MCom I Semester Basic Approaches Leadership Study Material Notes
Table of Contents
MCom I Semester Basic Approaches Leadership Study Material Notes: What is leadership trait theories Behavioral theories Ohio State Studies University of Michigan Studies Summary of Habaviorla Theories Scandinavian Studies The Managerial Grid Contingency Theories Fiedler Model Hersey and Blanchard Situational Theory Path-Goal Theory Leader Participation Model Summary and Implication of Managers :
BBA I Semester Managerial Economics Market Structures Study Material Notes
What Is Leadership?
Leadership and management are two terms that are often confused. What’s the difference between them
John Kotter of the Harvard Business School argues that management is about coping with complexity. Good management brings about order and consistency by drawing up formal plans, designing rigid organization structures, and monitoring results against the plans. Leadership, in contrast, is about coping with change. Leaders establish direction by developing a vision of the future: then they align people by communicating this vision and inspiring them to overcome hurdles.
Robert House of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania basically concurs when he says that managers use the authority inherent in their designated formal rank to obtain compliance from organizational members. Management consists of implementing the vision and strategy provided by leaders, coordinating and staffing the organization, and handling day-to-day problems.
Although Kotter and House provide separate definitions of the two terms, both researchers and practicing managers frequently make no such distinctions. So we need to present leadership in a way that can capture how it is used in theory and practice.
We define leadership as the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals. The source of this influence may be formal, such as that provided by the possession of managerial rank in an organization. Because management positions come with some degree of formally designated authority, a person may assume a leadership role simply because of the position he or she holds in the organization. But not all leaders are managers, nor, for that matter, are all managers leaders. Just because an organization provides its managers with certain formal rights is no assurance that they will be able to lead effectively. We find that no sanctioned leadership that is, the ability to influ. ence that arises outside the formal structure of the organization is often as important or more important than formal influence. In other words, leaders can emerge from within a group as well as by formal appointment to lead a group.
Basic Approaches Leadership
You should note that our definition makes no specific mention of a vision, even though both Rot ter and House use the term in their efforts to differentiate leadership and management. This omis sion is purposeful. Although most contemporary discussions of the leadership concept (see Chapter 12) include articulating a common vision, almost all work on leadership conducted prior to the 1980s made no reference to this concept. So in order for our definition to encompass both histori cal and contemporary approaches to leadership, we make no explicit reference to vision
Basic Approaches Leadership
Trai Theories
The media has long been a believer in trait theories of leadership–differentiating leaders from nonreaders by focusing on personal qualities and characteristics. The media identity people like Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Margaret Thatcher. South Africa’s Nelson Mandela. Virgin Group CEO Richard Branson, Ratan Tata CEO Tata Group of companies, Azim Premji CEO Wipro, and American Express chairman Kenneth Chenault as leaders, then describes them in terms such as charismatic enthusiastic and courage well the media isn’t alone. The search for personality social, physical, or intellectual attributes that would describe leaders and differentiate them from non-leaders goes back to the 1930s.
Research efforts at selating leadership traits resulted in a number of dead ends. For instance, a review in the late 1960s of 20 studies identified nearly 80 leadership traits, but only 5 of these traits were common to for more of the investigations. By the 1990, after numerous studies and analyses about the best thing that could be said was that the following en traits seemed to differentiate leaders from nonleaders: ambition and enerys the desire to lead, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, intelligence, high self-monitoring, andjob-relevant knowledge. But the power of these traits to predict leadership continued to be modest
Headlines were revealing unethical the importance scale. Ar senior man In the fall of 2002. Traming magazine and, in some cases, illegal) practices agement levels, the highest importance and The Center for Creative Leader by executives at companies like Enron. went to the ability to construct and ship surveyed more than 250 managers Tyco, Worldcom, and Arthur Ander articulate a clear vision (4.89). with to identify what leadership competensen. Respondents believed that for ethics receiving a mean rating of 4.8 cies they thought are most important leaders at the top of organizations to Ninety percent of senior-level man for success today. Respondents were 54 be effective, they must command agers placed developing a vision as percent male and 46 percent female. respect. They need to be perceived as highest in importance, but only 19 per And they covered all levels of manage-honest and reliable. Hence the imporcent of midlevel managers included ment: for instance, 28 percent were tance of ethics, integrity, and values. vision among their most important senior managers and 48 percent were On a 5-point scale, with 5 as most competencies. either in beginning or middle-level important this competency received a management positions. traits do a better job at predicting the emergence of leaders and the appearance of leadership than in actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders. The facts that an individual exhibits the traits and others consider that person to be a leader does not necessarily mean that the leader is successful at getting his or her group to achieve its goals.
