LEADERSHIP - Michigan State University
LEADERSHIP
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Leadership
Definition of Leadership
Need for Leadership
Patterns of Organizational Leadership Traits
In Search of Leadership
Physical Traits
Intelligence
Personality Traits
Leader Behaviors
Authoritarian, Democratic, and Laissez-Faire
Leadership
Initiating Structure and Consideration
Production-centered and Employee -
centered
Leader Behaviors
Managerial Grids
Situational Leadership
Situational Leadership Model
Contingency Theory of Leadership
Path-Goal Model
Normative Decision-Making Model of Leadership
Determinants of Leadership Effectiveness
Choosing a Leadership Style
Strategies for Improving Leadership
Reciprocal Influence of Leader and
Follower
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter you should be able to:
1. Explain the difference between management and leadership and identify some of the major personal traits associated with leadership.
2. Explain the limitations of using personal traits to understand leadership.
4. Identify some of the major situational factors influencing leadership and explain how they influence group performance.
5. List and describe the major variables that determine the appropriate leadership style.
6. Explain some of the strategies for improving leadership effectiveness.
3. Identify and describe the two
major leadership behaviors that
occur within a group.
LEE JACOCCA: AN AMERICAN LEGEND
Lee Iacocca, the son of Italian immigrants, rose spectacularly through the ranks of Ford Motor Company to become its president, only to be toppled eight years later in a power struggle with Henry Ford II. After being fired from Ford, however, he immediately went to Chrysler Corporation and led that company back from the brink of financial disaster by convincing the United States government to provide Chrysler with a $1.2 billion loan guarantee. Iacocca has been heralded as the epitome of an effective modern leader by the authors of a book about leaders.
He provided the leadership to transform a company from bankruptcy to success. He created a vision of success and mobilized large factions of key employees to align behind that vision. Almost exclusively because of Iacocca’s leadership, by 1983 Chrysler made a pro6t, boosted employee morale, and helped employees generate a sense of meaning in their work. He empowered them. In Fact, we believe that Iacocca’s high visibility symbolizes the missing element in management today his style of leadership is central to organizational successful. Because of his success in rescuing Chrysler and the highly visible role he played in restoring the Statue of Liberty, Iacocca became a media celebrity and an American folk hero. During the 1988 presidential campaign, many People urged him to run for the presidency. Public opinion polls confirmed his popularity and showed that he was a viable political candidate until he withdrew himself by saying, ‘And if drafted, [shall not run.’2
Lee Iacocca is described as a big man with an imposing presence. He stands 6’1” and weighs 194 pounds. His facial features and personal mannerisms have led one author to describe him as a ‘Florentine prince.” A biography of Iacocca attributed his leadership ability to six character traits:
1. The ability to break away from rigid, stereotyped thinking and use upbeat, energetic approaches to problem solving.
2. His realism and courage.
3. His devotion to homework by being thorough, careful, and well informed.
4. His aggressive curiosity.
5. His uncommon capacity for personal growth.
6. His ability to surround himself with people possessing strong personality ties without being intimidated or threatened by them.4
In his autobiography, Iacocca describes three key elements that contributed significantly to his successful leadership. First, Iacocca believed that he was extraordinarily effective in motivating people because he knew them well, he expressed sincere appreciation for their contributions, and he provided a vision for them of where the company was going. Second, Iacocca developed a quarterly review system that focused the energies of his people on successful goal accomplishment. Every three months, Iacocca required his managers to submit specific written goals and objectives and then, in a face-to-face, MBO type interview, he required them to explain how they planned to achieve the goals. Finally, Iacocca believed in being decisive. Although he was a strong advocate of being well informed and gathering all the facts before making a decision, he also argued that if you waited until you had 100 percent of the facts, the opportunity would have passed. Although he liked to be fully informed, he was not afraid to go with his gut feeling and he did not rely on committee* decisions. Iacocca’s definition of management by consensus was, “Consensus, is when we have a discussion. They tell me what they want, then I decide.”
Leadership is an extremely popular topic in organizational behavior because of the role we assume it plays in group and organizational effectiveness. We assume that the success of a group depends primarily on the quality of leadership. To have a winning season requires a good coach; to achieve a military victory commander; and to have a productive work group requires a supervisor. Whether they deserve it or not, leaders are usually credited for the group’s success and blamed for the group’s failure. When a team has a losing season, instead of firing the team, the coach is fired. Although leadership is similar to management, there is a clear difference between these topics. For managers to be effective, they need to be good leaders. However, not all leaders are good managers. Leadership is more narrowly defined; it refers to influencing the behavior of others. Not all acts of influence, however, are necessarily acts of leadership. There are important differences, for example, between leadership and the exercise of power described in the next chapter.
Definition of Leadership
The word “leadership’ has been used in at least three different ways. Occasionally it refers to a position within an organization, e.g., “We are inviting all of the leadership to attend the seminar. ‘Leadership” has also been used to describe a personality characteristic, e.g.. ‘Our new supervisor doesn’t have as much leadership as our previous one.”
Neither of these definitions is very useful in studying organizational behavior, and a better definition is needed to understand why some individuals are at he more effective leaders than others. The most useful definition of leadership, well, and the one we will use in this chapter, is a form of behavior by which one person influences others. ‘Our team won the championship because of the leadership of the quarterback.” In other words, leadership is the incremental influence one individual exerts over another, above and beyond mechanical compliance with routine directives. Leadership occurs when one individual MBO-influences others to do something voluntarily rather than because they were the required to do it or because they feared the consequences of noncompliance. It strong is this voluntary aspect of leadership that distinguishes it from other influence processes, such as power and authority.
Although leaders may use force or coercion to influence the behavior of followers, leaders by our definition use their ability to induce voluntary committee. By this definition, anyone in the organization can be a leader, whether or not that individual is formally identified as such. Indeed, informal leaders are extremely important to the effectiveness of most organizations.
An important distinction is made by some between leadership and management. To manage means to direct, to bring about to accomplish, and to have responsibility for. The functions of management, as described in chapter one, are planning, organizing, directing, and controlling. The successful manager is viewed as someone who achieves results by following the prescribed activities and by maintaining behaviors and products within prescribed limits. To lead, however, is to inspire, to influence, and to motivate. Effective leaders inspire others to pursue excellence, to extend themselves and to go beyond their perform job requirements by generating creative ideas. It has been said that managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing.” This distinction is somewhat overstated, since effective leaders do a lot of managing and effective managers need to lead. But it serves to emphasize an Important organizational outcome: the creation of an energetic and highly committed work force that is successfully adapting to the demands of a changing environment and competently producing a viable product or service
Need for Leadership
Why is leadership necessary? Most organizations are highly structured and have relatively clear lines of authority, stated objectives, and momentum to carry them forward. Why, then, is there a need for incremental influence beyond the routine directives and formal job requirements? Four reasons have been proposed to explain the need for ongoing leadership.
Incomplete organizational structure.
The first reason why leadership is necessary is because there is a degree of incompleteness in every organization design. Social organizations cannot be designed to be like machines, which are simply turned on and allowed to run untouched. Leaders are needed to structuring the tasks, decide who should do what, and delegate work assignments, level. Leaders help the people they lead to accomplish their collective goals.
External change.
The second reason why leadership is necessary is because the organization exists in a changing environment. As the external environment changes, leaders are needed to identify the strategic mission of the organization and help it adapt to its changing environment.
Internal change.
The third reason for leadership stems from the dynamics of internal change in the organization. Leadership is needed to coordinate the efforts of diverse organizational units, particularly during periods of rapid growth or decline. Leadership is necessary to solve internal conflicts and settle differences of opinion.
Motivate and inspire.
The fourth reason why organizations require leadership stems from the need to motivate people and maintain their involvement in the organization. Individuals are not permanent fixtures within the organization. Instead, they come and go, and when they are present, their needs and Intel interests change. Effective leadership provides meaning and purpose by creating a vision of where the organization is going. This ability to inspire and motivate others and transform them into committed contributors to the organization is the function of leadership that has captured the interest of philosophers and scholars and propelled the study of leadership.
