Read the full Leadership text on my Blog



Leadership Theories and Summary

The following material is a high level summary of twelve approaches/theories in leadership. Each section covers a theory/approach to leadership. The sections cover the basic assumptions, references, diagrams, leadership instruments, strengths and weaknesses. This summary is based on the following books:

  • Leadership Theory and Practice, Peter G. Northouse, Third Edition.
  • Management of Organizational Behavior, Paul Hersey, Seventh Edition

 

On Leadership

In perusing these materials, I did not find a simple answer or recipe for leadership. As suspected, leadership is a part of all us at home,  in our business, and our community. What was extremely beneficial to me was that reading through the various theories, and case studies, I was able to  identify with many of these examples and situations. It had enriched me with an insight about myself and those I interact  with. Frequently, after reading a paragraph, I would relate a particular situation or method  to a behavior that I or someone I know was engaged in.

 

It is that very awareness of both my personal and other people's behaviors that makes leadership possible. I am the first to admit that learning about all these approaches to leadership does not automatically make one a good leader, but they give a tremendous insight and the possibility to become a better one.

 

My own view is that "Leadership is a process to change or create something from what otherwise would  be chaos. It must be highly flexible and demands awareness, skills, and sensitivity. It is highly dependent on situations. Leadership is being human." In my view, the combination of the majority of these approaches and theories is the true leadership theory. They are all equally eye opening for everyone in the organization.

 

Hazem Abolrous

 

 

 

Management vs Leadership

 

There are of course distinctions between the concepts of Management and Leadership. This is however another in depth discussion. For the sake of this summary, they will both be synonymous in the upcoming sections with the exception of the snippet below.

 

The  classical  description  of management  work  comes  from Drucker  (1973). He  has  defined  five

basic  functions  of  a management  job.  They  are  planning,  organizing,  controlling,  motivating  and

coordinating. This is the basis for many later role definitions.

Leaders have different roles to accomplish. Maybe the best known  definition comes from Bennis

between a leader and a manager. In his classic “On becoming a leader” (1989, 44-45) he has written

about the differences of leaders and managers as follows:

-  The manager administers;  the leader innovates.

-  The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

-  The manager maintains; the leader develops.

-  The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

-  The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.

-  The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.

-  The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

-  The manager has eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his eye on the horizon.

-  The manager imitates; the leader originates.

-  The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.

-  The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his own person.

-  The manager does things right; the leader does the right things.

 

 

 

Leadership Theories

It should be clear that leadership can be defined in many different ways. As you read about theories and research on leadership in later sections, you will recognize that the theorists and researchers each had his/her own definitions of leadership, and that they focus on somewhat different aspects of the job requirements of a leader. An example of a theory that is not covered in the upcoming sections, but is worth noting is the decision tree approach.

 

The decision tree approach presented by Victor Vroom is focused entirely on whether  leader chooses to make a decision on his/her own or if the group should be involved in the decision. In this approach, you ask a series of yes/no questions and based on the response to each to each branch, the decision tree takes you to the next question or to a final decision.

 

The questions of the decision tree involve whether the leader has the information necessary to make the decision, whether the decision has quality requirements, whether the followers have the information necessary, whether they are likely to accept the decision if the leader makes it alone, and so forth. The process is designed to help the leader make or delegate the decision.

 

This approach clearly focuses on one aspect of leadership (decision making) This is an example of a contingency theory of leadership

 

One distinction to keep in mind while reading the material is the difference between emergent and assigned leadership. Many of the approaches and theories set forth deal with emergent leadership and few of them talk about the assigned leadership roles.

 

The  self-monitoring scale

The self-monitoring scale was designed to measure the extent to which a person is sensitive to the expectations of others in a social situation. It also measures the extent to which the person is able to shape his or her behavior to match those expectations. Both the males and females received varying scores on the self-monitoring scale, but only the females' scores were related to the number of leadership nominations they received. The explanation that Gary Odous came up with goes as follows: The female students were a distinct minority in the class. Each study group had one or two females among the seven or eight students making up the group. The class is offered in the college of business, where the majority of the students are male. As a result, we might assume that the subject matter of the class--and indeed the class itself--might be considered a masculine-oriented activity. For a female member of the study group to emerge as a leader, she had to recognize the masculine demands of the situation and conform her behavior to those demands. The women who had high self-monitoring scores were better able to do this than those with low self-monitoring scores.