Basic Approaches Leadership
Behavioral Theories
The failures of early trait studies led researchers in the late 1940s through the 1960s to go in a different direction. They began looking at the behaviors exhibited by specific leaders. They wondered if there was something unique in the way that effective leaders behave. To use contemporary exam please, Tidal Software CEO Thomas Charlton and Siebel Systems’ CEO Tom Siebel both have been very successful in leading their companies through difficult times. And they both rely on a common leadership style-tough-talking, intense, autocratic. Does this suggest that autocratic behavior is a preferred style for all leaders? In this section, we look at four different behavioral theories of leadership in order to answer that question. First, however, let’s consider the practical implications of the behavioral approach.
If the behavioral approach to leadership were successful, it would have implications quite differ ent from those of the trait approach. Trait research provides a basis for selecting the “right” persons to assume formal positions in groups and organizations requiring leadership. In contrast, if behayioral studies were to turn up critical behavioral determinants of leadership, we could train people to be leaders. The difference between trait and behavioral theories, in terms of application, lies in their underlying assumptions. Trait theories assume that leaders are born rather than made. On the other hand, if there were specific behaviors that identified leaders, then we could teach leadership–we could design programs that implanted these behavioral patterns in individuals who desired to be effective leaders. This was surely a more exciting avenue, for it meant that the supply of leaders could be expanded. If training worked, we could have an infinite supply of effective leaders.
Basic Approaches Leadership
Ohio State Studies
The most comprehensive and replicated of the behavioral theories resulted from research that Ohio State University in the late 1940s. These researchers sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior. Beginning with over a thousand dimensions, they eventually man rowed the list to two categories that substantially accounted for most of the leadership behavior described by employees. They called these two dimensions initiating structure and consideration
Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. It includes behavior that attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals. The leader characterized as high in initiating structure could be described as someone who “assigns group members to particular tasks.” “expects workers to maintain definite standards of performance,” and “emphasizes the meeting of deadlines
Basic Approaches Leadership
Consideration is described as the extent to which a person is likely to have job relationships that are characterized by mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. He or she shows concern for followers’ comfort, well-being, status, and satisfaction. A leader high in consideration could be described as one who helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable, and treats all employees as equals. AOL Time Warner’s CEO, Richard Parsons is rated high on consideration behavior. His leadership style is people-oriented, emphasizing cooperation and consensus-building. 12
Extensive research, based on these definitions, found that leaders high in initiating structure and consideration (a “high-high” leader) tended to achieve high employee performance and satisfaction more frequently than those who rated low on consideration, initiating structure, or both. However, the high-high style did not always result in positive consequences. For example, leader behavior characterized as high on initiating structure led to greater rates of grievances, absenteeism, and turnover and lower levels of job satisfaction for workers performing routine tasks. Other studies found that high consideration was negatively related to performance ratings of the leader by his or her superior. In conclusion, the Ohio State studies suggested that the high-high style generally resulted in positive outcomes, but enough exceptions were found to indicate that situational factors needed to be integrated into the theory.
University of Michigan Studies
Leadership studies undertaken at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center at about the same time as those being done at Ohio State had similar research objectives: to locate behavioral characteristics of leaders that appeared to be related to measures of performance effectiveness.