Patterns of Organizational Leadership
The type of influence required for effective leadership is not the same for all leaders. Depending on their level in the organization, different cognitive and affective skills are required of leaders. Three basic leadership roles have been identified: origination, interpolation, and administration.
1. Origination. Origination refers to strategic decision making regarding policy formulation or structural change. These critical decisions determine the culture and mission of the organization.
2. Interpolation. Interpolation refers to interpreting strategic decisions and designing a method for implementing them within the organization. Interpolation includes adapting or supplementing the present structure to new policy directives,
3. Administration. Administration consists of implementing the policies and procedures tha have been provided to keep the organization operating efficiently.
These three types of Leadership are typically performed at different levels in the organization and require different abilities and skills, as shown in Exhibit 161. The origination of new programs and policies, which may involve a change in the organization’s structure or a reinterpretation of the organization’s mission, occurs at the top level of the organization. Individuals at this level must have an understanding of the entire organization and of the ways it interacts with the external environment. Top-level managers symbolize the organization and what it stands for.
Interpolation — interpreting policy decisions and applying them to the existing organization—is typically done by intermediate-level managers. Middle-level managers must maintain a two-way orientation by taking directives from hose above and accommodating them for people below.
|Type of Leadership |Typical Organizational Level |Cognitive (Knowledge) |Affective (Emotion) |
|Process | | | |
| | | | |
|Origination: change, creation, and |Top echelons |System perspective |Charisma |
|elimination of structure | | | |
| | | | |
|Interpolation: supplementing and |Intermediate levels: pivotal roles |Subsystem perspective: two-way |Integration of primary and secondary|
|piecing out of structure | |orientation | |
| | | |relations: human |
| | | |relation skills |
| | | | |
|Administration: use of existing |Lower levels |Technical knowledge |Concern with equity in |
|structure | |and understanding |use of rewards and |
| | |of system of rules |sanctions |
| |
|EXHIBIT 16.1 Three Leadership Patterns, Their Location in the Organization, and Their |
|Skill Requirements |
Source: Adapted from Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978), p. 539.
Lower-level supervisors administer the policies and procedures of the organization. Successful supervisors need to possess both technical knowledge and a clear understanding of the organization’s rules. Lower-level supervisors must be concerned with equity and with the administration of rewards and punishments, since they continually deal with these issues in leading others, contingency theories of — leadership. Leadership plays an essential role in organizational dynamics and often makes the difference between effective and ineffective organizations. As defined earlier, leadership occurs when one person influences others to do something of their own volition they would not ordinarily do. Leadership is an essential organizational process and, like other processes it can be studied on three different levels—the individual, the group, and the organization.
At the individual level of analysis, leadership studies have focused on the traits of successful leaders, At the group level, leadership studies have focused on leadership behaviors of both formal and informal leaders. The organizational level of analysis has examined how organizational effectiveness is determined by the interaction between the leader, the follower, and the situation. These studies have given rise to situational leadership theories or contingency theories of leadership. Each level will be analyzed separately, beginning with leadership traits.
In Search of Leadership
Although early writers attempted to describe the characteristics of effective leaders, systematic investigations of leadership traits first began after the turn of the century. World War I highlighted the need for selecting and training effective leaders, and for the quarter century between World War land World War II, numerous studies investigated the personal traits of good leaders. These studies are generally referred to as trait studies, since their primary goal was to identi6’ the traits and personal characteristics of effective leaders.
A variety of methods was used to study leadership traits, and this variety is probably one reason why the results were so inconsistent. Most studies compared effective leaders with ineffective leaders or leaders with non-leaders. The--studies were inconsistent in the methods used to identify leaders Some were identified by outside observers, some were selected by the group via nominations or voting, others were named by qualified observers such as teachers, and1 some were selected because they occupied a position of leadership such as student-body president or team captain. The studies were also inconsistent -the way they measured traits. In some studies the traits were measured b psychological tests; other studies relied on observers to identify the traits they saw; and some studies relied on the individuals to report their own character traits.
In general, the trait studies were quite disappointing, especially to researchers who had hoped to develop a measure of leadership that predicted leader effectiveness as accurately as intelligence tests predicted problem solving ability. Because of weak results, the focus of leadership research shifted from trait studies to contingency studies, which examined more than just the traits of the leader.
Research on leadership traits should not be dismissed too quickly, however. Although the traits studies were disappointing, they were not worthless.
Several traits produced a significant difference in leadership effectiveness, but they did not act alone. Instead, they interacted with other situational variables to influence leader effectiveness, Four major reviews have surveyed the trait studies, and the results can be summarized according to physical traits, intelligence, and personality traits).
Physical Traits
Trait studies examined such physical factors as height, weight, physique, energy, health, and appearance. To the extent that anything can be concluded regarding the relationship between these factors and leadership, it appears that the leaders tend to be slightly taller and heavier, have better health, a superior physique, a higher rate of energy output, and a more attractive appearance.
To illustrate, one of the early studies on the effects of height found that executives in insurance companies were taller than policyholders, that bishops were taller than clergymen, that university presidents were taller than college presidents, that sales managers were taller than sales representatives, and that railway presidents were taller than station agents.” Results of this sort, however, have not always been consistent. While one literature review found nine studies showing that leaders tend to be taller, it reported two studies showing that leaders tended to be shorter. Attractiveness and a pleasant appearance found to be highly correlated with leaders among Boy Scouts: but among groups of delinquent youth, leaders were rated as more slovenly and unkempt.’
In summary, studies of personal characteristics are not particularly interesting or useful. The results are generally too weak and inconsistent to be useful in selecting leaders, nor are they useful for training purposes, since very little can be done to change most of these physical traits.
Intelligence
Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between leadership and general intelligence, and they generally agree that leaders are more intelligent than non-leaders. The relationship between intelligence and leadership probably stems from the fact that so many leadership functions depend upon careful problem solving. All three leadership roles—origination, interpolation, and administration require significant mental ability.
One review of leadership studies reported twenty-tree experiments showing that leaders were brighter and had greater levels of intelligence.” Only five studies reported that intelligence made no difference. In general, it appears safe to conclude that leaders are more intelligent than non-leaders, but again the correlations are small. Obviously, many other variables besides intelligence influence leadership effectiveness.
An interesting conclusion coming from these studies is the suggestion that leaders should be more intelligent than the group but not by too wide a margin. Members who are significantly brighter than other group members are seldom selected as leaders. Because of their superior intellect, other group members tend to reject them; they are too different from and out of touch with the rest of the group. Individuals with high IQ's tend to have different vocabularies, interacts, and goals, which create communication and interpersonal relations problems.
Leadership effectiveness also appears to be related to two other variables closely associated with intelligence: scholarship and knowledge. Leaders generally excel scholastically and receive better than average grades. General information, practical knowledge, and simply knowing how to get things done appears to be important for effective leadership, and several studies have shown a positive relationship between general knowledge and leadership ability.
Personality Traits
Studies of the relationship between leadership and personality traits have examined a lengthy list of factors. Unfortunately, most of the results have been inconsistent and even contradictory. Only a limited number of personality traits appear to be related to leadership, and most of these relationships are not especially strong. A list of the personality traits most frequently associated with leadership are lead shown in Exhibit 16.2. This list is based upon the 1948 review by Ralph Stogdill were of 124 studies of leadership traits)4 This list suggests that the average leader is use a more social, displays greater initiative, is more persistent, knows how to get things done, is more self-confident, displays greater cooperativeness and adaptability, and possesses greater verbal skills to facilitate communication. Studies examining personality integration or emotional adjustment consistently found that leaders were more emotionally mature than non-leaders. Rather consistent. The support was also found for the relationship between leadership and self-confidence or self-esteem. Indeed, the relationship between self-confidence and leadership generally produced some of the highest correlations of any of the personality traits tested Consequently, it is not correct to conclude that personal characteristics are unrelated to leadership; there are indeed some relationships, but they are more complex than they first appear to be.