 

 

 

 

 

Trait Approach

The Trait Approach

 

First systematic ways to study leadership in the 20th century. Focused on what made people "great leaders". Identified innate characteristics for the "Great Man" theories such as Lincoln, Gandhi, etc. Research focused on determining the traits that people are born with (Bass,1990; Jago,1982)

 

During the Mid 20th century, the theory was challenged (Stogdill,1948) that "no consistent set of traits differentiated leaders from non-leaders." An individual who was a leader in one situation might not have been a leader in another situation. It was re-conceptualized as a relationship between people as opposed to a set of traits (Stogdill, 1948).

 

  • The trait approach emphasizes the personality of the leader.
  • In recent years, there has been a renewed interest. Bryman, 1992; Lord DeVader and Alliger 1986 found that personality traits were strongly associated with individuals perceptions of leadership.
  • Locke and Kirkpatrick 1991, claimed that effective leaders are actually distinct types of people in several key respects.
  • It started with a focus on the traits, shifted to focus on situations, then shifted back to traits.
  • A good overview was found in 2 surveys
    • Stogdill, 1948 survey: Analyzed 124 traits. An individual does NOT become a leader solely based on possessing these traits. The traits must be relevant to the situation in which the leader is functioning. The survey argued that leadership was determined by the situational factor.
      • The following differentiated a leader from other individuals.
        • Intelligence
        • Alertness
        • Insight
        • Responsibility
        • Initiative
        • Persistence
        • Self confidence
        • Sociability
    • Stogdill, 1974 survey: Analyzed 163 traits. This survey was more balanced and argued that that both Personality and Situational factors were equal determinants of leadership.
      • The following differentiated a leader from other individuals.
        • Drive for responsibility and task completion.
        • Vigor and persistent pursuit of goals.
        • Venturesomeness and originality in problem solving.
        • Drive to exercise initiative in social situations.
        • Self confidence and sense of personal identity.
        • Willingness to accept consequences of decision and action.
        • Readiness to absorb interpersonal stress.
        • Willingness to tolerate frustration and delay.
        • Ability to influence other persons' behavior
        • Capacity to structure social interactions systems to the purpose oat hand.
  • Mann, 1959 conducted similar study which examined 1400 traits. He identified leaders as having strength in the following: Intelligence, Masculinity, Adjustment, Dominance, Extroversion, and conservatism.
  • Lord et al, 1986 reassessed Mann findings and used the meta-analysis procedure.
  • Locke and Kirkpatrick, 1991 contended that "Leaders are not like other people". They postulated that leaders differ from non-leaders in 6 traits including: Drive, desire to lead, honesty, integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business.
  • The trait approach and a century of research gives the would-be leaders a set of traits that they can develop.

 

Stogdill (1948)

Mann (1959)

Stogdill (1974)

Lord, DeVader and

Allinger (1986)

Kirkpatrick and

Locke (1991)

Intelligence

Alertness

Responsibility

Initiative

Persistence

Self-confidence

Sociability

Intelligence

Masculinity

Adjustment

Dominance

Extroversion

Conservatism

Achievement

Persistence

Insight

Initiative

Self-confidence

Responsibility

Cooperativeness

Tolerance

Influence

Sociability

Intelligence

Masculinity

Dominance

Drive

Motivation

Integrity

Confidence

Cognitive ability

Task knowledge

 

  • The traits that are central to this list are:
    • Intelligence
      • Strong verbal ability, perceptual ability, and reasoning. Research indicates that a leader's intellectual ability should not vary too much from the that of his subordinates. In cases where there is a significant difference, it can be counter productive.
    • Self confidence
      • Ability to be certain about one's competencies and skills. It includes self esteem, self assurance and belief that one can make a difference. This is very important for ability to influence others.
    • Determination
      • Desire to get the job done. It includes initiative, persistence, dominance, and drive. Leaders exhibiting this are proactive, and have the capacity to persevere against obstacles.
    • Integrity
      • Honesty and trustworthiness. Adhere to a strong set of principles and take responsibility for their actions. Leaders with integrity inspire confidence in others. They do what they say there are going to do. They are dependable, loyal, and not deceptive.
    • Sociability
      • This is leader's inclination to seek out pleasant social relationships. Friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful, and diplomatic. They are sensitive to others' needs, show concern, and well being.

 

How does the trait approach work?

The trait approach focuses exclusively on the leader and not the followers. It suggests that organizations will work better if people in managerial positions have designated leadership profiles. Selecting the "right" people will increase organizational effectiveness. It is used for personal awareness and development. When manager analyze their traits, they gain insight into their strengths and weaknesses. It allows leaders to get an understanding and take corrective actions.