The Michigan group also came up with two dimensions of leadership behavior that they labeled employee-oriented and production-oriented. 14 Leaders who were employee-oriented were described as emphasizing interpersonal relations, they took a personal interest in the needs of their employees and accepted individual differences among members. The production-oriented leaders, in contrast, tended to emphasize the technical or task aspects of the job-their main concern was accomplishing their group’s tasks, and the group members were a means to that end.
The conclusions arrived at by the Michigan researchers strongly favored the leaders who were employee-oriented in their behavior. Employee-oriented leaders were associated with higher group productivity and higher job satisfaction. Production-oriented leaders tended to be associated with low group productivity and lower job satisfaction.
Basic Approaches Leadership
The Managerial Grid
A graphic portrayal of a two-dimensional view of leadership style was developed by Blake and Mouton. They proposed a managerial grid (sometimes also now called the leadership grid) based on the styles of concern for people” and “concern for production,” which essentially represent the Ohio State dimensions of consideration and initiating structure or the Michigan dimensions of employee-oriented and production-oriented
The grid, depicted in Exhibit 11-1, has nine possible positions along each axis, creating 81 different positions in which the leader’s style may fall. The grid does not show results produced but. rather, the dominating factors in a leader’s thinking in regard to getting results.
Based on the findings of Blake and Mouton, managers were found to perform best under a 9.9 style, as contrasted, for example, with a 9,1 (authority type) or 1,9 (laissez-faire type) style. Unfortunately, the grid offers a better framework for conceptualizing leadership style than for presenting! any tangible new information in clarifying the leadership quandary, because there is little substantive evidence to support the conclusion that a 9,9 style is most effective in all situations.
Basic Approaches Leadership
Scandinavian Studies
The three behavioral approaches we’ve just reviewed were essentially developed between the late 1940s and early 1960s. These approaches evolved during a time when the world was a far more stable and predictable place. In the belief that these studies fail to capture the more dynamic realities of today, researchers in Finland and Sweden began reassessing whether there are only two dimensions that capture the essence of leadership behavior. Their basic premise is that in changing world, effective leaders would exhibit development-oriented behavior. These are leaders who value experimentation, seek new ideas, and generate and implement change.
For instance, these Scandinavian researchers reviewed the original Ohio State data. They found that the Ohio State people included development items such as “pushes new ways of doing things and encourages members to start new activities. But these items, at the time, didn’t explain much toward effective leadership. It could be, the Scandia vain researchers proposed, that this was because developing new ideas and implementing change were not critical in those days. In today’s dynamic environment, this may no longer be true. So the Scandinavian researchers began conducting new studies looking to see if there is a third dimension–development orientation–that is related to leader effectiveness
The early evidence is positive. Using samples of leaders in Finland and Sweden, the researchers have found strong support for development-oriented leader behavior as a separate and independent dimension. That is, the previous behavioral approaches that focused in on only two behaviors may not appropriately capture leadership in the twenty-first century. Moreover, while initial conclusions need to be guarded without more confirming evidence, it also appears that leaders who demonstrate development-oriented behavior have more satisfied employees and are seen as more competent by those employees.
Basic Approaches Leadership
Summary of Behavioral Theories
The behavioral theories have had modest success in identifying consistent relationships between leadership behavior and group performance. What seems to be missing is consideration of the situational factors that influence success or failure. For example, it seems unlikely that Mahatma Gandhi, would have been a great leader in the era of globalisation; yet he was until mid 1900’s. Would Ralph Nader have risen to lead a consumer activist group had he been born in 1834 rather than 1934. or in Costa Rica rather than Connecticut? It seems quite unlikely, yet the behavioral approaches we have described could not clarify these situational factors
What was the contribution of Mahatma Gandhi? He knew about the vital forces (energy) pos sessed by every individual and energized Indians to fight against foreign rule. He synergized their energy into a mass movement directed at overthrowing British rule. Hitler, on the other hand did the same thing and succeeded in driving the vital forces (energy) to the destruction of humanity, by taking Germans on a runious path. Both operated under different sets of values. Leaders individual
ally exhibit a strong set of values coupled with a compelling vision of the future. Value-driven com panies have better success ratio than non-value based corporates, a fact recognized by all fortune bo companies.