After four major reviews of the trait studies, researchers concluded that the effective leadership does not depend solely upon a combination of personality the traits. Situational variables were also important: they frequently determined of whether a personality characteristic was positively or negatively associated with effective leadership. Each review concluded that leadership must be examined as an interaction of three variables: characteristics of the leader, characteristics of the subordinate, and the nature of the task.
|Capacity |Achievements |Responsibility |Participation |Status |
|Intelligence |Scholarship |Dependability |Activity |Socioeconomic position |
|Alertness |Knowledge |Initiative |Sociability |Popularity |
|Verbal facility |Athletic accomplishment |Persistence |Cooperation | |
|Originality |Personality adjustment |Aggressiveness |Adaptability | |
|Judgment | |Self-Confidence |Humor | |
| | |Desire to Excel | | |
| |
|EXHIBIT 16.2 Personality Factors Most Frequently Associated with Effective Leadership |
While the trait studies focused on individual leaders, another line of research examined leader behaviors within the context of a group and attempted to describe what leaders actually do. These studies essentially asked whether certain ways of behaving were more effective than others: How do effective readers behave differently from other group members? Most of these studies occurred during the l940s and 50s.
Various styles of leadership were defined as a result of these studies of leader behaviors. One of the earlier studies compared three leadership styles: authoritarian democratic and laissez-faire. Perhaps the best research on styles of leadership, however, occurred simultaneously at The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. At each university, researchers identified two leader behaviors that were essentially similar, even though both investigations were conducted independently. These two dimensions of leadership have been to form an instrument, called the Managerial Grid®, that has been used for research and training.
Authoritarian, Democratic, and Laissez-faire Leadership
The contrasting political systems in the United States and Germany preceding World War II inspired one of the early classic studies of leadership that compared the effects of three leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez.faire.i5 This study involved groups of ten-year-old boys who were organized in groups of five. Each group met regularly after school to engage in hobbies and other activities under the direction of a leader who adopted one of the three styles of leadership. Every six weeks the leaders were rotated among the groups so that each group experienced each type of leadership. The leaders of these groups, who were graduate students in social psychology, were trained to lead the boys using one of three leadership styles. Under the democratic style of leadership, group decisions were made by majority vote in which equal participation was encouraged and criticism and punishment were minimal. Under the autocratic leader, all decisions were made by the leader and the boys were required to follow prescribed procedures under strict discipline. Under the laissez-faire leader, the actual leadership was minimized and the boys were allowed to work and play essentially without supervision.
During the eighteen weeks of this study, the performance of the boys was observed in order to assess the effects of the three leadership styles. Under democratic leadership, the groups were more satisfied and functioned in the most orderly and positive manner. Aggressive acts were observed most frequently under the autocratic leadership. The effects of the leadership styles on productivity were somewhat mixed, although actual objective measures of productivity were not obtained. Under autocratic leadership the groups spent more time in productive work activity and had more work-related conversations. However, the autocratic groups appeared to be more productive Only when the leader was present. When the leader left the room, the amount of work-related activity dropped drastically.
The results of this study were somewhat surprising to the researchers who had expected the highest satisfaction and productivity under democratic leadership. This study was conducted under the direction of Kurt Lewin, a behavioral scientist who came to America from Germany just prior to World War Lewin believed that the repressive autocratic political climate he had left in Germany was not as satisfying, productive, or desirable as a democratic society. He expected the results of the experiment to confirm his hypothesis. Although the boys preferred a democratic leader, they appeared to be more productive under autocratic leadership.
Other studies have also shown that democratic leadership styles are not always the most productive. In fact, some studies have found that both the satisfaction and the productivity of group members is higher under directive leaders than democratic leaders. For example a study of 488 managers in a consumer loan company found that employees who had high authoritarianism scores (high acceptance of strong authority relationships) were more satisfied and productive when they worked for supervisors who had little tolerance for freedom.’6 Greater satisfaction with an authoritarian leader was also found in another study of over 1,000 workers. This study found that employees who worked independently but were required to have frequent interaction with their superior preferred and were more satisfied with an autocratic leader. Some examples of such employees are fire fighters, police officers, and administrative aides.
Initiating Structure and Consideration
Following World War II, a major research effort studying leader behaviors was conducted at The Ohio State University. This project involved a series of studies that ultimately produced a two-factor theory of leader behavior. The two leadership factors were referred to as initiating structure and consideration, is initiating structure consisted of leadership behaviors associated with organizing and defining the work, the work relationships, and the goals. A leader who initiated structure was described as one who assigned people to particular tasks, expected workers to follow standard routines, and emphasized meeting deadlines. The factor of consideration involved leader behaviors that showed friendship, mutual trust, warmth, and concern for subordinates.
These two factors were identified by administering questionnaires containing numerous descriptions of leader behaviors and combining the items that seemed to measure the same dimension, through a statistical technique called factor analysis. Some of the statements that were used to describe leader behavior are illustrated in the experiential exercise at the end of the chapter. After the data from many employees had been collected and analyzed, the researchers concluded that the responses were measuring just two factors: initiating structure and consideration. These two leader behaviors accounted for about 80 percent of the variance in the responses.
The research indicates that initiating structure and consideration are separate and independent dimensions of leadership behavior. Therefore, a leader could be high on both dimensions, low on both dimensions, or high on one and low on the other. Since both factors were considered important dimensions of leadership, the early studies assumed that the most effective leaders were high ~n both dimensions.
Subsequent research failed to support the initial expectations. In a study of ~c behavior of supervisors at International Harvester, for example, it was Found that supervisors scoring high on initiating structure had high proficiency ratings but many employee grievances. Those who had high consideration scores had low proficiency ratings and also low absences.’
After extensive research it can now be concluded that the most effective leaders are not always high on both initiating structure and consideration. Although most studies show that leadership effectiveness is associated with high scores on both dimensions occasionally other combinations have produced the highest levels of satisfaction and performance, such as being high on one scale and low on the other or being at moderate levels on both dimensions
Production-Centered and Employee-Centered Leader
Behaviors
About the same time as the Ohio State University researchers were discovering the dimensions of initiating structure and consideration, a similar research program at the University of Michigan identified two similar dimensions of leadership behavior which they labeled production-centered and employee centered behaviors2’ Production-centered behaviors were similar to initiating structure in which leaders established goals, gave instructions, checked on performance, and structured the work of the group. Employee-centered behaviors were similar to the dimension of consideration in which the leader developed a supportive personal relationship with subordinates, avoided punitive behavior, and encouraged two-way communication with subordinates.
Studies on the relationship between production-centered and employee centered behaviors also found them to be independent dimensions of leadership. A review of twenty-four studies dispelled a popular myth which suggested that supervisors focused on either production or employees, and to the extent they focused on one, they were necessarily disinterested in the other. These studies indicated instead that supervisors can be interested in both production and employees.22 Therefore, a leader who has a strong production orientation is not necessarily disinterested in the employees. Knowing an individual’s orientation on one leader dimension says nothing about that person’s orientation on the other.
Managerial Grid
A conceptual framework combining a concern for task accomplishment and a concern for people was created by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton called the Managerial Grid.- An illustration of the Managerial Grid is shown in Exhibit Managerial Grid® 16.3. The concern for production dimension is measured on a nine-point scale and represented along the horizontal dimension, while the vertical dimension measures an individual’s concern for people, again using a nine-point scale. Blake and Mouton assume that the most effective leadership style is a 9,9 style, demonstrating both concern for production and concern for people. By responding to a questionnaire developed by Blake and Mouton, individuals can place themselves in one of the eighty-one cells on the managerial grid.
Five different grid positions are typically used to illustrate different leadership styles. A 9,1 leader is primarily concerned with production and task accomplishment and unconcerned about people; This person wants-to get the job - -done and wants a schedule followed at all costs. The 1,9 leadership style reflects a maximum concern for people with minimum concern for production. This individual is not concerned whether the group a small produces anything, but is highly concerned about the members’ personal needs, interests and inter-personal relationships. The 1,1 leadership style reflects minimal concern for both production and people and is characteristic of a person who essentially abdicates the leadership role. The 55 leadership style reflects a moderate concern for both people and production, while the 9,9 leadership style reflects a maximum concern for both production and people. A 9,9 leader wants to meet schedules and get the job done but at the same time is highly concerned about the feelings and interests of the group members.