 

Strengths

  • It is intuitively appealing
  • It has a century of research to back it up
  • By focusing exclusively on leader it has been able to provide some deeper understanding on how Leader’s personality is related to leadership process
  • It has given some benchmarks for what we need to look for, if we want to be leaders.

 

Weakness

  • The failure to delimit a definitive list of leadership traits
  • It has failed to take situations into account
  • The approach has resulted in highly subjective determinations of the "most important" leadership traits
  • It can also be criticized for failing to look at traits in relationship to leadership outcomes
  • It is not a useful approach for training and development of leadership. (The reasoning here is that traits are relatively fixed psychological structures that limits the value of training. On the contrary, we could challenge this assumption concerning at least some traits changeable.)

 

Leadership Instrument

There are many instruments that are used by organizations. Common personality tests include Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory or the Myers-Briggs Type indicator. The leadership Trait Questionnaire (LTQ) assesses the personal leadership characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

Skills Approach

The Skills Approach

  • The skills approach emphasizes the capabilities of the leader.
  • The advantage of this approach is anyone can become an effective leader.
  • Similar to the trait approach, the skills approach takes a leader-centered approach except that it focuses on the skills and abilities instead of the "Personality" traits which are usually innate.
  • The original research came from the "Skills of an effective administrator" Harvard Business Review published in 1955 by Robert Katz.
  • A multitude of researched was done in the 1990's by Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs & Fleishman.
  • Katz identified 3 basic skills based on his observation of executives in the workplace. Katz emphasized that the skills tell "What leaders can accomplish" as opposed to trait which emphasized "Who leaders are". The skills approach theorizes that leaders can be developed and trained.
    • Technical
      • Having knowledge and being proficient in a specific type of work or activity.
      • Technical skills is not important at lower levels of management and less important at higher levels.
      • Ability to work with things.
    • Human
      • Ability to work with people.
      • Being aware of one's own perspective on issues and at the same time being aware of others perspectives.
      • Leaders adapt their own ideas with those of others.ility Model"
      • Create an atmosphere of trust where employees can feel comfortable, secure, encouraged to be involved in planning the things that affect them.
    • Conceptual
      • Ability to work with ideas and concepts.
      • Works easily with abstractions and hypothetical situations.
      • Creating visions, strategic plans.
      • Is most important at top management levels.

 

 

  • What are Schemas?

Northouse presents the concept of the schema, but he does not explain it very completely. Cognitive theorists have constructed the concept of a schema to help explain how we think, learn, remember, and experience the world. A schema is essentially a network of ideas surrounding a specific concept. Such concepts could include mothers, fathers, bosses, African Americans, Hispanics, and even yourself. Schemata (the plural of schema) function in a way that organizes our experiences and allows our information processing to be efficient. Their affect can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances.

 

For example, suppose you meet a new person at work. The person is African American. Because of your schema about African American persons you probably assume that you already know some things about this person. You might, depending on the nature of your schema, assume that he or she has rhythm, or basketball-playing skills, or other characteristics you associate with the concept African American. You may learn some things about this person that are not congruent with your existing schema. You may ignore them, forget them or classify this person as a special exception to the concept. All of these will contribute to maintaining the existing schema.

 

People have a natural tendency to resist changing our schemata on the basis of new information. For example, people who are highly prejudiced against African Americans are likely to be very resistant to change in that schema. Although a good leader will have a large number of schemata about different people, his or her schemata are more likely to be flexible and receptive to new information.

 

  • Skills Model - Mumford and colleges identified a new skills based model of organizational leadership.
    • Started in the early 199s with funding from the DOD.  Focused on 1800 army officers representing 6 grades levels.
    • They attempted to explain "Effective Performance".
    • They used a "Capability Model" to explain the relationship between a leader's skills and knowledge.
    • The skills model does NOT focus on "what leaders do", but on the capabilities.
    • It is composed of 5 different components
      • Competencies
      • Individual attributes
      • Leadership outcomes
      • Career experiences
      • Environmental influences

 

 

 