Had Gandhi not been thrown off the train in South Aftica because of racial discrimination, he may have in all likelyhood not taken up the fight against discrimination with determination
Did his decision, thereafter, fighting for one’s right important than being law abiding, resulted in his ability to protect the Indians against unjust laws?
Contingency Theories
Linda Wachner had a reputation as being a very tough boss. And for a number of years, this style worked. In 1987, Wachner became CEO of Warnaco, a struggling $425-million-a-year apparel company. Over a 14-year period, she transformed Warnaco into a $2.2 billion company whose products ranged from Calvin Klein jeans to Speedo swimsuits. In spite of an abrasive style that included frequently humiliating employees in front of their peers, and led to rapid turnover among top managers, Wachner’s style worked for most of the 1990s. In fact, in 1993. Fortune magazine anointed her “America’s most successful businesswoman.” But times change and Wachner didn’t.’ Beginning in 1998, the company’s business began to unravel, hurt by a reduction in demand for its products and a fast-eroding market share, Wachner’s headstrong approach and brash tactics, which had driven off many competent executives, was now alienating creditors and licensers as well as employees. In June 2001, Warnaco was forced to file for bankruptcy protection. Five months later, the restructuring committee of Warnaco’s board of directors fired Wachner.
Linda Wachner’s rise and Fall illustrates that predicting leadership success is more complex than isolating a few traits or preferable behaviors. In Wachner’s case, what worked in 1990 didn’t work in 2000
The failure by researchers in the mid-twentieth century to obtain consistent results led to a focus on situational influences. The relationship between leadership style and effectiveness suggested that under condition a, style would be appropriate, whereas style y would be more suitable for condition b, and style z for condition c. But what were the conditions a, b, c, and so forth? It was one thing to say that leadership effectiveness was dependent on the situation and another to be able to isolate those situational conditions.
Several approaches to isolating key situational variables have proven more successful than others and, as a result, have gained wider recognition. We shall consider five of these: the Fiedler model. Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory, leader-member exchange theory, and the path-goal and leader-participation models.
Basic Approaches Leadership
Fiedler Model
The first comprehensive contingency model for leadership was developed by Ered Fiedler 20 The Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group perfor mance depends on the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader. Linda Wachner’s (in the foreground Identifying Leadership Style of the photo) rise and fall in Fiedler believes a key factor in leadership success is leading Warnaco illustrates the the individual’s basic leadership style terms (a high LPG score), then the respondent is primarily interested in good personal relation with this coworker. That is, if you essentially describe the person you are least able to wo favorable terms, Fiedler would label you relationship-oriented. In contrast, if the least preferred coworker is seen in relatively unfavorable terms (a low LPC score), the respondent is primar Interested in productivity and thus would be labeled task-oriented. About 16 percent of respondent score in the middle range. 21 Such individuals cannot be classified as either relationship-oriented on task-oriented and thus fall outside the theory’s predictions. The rest of our discussion, therefore relates to the 84 percent who score in either the high or low range of the LPG
Fiedler assumes that an individual’s leadership style is fixed. As we’ll show, this is important because it means that if a situation requires a task-oriented leader and the person in that leadership position is relationship-oriented, either the situation has to be modified or the leader replaced if optimal effectiveness is to be achieved.
Defining the Situation After an individual’s basic leadership style has been assessed through the LPC, it is necessary to match the leader with the situation. Fiedler has identified three contingency dimensions that, he argues, define the key situational factors that determine leadership electiveness. These are leader member relations, task structure, and position power. They are defined as follows:
1 Leader-member relations: The degree to which members have confidence, trust, and respect in their leader.
2. Task structure: The degree to which job assignments are procedurized (that is, structured or unstructured).
3. Position power: The degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases.
The next step in the Fiedler model is to evaluate the situation in terms of these three contingency variables. Leader-member relations are either good or poor, task structure is either high or low, and position power is either strong or weak.
