George Graen has provided a valuable contribution to role theory by examining
the dovetailing of role taking and role making in work groups. Graen does not
regard roles as rigid corsets, which the managers are obligated to fit into. Instead, he
sees the role of the leader as a system of flexible agreements negotiated between
superiors and subordinates (see Graen 1976, pp. 1201–1246).
The role theory clarifies how much the requirements of managers and their
positions can differ and provides insights concerning the connections between the
individual and the group. It is therefore useful for leadership practices, particularly
with regard to personnel evaluations, leadership analysis, training courses and the
creation of strategic models.
Currently, managers are expected to perform the role of coaches for their
employees, and are also frequently expected to be active in their personnel’s
development. However, each of these roles entails an entire set of requirements, a
detailed analysis of which would be beyond the scope of this work.
2.2.4.2 Types and Typologies
Managers cannot be distinguished only by their roles, but also by their leadership
behavior. Michael Maccoby differentiates between four managerial archetypes: the
specialist,thejungle warrior,thecompany man (or woman)and theplaymaker(see
Maccoby 1977).
Thespecialistis rational, economical, quiet, modest and sincere. For thejungle
warrior, the job is a struggle where the winners destroy the losers, according to the
motto “kill or be killed.” He or she is proud to be feared and thinks like a social
Darwinist. Thecompany man or womanis solely defined by being part of the larger,
protective community. Such managers submit to the company and lionize those in
power. At the same time they care very much about the feelings of the people
around them. Theplaymakeris constantly energized, driven by an effort to keep
things going. He or she is interested only in the implementation and thinks in
operating results only, is in constant competition with everyone and everything, and
eventually ends up burning out.
Another typology was created by the Augsburg professor of Psychology Oswald
Neuberger, based on his questionnaire describing the conduct of supervisors.
He identified six pairs of extreme leadership types: friendly colleague versus
adjutant, go-it-alone versus do-it-together, he/she who drives versus he/she who
lets go, keeper of order/controller versus monitor/coordinator, boss versus partner,
and protector versus intermediary (Neuberger 2002, pp. 83–409). I feel the names
speak for themselves and do not need to be explained further. In principle, it should
be noted that the type perspective is an extended form of the character traits
perspective, as behind a certain type of leader there is always – explicitly or not –
a certain set of traits.
62 2 Occupation or Calling: What Makes for Good Leadership?