  1. Competencies
    • Problem solving skills
      • Ability to solve new, unusual, and ill defined problems. It includes gathering problem information, formulate new understandings, and generating prototypes plans for solutions. These skills do not work in a vacuum, but in the organizational context.  Leaders must understand their capacities within the organization.
      • An example is being the director of Human Resources for a medium sized company trying to develop a plan to reduce the costs of healthcare costs.
        • First - identify full ramifications for employees changing benefits.
        • Second - gather information about how benefits can be scaled back.
        • Third - Find a way to teach and inform employees about he change.
        • Fourth - Create scenarios for how the changes can be instituted.
        • Fifth - Look closely at the solution itself. How will this change affect company's mission? Careers?
        • Last - Are there issues in the organization that infringe on the implementation of these changes?
    • Social Judgment skills
      • Capacity to understand people and social systems.
      • Working with others to solve problems and marshal support to implement changes. Similar to Katz' views, but delineated into the following:
        • Perspective taking
          • Understand the attitudes others have towards a particular problem.
          • This is empathy applied to the problem solving. Being sensitive to other people perspective and goals.
          • Another tem for this is "Social Intelligence"
        • Social Perceptiveness
          • Having insight into how others within the organization function.
          • What is important to others? What motivates them?
          • A leader with this skills has a keen sense of how employees will respond to any proposed change.
          • Reacting to others with flexibility. This is the ability to change one's behavior in light of an understanding of others perspectives in the organization.
          • Being open and non dogmatic
        • Social Performance
          • Includes a wide set of skills.
          • Leaders should effectively be able to communicate their own vision to others.
          • Skills of persuasion are essential.
          • Function as mediators.
    • Knowledge
      • Refers to the accumulation of knowledge and the mental structures used to organize information. This is called Schema (summary, diagrammatic representation or outline)
      • Organized information (schemata) become more meaningful than the bits that comprises it.
      • Knowledgeable people are called "experts" and can process complex information of the intricacies of a particular field.

 

  1. Individual attributes
    • General cognitive ability
      • Simply said, this is a person's intelligence (fluid intelligence) which includes perceptual processing, information processing, general reasoning, creative and divergent thinking capabilities, and memory skills.
      • This is linked to Biology and not to experience.
    • Crystallized cognitive ability
      • Learned and acquired intellectual ability through experience.
      • Grows continuously and does not fall off win adulthood.
    • Motivation
      • Model suggests three types of motivation.
        1. Leaders must be willing and motivated to tackle complex organizational problems. A person must be willing to lead.
        2. Leaders must be willing to express dominance.
        3. Leaders must be committed to the social good of the organization.
    • Personality
      • A wide range of traits that can influence leadership such as Openness, tolerance for ambiguity, and curiosity.
      • Skills model theorizes that a leaders' personality characteristics helps people cope with complex organizational situations.
  1. Leadership outcomes

These outcomes are strongly influenced by leader's competencies. When leaders exhibit these competencies, they increase the chance of problem solving and overall performance.

  • Effective Problem Solving
    • This is the keystone in the skills approach.
    • In voles creating solutions that are logical, effective, and unique.
  • Performance
    • This refers to how well a leader did their job.
    • Standards external criteria are used to measure good performance such as merit increases, recognitions, etc.
  1. Career experiences
    • Career experience have an effect on a leader's ability to solve problems.
    • Research conducted by Mumford, Harding et al. in 2000 suggests that leaders can be helped by
      • Challenging job assignments.
      • Mentoring.
      • Appropriate training.
      • Hands-on experience.
    • Career experiences can also positively affect an individual characteristics (enhance intellectual capabilities or motivation)
    • Leaders learn and develop higher levels of conceptual capacity if the kinds of problems they confront are progressively more complex.
    • According to this theory, leaders can develop and are not "born leaders"
  1. Environmental Influences
    • Represent factors outside the leaders' competencies, characteristics, and experiences.
    • Examples include lacking technology, aging factory, subordinates skills, etc.

 

How does the skills approach work?

The skills approach is descriptive, describing leadership from a skills perspective. It provides structure for effective leadership.

 

The 3 skills approach suggests the importance of certain leadership skills depending on where the leader are in the hierarchy.

 

Mumford and colleagues provide a similar but more complex picture of skills needed for effective leadership. The model contends that leadership outcomes are the direct results of a leader's competencies in problem solving, social judgment, and knowledge. Each contain a large repertoire of abilities. Environmental influences and career experiences play a direct or indirect role in leadership performance.

 

The skills approach provides a map for how to reach effective leadership in organizations.

 

Strengths

  • It is a leader centric model that stresses on the development of some skills. It conceptualize and creates a structure of the process.
  • It is intuitively appealing. It makes leadership available to everyone.
  • It incorporates an expansive view of leadership that incorporates a wide variety of components such as problem solving, knowledge, social skills, etc.
  • It capture the intricacies involved in leadership because it has many variables.
  • Provides a structure that is consistent with the curricula of most leadership education programs.