Fiedler states the better the leader-member relations, the more highly structured the job, and the stronger the position power, the more control the leader has. For example, a very favorable situation (in which the leader would have a great deal of control) might involve a payroll manager who is well respected and whose employees have confidence in her (good leader-member relations), for which the activities to be done- such as wage computation, check writing, report filing-are specific and clear (high task structure), and the job provides considerable freedom for her to reward and punish her employees (strong position power). On the other hand, an unfavorable situation might be the disliked chairperson of a voluntary fund-raising team. In this job, the leader has very little control. Altogether, by mixing the three contingency variables, there are potentially eight different situations or categories in which leaders could find themselves.
Matching Leaders and Situations with knowledge of an individual’s LPC and an assessment of the three contingency variables, the Fiedler model proposes matching them up to achieve maximum leadership effectiveness. Based on his research, Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders tend to perform better in situations that were very favorable to them and in situations that were very unfavorable (see Exhibit 11-2). So Fiedler would predict that when faced with a category I, II, III. VII. or VIII situation, task-oriented leaders perform better. Relationship-oriented leaders, however, perform better in moderately favorable situations-categories IV through VI. In recent years, Fiedler has condensed these eight situations down to three. He now says that task-oriented leaders perform best in situations of high and low control, while relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situations.
Given Fiedler’s findings, how would you apply them? You would seek to match leaders and situations. Individuals’ LPC scores would determine the type of situation for which they were best suited. That “situation” would be defined by evaluating the three contingency factors of leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. But remember that Fiedler views an individual’s leadership style as being fixed. Therefore, there are really only two ways in which to improve leader effectiveness
First, you can change the leader to fit the situation-as in a baseball game, a manager can put a right-handed pitcher or a left-handed pitcher into the game, depending on the situational characteristics of the hitter. So, for example, if a group situation rates as highly unfavorable but is currently led by a relationship-oriented manager, the group’s performance could be improved by replacing that manager with one who is task-oriented. The second alternative would be to change the situation to fit the leader. That could be done by restructuring tasks or increasing or decreasing the power that the leader has to control factors such as salary increases, promotions, and disciplinary actions.
Evaluation As a whole, reviews of the major studies that tested the overall validity of the Fiedler model lead to a generally positive conclusion. That is, there is considerable evidence to support al least substantial parts of the model. If predictions from the model use only three categories rather than the original eight, there is ample evidence to support Fiedler’s conclusions. But there are problems with the LPC and the practical use of the model that need to be addressed. For instance the logic underlying the LP is not well understood and studies have shown that respondents’ LPG scores are not stable. Also, the contingency variables are complex and difficult for practitioners to assess. It’s often difficult in practice to determine how good the leader-member relations are, how structured the task is, and how much position power the leader has.27
Cognitive Resource Theory More recently, Fiedler and an associate, Joe Garcia, reconceptualized the former’s original theory! Specifically, they focused on the role of stress as a form of situational unfavorableness and how a leader’s intelligence and experience influence his or her reaction to stress. They call this reconceptualization cognitive resource theory.
The essence of the new theory is that stress is the enemy of rationality. It’s difficult for leaders (or anyone else, for that matter) to think logically and analytically when they’re under stress. Moreover, the importance of a leader’s intelligence and experience to his or her effectiveness differs under lowand high-stress situations. Fiedler and Garcia found that a leader’s intellectual abilities correlate positively with performance under low stress but negatively under high stress. And, conversely, a leader’s experience correlates negatively with performance under low stress but positively under high stress. So, according to Fiedler and Garcia, it’s the level of stress in the situation that determines whether an individual’s intelligence and experience will contribute to leadership performance.
In spite of its newness, cognitive resource theory is developing a solid body of research support.50 That is, in high-stress situations, bright individuals perform worse in the leadership role than their less intelligent counterparts. When stress is low, more experienced individuals perform worse than do less experienced people.