High 9
8
7 |1,9
Country club management
Thoughtful attention to needs of people for satisfying relationships leads to a comfortable, friendly organization atmosphere and work tempo. |9,9
Team management
Work accomplishment is from committed people: interdependence through a "common stake" in organization purpose leads to relationships of trust and respect. | |
| | | |
|6 | | |
| |5,5 Organization man management | |
| |Adequate organization performance is possible | |
|Concern for people |through balancing the necessity to get out work | |
| |with maintaining morale or people at a | |
|5 |satisfactory level. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |1,1 | |
|4 |Impoverished management | |
| |Exertion of minimum effort to get required work | |
| |done is appropriate to sustain organization | |
|3 |membership. |9,1 |
| | |Authority-obedience |
| | |Efficiency in operations results from arranging |
| | |conditions of work in such a way that human |
|2 | |elements interfere to a minimum degree. |
| | | |
|Low 1 | | |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|Low Concern for production High |
| |
|EXHIBIT 16.3 The Management Grid |
Source: R.R. Blake and J.S. Mouton, The New Management Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1978), p. 11. Reproduced by permission.
The Managerial Grid® is popular among managers, and they have used it rather extensively to assess their leadership style as part of a training program designed to move them to the 9,9 style. In spite of its popularity, however, the usefulness of the Managerial Grid® has not been consistently supported by research. Most of the available research consists of case analyses which have been loosely interpreted to support it. However, empirical research has failed to show that a 9,9 leadership style is universally superior. The demands of the situation, the expectations of other group members, and the nature of the work being performed interact in complex ways that call for a variety of leadership styles. Consequently the 9,9 leadership style is not always the most effective. Although the research has not shown that one leadership style is universally superior, this research helps to identify the important leadership roles that occur within a group. Rather than thinking of leadership strictly in terms of the behavior of the formal leader, it is helpful to think of leadership as leadership roles performed within a group. Thinking of leadership this way implies that leadership consists of leader behaviors performed by any group members, whether they are formally appointed as leaders or not.
The two major leadership roles, initiating structure and consideration are similar to the work roles and maintenance roles described in Chapter 10.” These two roles are necessary for a group to be effective and can be performed either by the formally appointed leader or by other group members. If a task is already highly structured, or if other group members are adequately structuring the task, then efforts by the leader to add additional structure are unnecessary and ineffective. Likewise, the maintenance role of showing consideration and concern for group members may be performed by other group members thereby eliminating the need for the formal leader to perform this role. In summarizing research on consideration and initiating structure, one review concluded that when the formally appointed leaders fail to perform either of these leader behaviors, an informal leader will emerge and perform them if it is necessary for success and if the group desires success.
SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP
In analyzing leadership at the organizational level of analysis, the effectiveness of the different leadership styles must be combined with different organizational factors to assess their effect effectiveness. At this level of analysis, the study of leadership has given rise to contingency theories of leadership or situational leadership theories. Four situational leadership theories have received the primary attention: Paul Hersey’s and Ken Blanchard’s situational leadership model, Fred Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership, Robert Houses path-goal theory of leadership, and Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton’s normative decision-making model of leadership.
Situational Leadership Model
Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed a situational leadership model that combined three variables: (1) the amount of guidance and direction (task behavior) a leader gives; (2) the amount of emotional support (relationship behavior) a leader provides; and (3) the readiness level (maturity) that follows, exhibit in performing a specific task or function.27 The focus of this model is o~ the relationship between the leaders and followers, and the maturity of the followers is viewed as the most important situational variable influencing loader behaviors.
Maturity is defined as the ability and willingness of people to take responsibility for directing their own behavior as it relates to the specific task being performed. An individual or group may demonstrate maturity on some tasks and immaturity on others. Effective leadership requires that the leader’s task behaviors and relationship behaviors must change to match the maturity of the group.
The maturity of followers varies along a continuum and is determined by two components: job maturity (ability) and psychological maturity (willingness). Job maturity refers to the ability to do something and is a function of the follower’s knowledge and skills. Psychological maturity refers to the willingness or motivation to do something and is a function of the followers commitment and confidence. The appropriate combination of task and relationship behaviors for (oar different levels of follower maturity are shown in Exhibit 16.4. The bell-shaped curve is called a “prescriptive” curve because it shows the appropriate leadership style directly above the corresponding level of maturity. Four potential leadership styles are created by combining different amounts of task and relationship behaviors.
S1: Telling. Provide specific instructions and closely supervise performance. This style is suited for followers of low maturity who are unable and unwilling.
52: Selling. Explain your decisions and provide opportunity for clarification. This style is appropriate for followers who are willing but unable.
INSIGHTS-FOR MANAGERS
Research on leadership behaviors has identified two essential roles that leaders fill. One role consists of
Leader activities that focus on task accomplishment and includes such behaviors as identifying the task at hand, deciding boy, it should be done, setting goals and objectives, delegating assignments, providing feedback, and supervising performance.
The other role consists of leader behaviors that focus on interpersonal relationships and includes such behaviors as creating a vision of the organization, communicating that vision to each member, inspiring and motivating people, evaluating and rewarding performance, providing personal support and encouragement, and creating a friendly atmosphere.
These two roles represent essential functions of a successful group: both the task structuring activities and the interpersonal relationship activities must be performed by someone. It is possible For the appointed leader to perform both functions, but other group members can also perform either or both functions.
Effective group leaders are probably those who can sense which leadership roles are not being adequately performed and either perform them then,-selves or delegate then, to other group members. Although these leadership roles are important to the effective functioning of a group, they do not necessarily need to be performed by the formally appointed leader. Indeed the most effective groups may occur ‘when the leadership rotes are ‘widely shared by many group members.
High Relationship and Low Task
Participating
S3
S4
Delegating |High Task and High Relationship
Selling
S2
S1
Telling | |
| | |
| | |
|Low Relationship and Low Task |High Task and Low Relationship |
S3: Participating. Share ideas and facilitate in making decisions. This style is suited
for followers who are able but unwilling.
S4: Delegating. Turn over responsibility for decisions and implementation. This
style is appropriate for followers who are able and willing.
Hersey and Blanchard have developed instruments for measuring maturity to determine the appropriate leadership style, and they have applied their teacher-student relationships and parent-child relationships. Support for their theory is provided by the experiences of managers who have used it and a small number of research studies. They also have used this model to reinterpret and understand the inconsistent findings in other leadership studies.
Contingency Theory of Leadership
The most popular and extensively researched situational theory of leadership was first proposed by Fred Piedler during the 1960s. Fiedler’s model claims that group performance depends on the interaction of the leader style and the favorableness of the situation. Fiedlers major contributions consist of(l) identifying the leadership orientation of the leader and developing a way to measure it, and (2) identifying three situational factors influencing leadership and developing a method of measuring them
Leader orientation. Fiedler’s definition of the leader’s orientation emerged largely from earlier studies in which leaders were classified as either relationship-oriented or task-oriented. Relationship-oriented leaders look at others as coworkers and see close interpersonal relations as a requirement for accomplishing the task. Task-oriented leaders show a strong emotional reaction against people with whom they have difficulty working. If they are forced to make a choice between getting the job done or worrying about interpersonal relations, they choose the task first and worry about interpersonal relations later. Following earlier research, Fiedler suggested that individuals could be placed along one continuum characterized by two basic leader orientations:
relationship-oriented versus task-oriented.
LPC scale. Leadership orientation is measured by the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale, as illustrated in Exhibit 16.5. Individuals are asked to think of a person with whom they have worked who they least preferred as a coworker, and describe this person using sixteen scales. When the responses arc summed, an individual with a favorable description of the least preferred coworker would have a high LPC score, suggesting a relationship-oriented leader. An unfavorable description of the least preferred coworker would result in a low score, suggesting a task-oriented leader.