 

Weakness

  • The breadths of the approach extend beyond the boundaries of the leadership (such as motivation, personality, critical thinking, etc.) This makes it more general and less precise.
  • It has a weak predictive value. It does not explain how variations can affect performance.
  • It claims NOT to be a trait model, but major components of the model include trait-like attributes like personality variables.
  • It may not be suitably or appropriately applied to other contexts. The model was constructed by using a large sample from the military. Can it be generalized?

 

The approach is relatively new and has not been widely used in applied leadership settings. Despite the lack of training on the skills approach, the scores allow individuals to lean about areas they can seek training in.

 

Leadership Instrument

There are many questionnaires to assess individual's skills. They provide a useful self-help, but they are not used in research because they have not been tested for reliability and validity. A typical questionnaire is the "Skills Inventory".

 

 

 

Style Approach

    The Style approach emphasizes the behavior of the leader. It focuses on what leaders do and how they act. Researchers determined that there are two types of behaviors. The central purpose is to explain how the leaders combine these two kinds of behavior to influence the subordinates to reach a goal.

    1. Task behavior: Facilitates goal accomplishment.
    2. Relationship behavior: Help subordinates feel comfortable with themselves, with other and with the situation.

     

  1. There are many studies that have been conducted to investigate the style approach.
  2. Some studies were conducted at Ohio State University in the 1940s based on Stogdill's findings.
  3. Some studies were conducted at University of Michigan  in the 1940s to understand how leadership function in small groups.
  4. Other research was conducted by Mouton and Blake in the early 1960s to understand how managers used Task/Relationship in organizational settings.

     

    The Ohio State University studies

    • The analytics were conducted by having a number of subordinates complete questionnaires about their leaders and how many times they engaged in a certain type of behavior.
    • The original questionnaire (LBDQ) that was used had 1800 describing different behaviors.
    • A simplified form of 150 questions was given to hundreds of individuals in Military, educational and industrial settings. It showed that certain behaviors were typical of leaders.
    • Stogdill published a shorthand version in 1963 called LBDQ-VXII
    • Researchers found that that there are 2 types of behaviors for leaders:
      • Initiating structure: This is essentially task behavior such as organizing work, giving structure, defining roles, scheduling, etc.
      • Consideration structure: This is essentially relationship  behaviors such as building camaraderie, respect, trust, etc.
    • The studies showed that these 2 behaviors were distinct, independent, and on a different continuum. A Leader can be high or low on either and the degree with which a leader exhibited a certain behavior was not related to the other.
    • Other studies were conducted to determine which one makes a more effective form of leadership. In some contexts, high consideration was found effective, in other contexts, initiating structure was more effective. Other research showed that high on both was optimum.

     

    The University of Michigan studies

    • Focused on impact of leaders for small groups.
    • Identified 2 types of leadership behaviors:
      • Employee orientation: Describes leaders behavior who emphasizes the human side, take an interest in individuals as human beings, individuality, and personal needs. This is similar to "consideration behavior"
      • Production Orientation: Refers to the technical aspect of the job. Similar to "Initiating Structure". Workers are means to get the job done.
    • Unlike the Ohio State research, this study conceptualized that the two behaviors were opposite ends of the same continuum. This suggested that leaders who were oriented towards one end were less oriented towards the other.
    • After additional studies, it was reconceptualized that the two behaviors were independent of each other similar to the Ohio State studies. (Kahn, 1956)
    • Additional studies were made during the 1950s and 60s trying to find a universal theory. The results were contradictory and unclear (Yulk, 1994).
    • Some of this research pointed out that leaders who are high task and high relationship was most effective. However, it was inconclusive.

     

    Blake and Mouton Managerial/Leadership Grid

    • Appeared in 1960s and was revised many times in 1964, 78, 85, 91.
    • Used in consulting for organizational development throughout the world.
    • It has been used extensively in organizational training and development.
    • The Grid is trying to explain how managers/leaders in organizations are trying to reach their purposes through concern for people and concern for production.
      • Concern for production: Achievements and tasks.
      • Concern for people: how a leader attends to people, HR, trust, relationships, etc.