Basic Approaches Leadership
Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory
Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard have developed a leadership model that has gained a strong following among management development specialists. This model-called situational leadership the ory (SLT) has been incorporated into leadership training programs at over 400 of the Fortune 500 companies, and more than 1 million managers a year from a wide variety of organizations are being taught its basic elements.52
Situational leadership is a contingency theory that focuses on the followers. Successful leader ship is achieved by selecting the right leadership style, which Hersey and Blanchard argue is contingent on the level of the followers’ readiness. Before we proceed, we should clarify two points: Why focus on the followers? and What do they mean by the term readiness?
The emphasis on the followers in leadership effectiveness reflects the reality that it is the followers who accept or reject the leader. Regardless of what the leader does, effectiveness depends on the actions of his or her followers. This is an important dimension that has been overlooked or under-emphasized in most leadership theories. The term readiness, as defined by Hersey and Blanchard, refers to the extent to which people have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task.
SLT essentially views the leader-follower relationship as analogous to that between a parent and a child. Just as a parent needs to relinquish control as a child becomes more mature and responsible, so too should leaders. Hersey and Blanchard identify four specific leader behaviors-from highly directive to highly laissez-faire. The most effective behavior depends on a followers’ ability and motivation. So SLT says if a follower is unable and unwilling to do a task, the leader needs to give clear and specific directions; if followers are unable and willing the leader needs to display high task orientation to compensate for the followers’ lack of ability and high relationship orientation to get the follower to “buy into the leader’s desires; if followers are able and unwilling, the leader needs to use a supportive and participative style; and if the employee is both able and willing the leader doesn’t need to do much.
SLT has an intuitive appeal. It acknowledges the importance of followers and builds on the logic that leaders can compensate for ability and motivational limitations in their followers. Yet research efforts to test and support the theory have generally been disappointing. Why? Possible explanations include internal ambiguities and inconsistencies in the model itself as well as problems with research methodology in tests of the theory. So in spite of its intuitive appeal and wide popularity, at least at this time, any enthusiastic endorsement has to be cautioned against.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
For the most part, the leadership theories we’ve covered to this point have largely assumed that leaders treat all their followers in the same manner. That is, they assume leaders use a fairly homogeneous style with all of the people in their work unit. But think about your experiences in groups. Did you notice that leaders often act very differently toward different people? Did the leader tend to have favorites who made up his or her “in-group? If you answered “Yes” to both these questions, you’re acknowledging the foundation of leader-member exchange theory. 34
The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory argues that because of time pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small group of their followers. These individuals make up the in-group–they are trusted, get a disproportionate amount of the leader’s attention, and are more likely to receive special privileges. Other followers fall into the out-group. They get less of the leader’s time, fewer of the preferred rewards that the leader controls, and have leader.follower relations based on formal authority interactions.
The theory proposes that early in the history of the interaction between a leader and a given follower, the leader implicitly categorizes the follower as an “in” or an “out” and that relationship is relatively stable over time. Just precisely how the leader chooses who falls into each category is unclear, but there is evidence that leaders tend to choose in-group members because they have atti tude and personality characteristics that are similar to the leader’s or a higher level of competence than out-group members 36 (see Exhibit 11-3). A key point to note here is that even though it is the leader who is doing the choosing, it is the follower’s characteristics that are driving the leader’s categorizing decision
Research to test LMX theory has been generally supportive. More specifically, the theory and research surrounding it provide substantive evidence that leaders do differentiate among followers that these disparities are far from random, and that followers with in-group status will have higher performance ratings, lower turnover intentions, greater satisfaction with their superior, and higher overall satisfaction than will the out-group. These positive findings for in-group members shouldn’t be totally surprising given our knowledge of the self-fulfilling prophesy (see Chapter 5). Leaders invest their resources with those they expect to perform best. And “knowing that in-group members are the most competent, leaders treat them as such and unwittingly fulfill their prophecy.38
Path-Goal Theory
Currently, the most influential contingency approach to leadership is path-goal theory. Developed by Robert House, path-goal theory extracts key elements from the Ohio State leadership research on initiating structure and consideration and the expectancy theory of motivation.