Difficulty in interpreting the LPC scores has been a problem for Fiedler’s contingency theory. The LPC scale is not related to any of the well-known personality measures. In spite of uncertainty about what exactly it measures, however, the evidence indicates that it is a reliable measure of something, and Fiedler concludes that “there can be little doubt that we are dealing with a very important aspect of personality.” A review of 25 years of research using th~3 LPC scale concluded that high LPC leaders are primarily relationship-oriented while low LPC leaders are primarily task-oriented consistent with Fiedler's claims.’ In general, a low LPC leader is more directive, more structuring, more goal-oriented, and more concerned with efficiency. A high LPC leader is more considerate, more human relations oriented, more participative, and more sensitive to the feelings of others.
Situational favorableness. Fiedler’s model claims that whether a high LPC leader or low LPC leader will be more effective depends upon the favorableness of the situation. In some situations, a high LPC leader is most effective, while a unenthusiastic low LPC leader is more effective in other situations. Fiedler claimed that the favorableness of the situation is determined by three variables: (1) whether the relationships between the leader and the members are good or poor. (2) whether the task is relatively structured or unstructured, and (3) whether the power position of the leader is relatively strong or weak.
In studies testing the model, Fiedler and his colleagues developed instruments to measure each of these three situational variables.” Of the three situational variables, the leader-member relations variable was considered to be the most important for determining the favorableness of the situation. Leader-member relations were measured using a simple questionnaire with ten scales on which the leader was asked to describe the group. This instrument was called a “group atmosphere scale” and two sample items are shown here.
The second most important situational variable was the task structure which was evaluated by judges who examined four aspects of the task structure.
1. Coal clarity: the degree to which the requirements of the job are clearly stated and known by the people performing then,
2. Coal-path multiplicity: the degree to which the problems encounter in the job can be solved by a variety of procedures.
3. Decision verifiability: the degree to which the correctness of the solutions or decisions can be demonstrated and ascertained.
4. Decision specificity: the degree to which there is generally more than one correct solution involved in performing the task.
In a highly structured task, goals are very clear, there is on! y one correct procedure for performing the task, the correctness of the decisions can be immediately verified, and there is only one correct solution. Obviously, a highly structured task does not require leaders to provide additional structure.
The third situational variable was the power position of the leader. This factor was measured by a series of questions asking whether the leaders could recommend rewards or promotions, whether they could assign tasks and evaluate performance, and whether they had been given official titles by the organization to differentiate them from subordinates.
By determining whether a group is high or low on each of the three situational factors, Fiedler classified each group into one of eight categories, which ranged along a scale from extremely favorable situations to extremely unfavorable situations for the leader. A highly favorable situation consisted of good leader-member relations, a highly structured task, and a strong power position, as illustrated in Exhibit 16.6. On the other hand, an extremely unfavorable situation existed when the leader-member relations were poor, the task was unstructured, and the leader possessed a weak power position.
Group effectiveness. Fiedler examined the relationship between the leaders' LPC score and the effectiveness of the group in a variety of situations. The results indicated that a high LPC leader was most effective when the situation was moderately favorable. If the situation was extremely favorable or unfavorable, however, the low LPC leaders tended to have the most effective groups. These relationships are illustrated in Exhibit 16.7.
Although these results may look rather complex and difficult to understand, they seem plausible after a brief consideration. Relationship-oriented leaders (high LPC) tend to excel in situations of intermediate favorableness where concern for the group members is apparently a necessary prerequisite for motivating them to perform well. In these situations, people want to have leaders who care about them. Task-oriented leaders (low LPC), however, are more effective when the situation is either very favorable or very unfavorable. In a highly favorable situation, the personal needs of members are apparently already satisfied and what is needed is a task-oriented leader to get the job done. In an extremely unfavorable situation, however, satisfying individual needs is probably impossible. A task-oriented leader who simply focuses on getting the work done is more effective than a relationship-oriented leader who spends time fruitlessly trying to build good relationships in an impossible situation.
Fiedler's theory has some interesting implications for the selection and training of leaders in organizations. Candidates for leadership positions should be evaluated to assess their basic orientations, and they should be placed in jobs consistent with their leadership orientation. The favorableness of a situation should be assessed before assigning a leader to that position. Leaders who are struggling may need to be placed in a different situation, or their current situation may need to be changed.
When leaders are not successful, it is tempting to suggest that they need to change their leadership orientation. Fiedler does not recommend this approach, however, and argues that the basic leadership orientation of an individual is a relatively stable personality characteristic that cannot be easily changed. Rather than changing the leader to fit the situation, Fiedler recommends changing the situation to fit the leader through what he calls job engineering. Job engineering consists of changing one of the situational factors to increase or decrease the favorability of the situation. For example, the task structure and power position can be effectively changed through job redesign programs or changes in personnel policies.
The validity of Fiedler's contingency theory has been examined in numerous studies. Although most of the studies have been supportive, there have been enough contradictory findings for the model to remain somewhat controversial among leadership scholars. The most serious controversy about Fiedler's model concerns the LPC scale. Although the theory seems to predict leader effectiveness, the ambiguity over what the LPC score is actually measuring is disturbing.
Path-Goal Model
Another situational leadership theory is the path-goal model developed primarily by Robert House. This model is fairly well known because it is based upon a popular theory of motivation — expectancy theory. The path-goal model explains how leaders can facilitate task performance by showing subordinates how their performance can be instrumental in achieving desired rewards. Expectancy theory explains how an individual’s attitudes and behavior are influenced by the relationships between effort and performance (goal paths) and the valence of the rewards (goal attractiveness). Therefore, individuals are satisfied and productive when they see a strong relationship between their effort and performance and when their performance results in highly valued rewards. The path-goal model claims that the most effective leaders are those who help subordinates folio’s the path to receiving valued rewards.
Essentially, the model explains what leaders should do to influence the perceptions of subordinates about their work, the personal goals of subordinates, and the various paths to goal attainment. The model claims that leader behavior is motivating and satisfying to the extent that it clarifies the paths to the goals and increases goal attainment,
Leader behaviors. The path-goal model suggests that leadership consists of two basic functions. The first function is path clarification: the leader helps subordinates understand which behaviors are necessary to accomplish the tasks. The second function is to increase the number of rewards available to subordinates by being supportive and paying attention to their personal needs. To perform these functions, leaders may adopt a variety of leadership styles. Four distinct leadership styles are explained in the model:
1. Directive leadership: tells subordinates what is expected of them and provides specific guidance, standards, and schedules of work.
2. Supportive leadership: treats subordinates as equals and shows concern for their well-being, status, and personal needs; attempts to develop pleasant interpersonal relationships among group members.
3. Achievement-oriented leadership: sets challenging goals expects sub-ordinates to perform at their highest level, and continually seeks improvement in performance.
4. Participative leadership: consults with subordinates and uses their suggestions and ideas in decision making. Unlike Fiedler's model, which suggested that leadership style was resistant to change, the path-goal model suggests that these four styles can be performed by the same manager at different times and in different situations. In other words, the path-goal theory suggests that if a directive leader discovers the situation has changed and now requires a participative leader, it is possible. For the leader to change. The appropriate leadership style depends on the situation. Although the path-goal model does not explain how to identify the appropriate leadership leader style, the model does present a list of situational factors that need to be considered.
Situational factors. Two types of situational factors are proposed—the characteristics of the follower and environmental factors. Three characteristics of the followers have been identified as significant variables determining the appropriate leadership style:
1. Locus of control: As explained in chapter 3, locus of control refers to the individual’s belief concerning the determinants of reward. Individuals with an internal locus of control believe their rewards are based on their own efforts, while those with an external locus of control believe their rewards are controlled by external forces. Internals prefer a participative leadership style while externals are generally more satisfied oh are with a directive leadership style.
2. Authoritarianism: Authoritarianism refers to an individual’s willing to accept the influence of others. High authoritarian followers tend to be less receptive to a participative leadership style and more responsive to directive leadership.
