations  and  dissonance  theory
and is a modest modification of one of the propositions originally  advanced
by Shamir et al. (1993).
     The hypotheses were tested within the context  of  a  latent  structure
casual model, using Partial Least Squares  Analysis  (PLS).  This  modelling
procedure requires that substantive hypotheses be modelled in  the  form  of
paths connecting the  hypothesized  variables.   The  variables  are  latent
constructs composed of scores on manifest indicators.   The  The  slopes  of
these relationships are presented in Figure 3.  This  finding  supports  the
competitive hypothesis 5a which states that LMP will  have  greater  effects
in non-entrepreneurial firms than in  entrepreneurial  firms,  and  will  be
discussed below.

                                IMPLICATIONS

     In this section we  first discuss  the  implications  of  the  findings
with  respect  to  the  value  based  leadership.  Next   we   discuss   the
implications of the findings  for  each  of  the  five  theories  that  were
integrated  in  the  models  tested.   We  then  discuss  the  more  general
implications of the study for the discipline of Organizational Behavior.

                           Value Based Leadership
     Thomas (1988), House et al. (1991), and by Waldman, Ramirez  and  House
(1996)
demonstrate  longitudinally,  and  with  adequate  controls   for   spurious
relationships, that leaders have substantial effects on the  performance  of
the organizations they manage.  However, there have been no  studies,  other
than the U.S. presidential study (House et al., 1991), that investigate  the
leader motives and behavior that lead to such leader  effects.   Thus  there
has been a "black box" concerning how  leader  processes  influence  overall
organizational performance that remains to be explained.
     Collectively, the findings of the present study help to understand  the
phenomena in the "black box."  More  specifically,  the  findings  show,  in
some detail, important relationships between chief executives'  motives  and
behavior and subordinates' motivation and commitment to their  organization.
 Having shown how the components function,  it   is  now  possible  to  test
linkages between leader behavior, subordinate responses, and  organizational
effectiveness using longitudinal quasi experimental designs.

                     Implications for Specific Theories
     In this section we discuss the implications of the study  findings  for
each of the theories that are integrated to form the Value Based  Theory  of
Leadership.

                        Achievement Motivation Theory
     Achievement motivation has a more  positive  effect  on  CEMS  and  all
leader  behaviors  in  entrepreneurial  firms  than  in  non-entrepreneurial
firms.  This finding constitutes yet  another  confirmation  of  achievement
motivation  theory  concerning   the   specific   conditions   under   which
achievement motivation is predicted to result in high performance.

                         Moral Responsibility Theory
     The  bivariate   relationships   between   the   moral   responsibility
disposition and value based leader behavior, leader fairness and  CEMS,  and
the moderating effect of responsibility on  the  relationships  between  the
power motive, and CEMS, leader charisma,  and  support/reward  behavior  all
provide  support  for  Moral  Responsibility  Theory.  Moral  responsibility
motivation  is  clearly  an  important  disposition  that  deserves  further
investigation and attention.

                        Leader Motive Profile Theory
     The positive  relationships  between  LMP  and  executive  value  based
leader behavior, support/recognition  behavior,  and  directiveness  provide
support for LMP Theory. These two  relationships  are  consistent  with  the
interpretation  that  because  high  LMP  leaders   have   low   affiliative
motivation they enact social influence in an impersonal and  more  proactive
and assertive manner than low LMP leaders.
     The findings are consistent with  the  propositions  that  LMP  affects
leader behavior, and leader behavior in turn has a positive effect on  CEMS.
 These findings suggest a re-specification of the  boundary  conditions  for
the role of LMP in organizational functioning.  Contrary  to  the  initially
specified  boundary  conditions,  LMP  has  negligible  effects  on   leader
behavior and CEMS in non- entrepreneurial  firms  and  positive  effects  in
entrepreneurial firms.  These findings imply that LMP has its' major  impact
on organizational outcomes through its' influence on leader  behavior  under
weak psychological conditions.


                              Path Goal Theory

     As predicted by the  Path-Goal  Theory  of  Leadership  (House,  1996),
leader contingent
recognition and supportive behaviors are  predictive  of  CEMS,  and  leader
directiveness   is   more   strongly   negatively   related   to   CEMS   in
entrepreneurial   firms.   Thus  Path-Goal  theory  is  provided  additional
support in the present study.


                                 CONCLUSION

     The major conclusions that can be drawn from  the  above  findings  and
discussion are:  1)  the  value  based  theory  of  leadership  successfully
integrates  five  prominent  theories   of   leadership   (transformational,
charismatic, visionary, LMP, and path-goal theories)  and  assertions  drawn
broadly from established psychological theories of motivation and  behavior;
2)   the components of the value  based  theory  of  leadership  are  rather
strongly  and   quite   consistently   supported,   although   their   exact
combinations  remain  to  be  established;  3)  the  psychological  theories
integrated within the value based  theory  are  largely  supported;  4)  the
value   based   theory   of    leadership,    with    various    kinds    of
operationalizations,  has  rather  broad  generalizability;  5)  the  theory
supported by the U.S. presidential study holds  for  CEOs  with  respect  to
effects of  leader  behaviors  on  subordinates'  cognitions  and  affective
responses; 6) a re-specification of the boundary conditions  of  LMP  should
be further investigated; and 7) the motives that are  most  appropriate  for
effective leadership are contingent on the  orientation  of  the  collective
being led.
     Beginning with  the  1976  theory  of  charismatic  leadership  (House,
1977), a new leadership paradigm has emerged.   This  paradigm  consists  of
several theories of  similar  genre  (House,  1977;  Bass,  1985;  Conger  &
Kanungo; 1987; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; 1987; Sashkin, 1988) and  concerns  the
determinants  of  exceptionally   effective   or   outstanding   leadership.
According to this paradigm, value based  leaders  infuse  organizations  and
work  with  ideological  values  which  are  intrinsically  and   powerfully
motivational.  Value oriented motivation is stronger,  more  pervasive,  and
more endurable than pragmatic oriented motivation.  The theories of the  new
paradigm are now integrated and formalized as  the  Value  Based  Theory  of
Leadership.   Hopefully,  this  theory  and  the  supporting  research  will
stimulate further leadership research and further development of  leadership
and organizational behavior theory.
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   |   |