The Theory The essence of the path-goal theory is that it’s the leader’s job to provide followers with the information, support, or other resources necessary for them to achieve their goals. The term path-goal is derived from the belief that effective leaders clarify the path to help their followers get from where they are to the achievement of their work goals and to make the journey along the path easier by reducing roadblocks.
Leader Behaviors House identified four leadership behaviors. The director leder lets followers know what is expected of them, schedules work to be done, and gives specific guidance as to how to accomplish tasks. The supporter leader is friendly and shows concern for the needs of followers. The participati
leader consults with followers and uses their suggestions before making a decision. The achievement-oriented leader sets challenging goals and expects followers to perform at their highest level. In contrast to Fiedler, House assumes that leaders are flexible and that the same leader can display any or all of these behaviors depending on the situation.
Contingency Variables and Predictions As Exhibit 11- illustrates, the path-goal theory proposes two classes of situational or contingency variables that moderate the leadership behavior-outcome relationship-those in the environment that are outside the control of the employee (task structure, the formal authority system, and the work group) and those that are part of the personal characteristics of the employee (locus of control, experience, and perceived ability). Environmental factors deter mine the type of leader behavior required as a complement if follower outcomes are to be maximized, while personal characteristics of the emplovee determine how the environment and leader behavior are interpreted. So the theory proposes that leader behavior will be ineffective when it is redundant with sources of environmental structure or incongruent with employee characteristics. For example, the following are illustrations of predictions based on path-goal theory:
Leader-Participation Model
Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton developed a leader participation model that related leadership behavior and participation in decision making.” Recognizing that task structures have varying demands for ou tine and nonroutine activities, these researchers argued that leader behavior must adjust to reflect the task structure. Vroom and Yetton’s model was normative_it provided a sequential set of rules that should be followed in determining the form and amount of participation in decision making, as determined by different types of situations. The model was a decision tree incorporating seven contingencies (whose relevance could be identified by making “yes” or “no” choices) and five alternative leadership styles.
More recent work by Vroom and Arthur Jago has resulted in a revision of this model. 42 The revised model retains the same five alternative leadership styles-from the leader’s making the decision completely by himself or hersell to sharing the problem with the group and developing a consensus decision–but adds a set of problem types and expands the contingency variables to 12. The 12 contingency variables are listed in Exhibit 11-5.
Research testing both the original and revised leader participation models has been encouraging, although the revised model rates higher in effectiveness. Criticism has tended to focus on variables that have been omitted and on the model’s overall complexity. Other contingency theories demonstrate that stress, intelligence, and experience are important situational variables. Yet the leader-participation model fails to include them. But more importantly, at least from a practical point of view, is the fact that the model is far too complicated for the typical manager to use on a reg. ular basis. Although Vroom and Jago have developed a computer program to guide managers through all the decision branches in the revised model, it’s not very realistic to expect practicing managers to consider 12 contingency variables, 8 problem types, and 5 leadership styles in trying to select the appropriate decision process for a specific problem.
We obviously haven’t done justice in this discussion to the model’s sophistication. So what can you gain from this brief review? Additional insights into relevant contingency variables. Vroom and his associates have provided us with some specific, empirically supported contingency variables that you should consider when choosing your leadership style.
Basic Approaches Leadership
Summary and Implications for Managers
Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior, for it’s the leader who usually provides the direction toward goal attainment. Therefore, a more accurate predictive capability should be valuable in improving group performance.
The early search for a set of universal leadership traits failed. However, recent efforts using the Big Five personality framework has generated much more encouraging results. Specifically, the traits of extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience show strong and consistent relationships to leadership.
The behavioral approach’s major contribution was narrowing leadership into task-oriented and people-oriented styles. But no one style was found to be effective in all situations.
A major breakthrough in our understanding of leadership came when we recognized the need to develop contingency theories that included situational factors. At present, the evidence indicates that relevant situational variables would include the task structure of the job; level of situational stress; level of group support; the leader’s intelligence and experience; and follower characteristics such as personality, experience, ability, and motivation.