3. Abilities: The ability and experience of the followers will influence leader whether they are able to work more successfully with an achievement oriented leader who sets challenging goals and expects high performance, or a supportive leader who is willing to patiently encourage and instruct them. The path-goal model identifies three environmental factors moderating the effects of leadership styles: (1) the nature of the task, (2) the formal authority system within the organization, and (3) the group norms and dynamics. These environmental factors can influence the effectiveness of different leadership styles in a variety of ways. A highly structured task, for example, may reduce the need for a directive leader and even make a directive leader’s attempt to provide additional structure seem unwarranted and unwanted. However, a directive leader would be more likely to succeed than a participative leader if the organization had a highly formal authority structure that followed a strict chain of command. Likewise, a concern for the personal needs of subordinates by a supportive leader may seem superficial and unnecessary in a highly cohesive work group. The basic elements of the path-goal model of leadership axe illustrated in Exhibit 16J. This model shows how leadership styles interact with follower - characteristics and environmental factors to influence the personal perceptions and motivation of the followers. The perceptions of the followers concerning the situation and the followers’ level of motivation determine their job satisfaction, performance, and acceptance of the leader.
Some simplified applications of the path-goat model are shown in Exhibit 16.9. In the first two situations, subordinates have an ambiguous job or they feel insufficiently rewarded. Both situations call for a directive leader who explains the job and helps subordinates know how to get rewarded for performing it. The next two situations, boring work and a lack of self-confidence call for a support leader. Repetitive jobs are not as boring if a supportive leader helps subordinates see that their work is meaningful and significant. Likewise, a supportive leader can help subordinates feel greater self-confidence by coaching them and praising their accomplishments. In situation 5, subordinates are not challenged by the task. An achievement-oriented leader will set high goals and emphasize the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards from more effort. Finally, situation 6 involves a task that is unstructured and poorly defined, calling for participative leadership. By participating in the decision making, subordinates help to create an effective solution to the problem and, as a result of their involvement, feel committed to making it work.
Research on the path-goal model. The relationships specified by the path-goal model have been examined in a modest number of empirical studies. This research has tested the theory’s predictions concerning the moderators of leadership effectiveness to determine whether the situational variables interacted with the leadership styles in the predicted manner. The evidence seems to indicate that the model does quite well in predicting how the situational variables and leader styles combine to influence individual satisfaction and group morale? However, the model has not been-shown to be a good predictor of individual or group performance. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage in trying to’ validate the model empirically is that it contains too many variables and tries to explain too much. An experiment testing the full pat-goal model is difficult because too many variables have not been clearly identified and instruments -have not been developed to measure them. Nevertheless, the available studies tend to support the model, although they suggest that it understates the complexity of the situation. Furthermore, the research suggests that other variables, such as conflict and structure, also need to be incorporated into it.
Perhaps the major contribution of the path-goal model is that it provides a method for viewing leadership in terms of the rewards and punishments administered by the leader. The path-goal model explains why a particular style works best because of the reward contingencies determined by the environment and the leader's capacity to administer rewards and punishments. As more research accumulates, this type of explanation will have practical applications for those interested in the leadership process.
Normative Decision-Making Model of Leadership
Another situational leadership theory is the nonnative decision-making model formulated by Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton? It is considered both a decision making model and a theory of leadership since it explains how leaders should make decisions. This model tends to equate leadership with decision making, suggesting that making decisions is one of the most important functions a leader performs.
The normative decision-making model is a contingency theory of leadership since it assumes that no single leadership style is appropriate for all situations. Instead, leaders must develop a repertoire of leadership styles and adopt the style that is most appropriate to the situation. This model also disagrees with Fiedler by suggesting that leaders can use a variety of decision making strategies.
Knowing whether to involve others in the decision making process or whether to make the decision alone is an important leadership issue that dependant upon several considerations. Leaders need to know when to consult others and when consultation is a waste of time. Briefly stated, Vroom and Yetton’s classic model identifies five decision-making styles along with a series of diagnostic questions to determine which style is most appropriate. These normative decision-making model diagnostic questions are arranged sequentially in the form of a decision tree to help managers select the appropriate leadership style.
Decision making (leadership) styles of leaders. The Vroom-Yetton model identifies five decision making styles: two types of autocratic decision making (AL and Aft), two types of consultative decision making (CI and CII), and a group decision making style (GIL). These five styles are defined as follows:
Al The leader decides alone without soliciting any input from members
All The leader decides alone after obtaining the necessary information
from members.
Cl The leader makes the decision after obtaining information, ideas
suggested alternatives and evaluation from members individually.
CII The leader makes the decision after meeting with the members as a
group to collect their information, ideas, suggested alternatives, and
evaluation.
OH The leader and members arrive at a group decision through consensus decision making.
Although the leader may serve as the chairman of the group, the leader is simply one of the
group and does not decision try to influence the group to adopt a particular solution.
Criteria for selecting a leadership style. Two criteria are used for assessing the effectiveness of a leadership style: quality and acceptance. The quality of the decision refers to its accuracy and the extent to which it will achieve some objective, such as increase profitability, raise productivity, lower costs, reduce turnover, or increase sales. Decision quality depends on gathering accurate and which tree relevant information, identifying good alternatives, and evaluating them carefully to select the best solution. Consulting other group members often provides additional information, but when there are severe time constraints or styles vested interests on the part of the members, participative decision making would be inappropriate. For example, participative decision making is quite quality inappropriate during a commando raid, in the middle of a police rescue action, style is autocratic or during the twenty-second huddle of a football team.
Decision acceptance refers to the degree to which the subordinates or might group members are willing to implement the decision. There are two questions that leaders should consider in order to determine whether acceptance is an issue: (1) Do subordinates feel strongly about the decision? and (2) Is individual initiative and judgment on the part of members required to implement the decision? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then the acceptability of the decision is important. Regardless of the technical quality of the solution, the decision may be a failure if the members are not willing to accept it.
Diagnostic decision rules. Vroom and Yetton suggest that leaders select an able appropriate decision making style by diagnosing the situation using a sequence of decision rules. These decision rules are designed to help the leader know how to involve subordinates in decisions in a way that enhances the quality and series acceptability of the decision. The first three rules focus on the quality of the decision.
The decision rules are contained in eight questions that a leader answers either yes or no.
1. As long as it is accepted, does it make any difference which decision is selected? Are some decisions qualitatively superior to others?
2. Do I have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?
3. Do subordinates have sufficient additional information that needs to be considered to result in a high-quality decision?
4. Do I know exactly what information is needed, who possesses it, and how to collect it?
5. Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates critical to effective implementation?
6. If I were to make the decision by myself is it certain that it would be accepted by my subordinates?
7. Can subordinates be trusted to base their solutions on considerations consistent with the organization’s goals?
8. Is conflict among the subordinates likely, given the preferred solutions?
These diagnostic questions are used to determine the appropriate decision making style. The application of these diagnostic questions is contained in the decision-tree chart shown in Exhibit 16.10. The chart reads from left to right and the letters at the top, A through H, represent the questions shown above the decision tree. The boxes in the decision tree below each number represent the point where that question is asked. The lines connecting the boxes indicate the decision making path the manager follows, depending upon whether the answers to the questions are yes or no. The symbols at the far right illustrate which decision style is appropriate for the various paths through the decision tree.
At the endpoints of some of the decision sequences, several alternative styles are feasible. For example at the starting point all five decision styles are appropriate, and the model suggests that each style is likely to lead to a high-quality decision acceptable to subordinates. When more than one decision style is acceptable, the model recommends that managers choose the most autocratic of the styles to save time and minimize costs. If saving time and minimizing costs were not the most important objectives, one oft he other styles might be recommended when more than one style is acceptable. For example, if the goal was to further the personal development of subordinates, the participative styles. GII and CII, would be preferred more frequently.
In half the situations the model recommends either AI, AII, or CI strategies in which the manager decides alone. In four situations the model recommends the CII strategy, where the manager makes the decision alone after consulting with the subordinates as an advisory group. In only three situations does the model indicate that the group decision making strategy, GIL, is the only acceptable method.
Applying the Vroom-Yetton model. Vroom and Yetton have developed a series of decision making scenarios that portray how the model can be applied. These scenarios can be used for training managers to learn the appropriate leadership style. Each scenario presents a decision situation, and the individual is asked to assume the role of the manager and decide which is the appropriate leadership style by answering the questions in the decision-tree model.
Descriptive research has attempted to identify how closely the actual leadership styles used by managers correspond with the leadership styles recommended by the Vroom-Yetton model. The research indicates that most managers use greater participative decision making than the model recommends. Managers tend to overuse the consultative style (CI and CII) where the model suggests that the autocratic decision style (AL) is appropriate’8 Other research —has also shown that business school students are more participative than actual managers; top-level managers are more participative than lower-level managers; and female managers are more participative than male managers).
Two studies have examined the question of whether the Vroom-Yetton model actually describes the way managers should make decisions. In general, these studies support the model. For example, among forty-five retail franchises in the cleaning industry, those store managers who used the appropriate decision style as prescribed by the model tended to have more productive operations and more satisfied employees than managers who used decision styles ~ inconsistent with the model)0 Another test of the model examined whether 4 managers used the style recommended by the model in a variety of decision situations. When the manager’s decision style corresponded with the style recommended by the model, 68 percent of the decisions were judged to have been failed suggest that managers would do well to consider the diagnostic questions in deciding whom to involve in decision making.
Comparing the leadership models. All four situational leadership models contribute to our understanding of leadership by emphasizing the influence of external factors on the effectiveness of a particular leadership style. Fiedler’s contingency model has been subjected to the most extensive empirical research and has been more carefully defined than the other models. A common characteristic of all four models is that each model identifies different leadership styles and suggests that the effectiveness of the style is determined by various situational factors. However, the models focus on different styles, different situational factors, and different criteria for selecting the best style.
The models by Hersey-Blanchard and Fiedler both identify two leadership styles: task-oriented versus relationship-oriented. But while Hersey and Elan-chard view them in a two-dimensional matrix as two independent leader behaviors, Fiedler views them as ends of a single continuum. The path-goal model identifies four leadership styles: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented The normative decision-making model identifies three leadership styles: autocratic, consultative, and participative.
The situational factors influencing the effectiveness of leadership are quite different in each of the models. An important reason for some of this difference is that the normative decision-making model equates leadership with making decisions and looks at only this function of leadership. In addition, the models use rather different criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of leadership. Both the Hersey-Blanchard and the Fiedler models evaluate the effectiveness of different leadership styles according to group performance. The path-goal model evaluates leadership according to job satisfaction, performance, and acceptance of the leader. The normative decision-making model focuses on decision quality, decision acceptance, and time required to reach a decision.
DETERMINANTS OF LEADERSHIP
EFFECTIVENESS
Although deciding what makes an effective leader seems as if it should be a simple decision, the theories and research reviewed earlier illustrate the complexity of the issue. In spite of the complexity, however, individuals who are in positions of leadership are still faced with the practical question of deciding which leadership pattern to adopt.
Choosing a Leadership Style
One of the most popular models for selecting an appropriate leadership style is one proposed by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt. This model describes a variety of leadership styles along a continuum from highly autocratic have one end to highly participative at the other, as illustrated in Exhibit 1611.
Seven different leadership styles along this continuum are identified in the exhibit. At one extreme the manager uses his/her authority to simply make the decision and announce it. At the other extreme, the manager provides an area of freedom for subordinates and permits them to function within these limits to make decisions and direct their own activities. According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt, the appropriate leadership style is determined by (1) forces in the manager, (2) forces in the subordinates, and (3) forces in the situation.
Some of the important forces in the manager include the manager's value system and the value the manager places on participation and involvement by subordinates. The amount of confidence managers have in their subordinates and the manager's ability to handle uncertainty are also relevant.
The forces in a subordinate include such things as whether subordinates have high needs for independence, whether they are ready to assume responsibility for decision making, whether they are interested in the problems, and whether they possess the necessary experience to deal with them. As subordinates gain greater skill and competence in managing themselves, leaders ought to provide more autonomy for them.
The forces in the situation include the culture of the organization and its history of allowing subordinates to exercise autonomy, cohesiveness in the group and the degree to which the members work together as a unit, the nature of the problem itself and the question of whether subordinates have the knowledge and experience needed to solve it, and the pressures of time, since group decision making is time-consuming and ineffective in a crisis situation.
The framework provided by Tannenbaum and Schmidt provides a useful way to analyze a leadership situation and choose a successful leadership pattern. The successful leader is one who is aware of the situational forces and responds appropriately to them. Effective leaders need to understand themselves, the members of the group, the company, and the broader social environment in which they operate. As a long-term strategy, Tannenbaum and Schmidt encourage leaders to change their subordinates and the situation in a way that allows them to gradually provide greater opportunity for subordinate involvement.
Strategies for Improving Leadership
With thousands of books and articles written about leadership, it is surprising the followers. When we acknowledge the leader’s capacity to reward the behavior of followers, we should not overlook the capacity of the followers to reward the leader by the ways they perform. For example, organizations reward managers according to the performance of their group. Consequently, the managers of high-performing groups are highly rewarded by the organization.
One study has demonstrated the reciprocal nature of influence between leaders and subordinates. In this study, data were collected from first-line managers and two of the supervisors who reported to them. Leaders who were more considerate created greater satisfaction among their subordinates; but, at the same time, the performance of the subordinates caused changes in the behavior of the leaders.43 Employees who performed well caused their supervisor is to reward them and treat them with greater consideration. Although research on the reciprocal influence between leaders and followers is still rather limited, it is important to remember that leadership may be significantly constrained by the followers.
Constraints on leader behavior. Leaders do not have unlimited opportunities to influence others. Leadership effectiveness is constrained by a variety of factors, such as the extent to which managerial decisions are preprogrammed due to precedent, structure, technological specifications, laws, and the absence of available alternatives. Leadership can also be constrained by a variety of organizational factors limiting the leader’s ability to either communicate with or to reinforce the behavior of subordinates. The constraints imposed on leaders include external factors organizational policies, group factors, and individual skills and abilities.
1. External factors. Leaders are constrained in what they can do because of various economic realities and a host of state and federal laws. For example, leaders are required to pay at least the minimum wage and they are required to enforce safety standards. Leaders who have unskilled followers will have difficulty leading regardless of their leadership style, and the availability of skilled followers is influenced by the external labor market. Some geographical areas have a much better supply of skilled employees than others.
2. Organizational policies. The organization may constrain a leader’s effectiveness by limiting the amount of interaction between leaders and followers and by restricting the leader’s ability to reward or punish followers.
3. Group factors. Group norms are created by the dynamics of the group. If the group is highly cohesive and very determined, it can limit the leader’s ability to influence the group.
4. Individual skills and abilities. The leader’s own skills and abilities may act as constraints since leaders can only possess so much expertise, energy, and power. Some situations may simply require greater skills and abilities than the leader may possibly hope to possess.
Substitutes for leadership. While some situations constrain leaders other situations make leadership unnecessary. These variables are referred to as substitute variables because they substitute for leadership either by making the leader’s behavior unnecessary or by neutralizing the leader’s ability to influence subordinates. Some of the variables that tend to substitute for, or neutralize leadership arc illustrated in Exhibit 16.12. For example, subordinates who possess extensive experience, ability, and training tend to eliminate the need. For instrumental leadership. The task-oriented instructions from an instrumental leader are simply unnecessary when subordinates already know what to do. If the subordinates are indifferent toward rewards offered by the organization, the influence of both supportive leaders and instrumental leaders is neutralized.
Although the concepts of substitutes and neutralizers for leadership are a relatively new, early studies seem to support them. For example, studies have to shown that a highly structured situation neutralizes a leader’s efforts to structure the group’s behavior.
Realizing that there are constraints on a leader’s behavior and that other the factors may serve to neutralize or substitute for the influence of a leader helps to explain why the research on leadership has produced such inconsistent results. The fact that the results are inconsistent and generally weak does not necessarily mean that leadership is unimportant or that leaders don’t really account for much. Instead, it illustrates the complexity of the world in which leaders are required to function. Leadership is an extremely important function that has an enormous influence on the effectiveness of groups and organizations. The complexity of the situation, however, may prevent us from knowing in advance
which will be the most effective leadership behaviors.
SUMMARY
1. Leadership refers to incremental influence and is s-aid to occur when one individual influences others to do something voluntarily that they otherwise would not do. A need for leadership within organizations stems from the incompleteness of the organization design and the dynamic nature of the internal and external environments. Three basic leadership roles include origination of policy and structure, interpolation, and administration.
3. The earliest studies of leadership were primarily trait studies that attempted to identify the characteristics of effective leaders. These studies focused primarily on physical traits, intelligence, and personality. Although some personal characteristics were frequently related to leadership, the results were generally weak and often inconsistent. Many studies concluded that the characteristics of the subordinate and the nature of the task were as important as the characteristics of the leader in determining success.
3. A second approach to studying leadership focused on leader behaviors—how leaders actually behave. One of the earliest studies compared three leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. Although democratic leadership created the greatest satisfaction, autocratic leadership created the highest levels of productivity.
4. Research conducted simultaneously at two universities identified two similar leadership behaviors. At The Ohio State University the researchers labeled these two leader behaviors initiating structure and consideration. At the University of Michigan the same two factors were labeled production-centered and employee-centered leader behaviors. These two leader behaviors appear to identify leadership functions essential to the effectiveness of a group. The two Factors have been used to form a matrix called the Managerial Grid which places a concern for production on one side of the grid and concern for people on the other Each dimension is measured on a nine-point scale, and the ideal leadership style is considered to be 9,9, indicating a leader who is high in both dimensions. The research evidence, however, does not consistently support this conclusion.
5. The Failure of leadership research to identify leadership traits or universally superior leader behaviors resulted in the development of four situational theories of leadership. These theories suggest that the most effective leadership style depends upon situational variables, especially the characteristics of the group and the nature of the task.
6. Hersey and B1anchard developed a situational leadership model that matched different combinations of task behavior and relationship behavior with the maturity of the followers. As the may of the followers increases, the appropriate leadership style is first telling, then selling, then participating, and finally, for highly mature followers, delegating.
7. The most extensively researched situational leadership theory is Fred Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership. Fiedler used the LPC scale to measure the leader’s orientation toward either the task or the person. The most appropriate leadership style was then determined by assessing three situational variables: whether the relationships between the leader and the members were good or poor, whether the task was structured or unstructured, and whether the power position of the leader was strong or weak. When these three situational variables created an extremely favorable or extremely unfavorable situation, the most effective leadership style was a task-oriented (low LPC) leader. However, a leader with a high concern for interpersonal relationships (high LPC) was more effective in situations where there were intermediate levels of favorableness.
8. The path goal model is another situational leadership theory. This theory is derived from expectancy theory and suggests that effective leaders must clarify the goal paths and increase the goal attractiveness for followers. Four distinct leadership styles are proposed in the model: directive, supportive achievement-oriented and participative leadership styles. The most appropriate style depends upon two types of situational factors: the characteristics of the follower arid characteristics of the environment. Three of the most important follower characteristics include the locus of control, authoritarianism, and personal abilities. The three environmental factors include the nature of the task, the formal authority system within the organization, and the group norms and dynamics.
9. Vroom and Yetton’s normative decision-making model is also a situational leadership theory since it identifies the appropriate styles leaders should use in making decisions. The three leadership styles include autocratic decision making, consultative decision making, and group decision making. The decision titles determining which style is most appropriate include such questions as whether the leader has adequate information to make the decision alone, whether the subordinates will accept the goals of the organization, whether subordinates will accept the decision if they do not participate in making it, and whether the decision will
produce a controversial solution.
10. Although most of the literature on leadership emphasizes the influence of the leader on the group, the influence of the group upon the leader should not be overlooked. The relationship between the leader and the group implies a reciprocal influence. Groups have the capacity to influence the behavior of their leaders by responding selectively to specific leader behaviors. The influence of a leader can also be constrained by several external factors, such as organizational policies, group norms, and individual skills and abilities. Other variables have been found to neutralize or substitute for the influence of a leader, such as the skills and abilities of followers and the nature of the task itself.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Studies of the relationship between physical traits and leadership suggest that leaders tend to be tall, dark, and handsome. How do you account for these results?
2. What is the relationship between the two leader behaviors, initiating structure and consideration, and the two group roles discussed in Chapter 10: work roles and maintenance roles? What does this association suggest in terms of essential activities for group functioning?
3. Apply Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership by identifying two extremely different situations, one extremely favorable and the other extremely unfavorable, and explain why a task-oriented (low LW) leader is most effective in each situation.
4. What is the relationship between expectancy theory and the path-goal model 0f leadership? -
5. An important difference in the implications of situational leadership theories is whether leadership styles can be learned or changed. What is your opinion about the possibility of significantly changing an individual’s basic leadership style?
6. The relationship between the leader and the group invokes a reciprocal influence relationship. Who do you think exerts the greatest influence, the leader or the group? Using the principles of operant conditioning, describe how a group would need to behave in order to create a punitive, authoritarian supervisor or a rewarding, participative supervisor.
GLOSSARY
Consideration. Leader behavior that focuses on the comfort, well-being, satisfaction, and need fulfillment of subordinates.
Contingency theories of leadership. Leadership theories that recognize the influence of situational variables in determining the ideal styles of leadership. Four contingency leadership theories include Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model, Fiedlers contingency theory, House’s path-goal theory, and Vroom and Yetton’s normative decision-making model.
Initiating structure. Leader behavior that focuses on clarifying and defining the roles and task responsibilities for subordinates.
LPC scale. A questionnaire with sixteen semantic differential scales that are used to measure the least preferred coworker. This scale measures a persons leadership orientation.
Leader behaviors. The kinds of behaviors that leaden actually perform in a group. The two leader behaviors that have been consistently observed including task-related activities, called initiating structure or production-centered activities, and interpersonal relations activities, sometimes called consideration or employee-centered activities.
Leadership. The incremental influence that one individual exerts upon another and that causes the second person to change his or her behavior voluntarily. Three leadership roles include origination of
structure by top-level managers, interpolation or adapting the structure by middle-level managers and administration or implementation of the policies and procedures by lower-level supervisors.
Managerial Grid® A matrix that combines two factors: concern for people and concern for production. Each factor is measured with a nine-point scale.
Neutralizers of leadership. Forces that tend to destroy the influence of a leader or make it ineffective.
Normative decision-making model A decision-making model that is also a theory of leadership which suggests that the roost appropriate decision-making style for a leader depends upon situational factors, such as the information possessed by leader and followers and whether group members will accept the decision.
Path-goal model A contingency theory of leadership based upon expectancy theory which suggests that the characteristics of the follower and environmental factors should determine which of four leadership styles is most appropriate.
Relationship-oriented leader (high LPC) According to Fiedler, a leader who sees desirable characteristics even in his or her least preferred coworker.
Substitutes for leadership. Subordinate, task. Or organizational factors that decrease the importance of leader’s influence; forces within the environment that supplant or replace the influence of the leader.
Task-oriented leader (low LPC) According to Fiedler, a leader who shows a strong emotional dislike for his or her least preferred coworker.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- prisoners earnings act 1996
- list of advocacy organizations temple university
- leadership michigan state university
- prison resource website list
- edu
- pakistan prisons rules 1978 175 107 63 76
- prison catering services justice
- prisons torture and the death penalty on angela y
- 901435 rfp inmate education programs 0308draft
Related searches
- michigan state university job postings
- michigan state university philosophy dept
- michigan state university online degrees
- michigan state university employee discounts
- michigan state university employee lookup
- michigan state university employee portal
- michigan state university employee salaries
- michigan state university admissions
- michigan state university employee benefits
- michigan state university website
- michigan state university employee directory
- michigan state university deadline