     

     

    • Made up of 2 axis. Horizontal is leader's concern for results and vertical is leader's concern for people. It has a 9 point scale. 1 represents the minimum. It portrays 5 major leadership styles and two additional styles.
      • Authority-Compliance (9,1)
        • Heavy emphasis on task and job requirements.
        • Less emphasis on people except that people are tools to get the job done.
        • Subordinate communication is not emphasized except for the purpose of giving instructions. Results driven.
        • The leader in this category is seen as controlling, demanding, hard-driving, and over powering.
      • County Club Management (1,9)
        • Low concern for task accomplishment coupled with high concern for interpersonal relationships.
        • The leaders try to create positive climate by being agreeable, eager to help, confronting, and uncontroversial. They make sure people needs are met.
      • Impoverished Management (1,1)
        • Unconcerned with both task and relationships.
        • Acts uninvolved and withdrawn. Little contact with followers.
        • The leader maybe viewed as indifferent, noncommittal, resigned, and apathetic.
      • Middle of the road management (5,5)
        • Describes leaders who are compromisers.
        • Intermediate concern for both task and relationships.
        • A leader may be described as expedient, middle ground preference, soft pedals disagreement, and swallows convictions in the interest of progress.
      • Team Management (9,9)
        • Strong emphasis on both task and relationships.
        • Promotes high degree of participation and team work.
        • A leader in this category can be viewed as stimulating participation, acting determined gets issues into the open, makes priorities clear, follows through, behaves open mindedly, and enjoys working.
      • Paternalism/Maternalism
        • Leaders who use (9,1) and (1,9), but does NOT integrate the two. This is the benevolent dictator.
        • They act gracious for the purpose of goal accomplishment only.
        • They treat people as though they were disassociated with the task.
      • Opportunism
        • A leader who uses any combination of the basic five styles for the purpose of personal advancement.
        • This leader usually has a dominant grid style and a backup style that they refer to when under stress. Blake & Mouton (1985)

     

     

     

     

    How does the style approach work?

    It is not a refined theory that has organized set of prescriptions for effective leadership. It provides a framework for assessing effective leadership. It work by describing to leaders the major components of their behavior and NOT by telling them how to behave.

     

    • It reminds leaders that their actions towards others are both at the task and relationship levels.
    • In some situations task behavior is more appropriate, in others relationship is more suitable.
    • Similarly, some subordinates need leaders who provide a lot of direction. Others need a lot of support and nurturance.

     

    The  style  approach can be easily  applied  in  organizations.  It provides  a  mirror  for managers  that

    helps them understand, how they are performing as a manager. Leadership (Managerial) Grid has

    been widely used in practice in the past. Today it is commonly seen as an old-fashioned approach

    by management development professionals.

     

    Strengths

    • It broadened the scope of leadership research to include the behaviors of leaders and what they

    do in various situations

    • A wide range of studies on leadership style validates and gives credibility to the basic tenets of

    this approach

    • The style approach has ascertained that a leader’s style is composed of primarily two major types

    of behavior: task and relationship

    • The style approach is heuristic: it provides us a broad conceptual map that is worth using in our
    • attempts to understand the complexity of leadership.

    Weakness

    • The  research  on  styles  has  not  adequately  shown,  how  leaders´  styles  are  associated  with

    performance outcomes (Bryman 1992; Yukl 1994)

    • It  has  failed  to  find  a  universal  style  of  leadership  that  could  be  effective  in  almost  every

    situation

    • It  implies  that  the  most  effective  leadership  style  is  the  high  task  and  high  relationship  style
    • (Blake  and  McCanse  1991)  when  the  research  findings  provide  only  limited  support  for  a

    universal high-high style (Yukl 1994).

     

    Leadership Instrument

    Many instruments are available to assess the leader's style, but the two most commonly used ones are LBDQ (Stogdill, 1963) and leadership Grid (Blake & McCanse, 1991). This is designed to be completed by the observers. The leaders themselves complete the LOQ (Leader Opinion Questionnaire).

     

    Initially, as researchers analyzed the results of both surveys, they found that the initiating structure scores and consideration scores were relatively independent of one another. However, when they tested the questionnaires in further research, they discovered that only the LBDQ results seemed to be predictive of work group outcomes. Apparently, leaders expressed opinions on the LOQ that their subordinates did not observe or report on the LBDQ. As a result, only the LBDQ continued on as a tool for leadership style research.

 

 

 

Situational Approach

The Situational Approach

  • This is one of the most widely recognized and used approaches.
  • It was developed by Blanchard and Hersey in 1969
  • Based on Reddin's 3-D management style theory.
  • It was revised a number of times since inception, 1993, 1985, 1977, and 1988
  • It has been used extensively in organizations for training and development.
  • The basic premise is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership. A leader needs to adapt his or her style to the situation.
  • It is composed of two dimensions:
    • Supportive dimension
    • Directive dimension
  • To assess what type of leadership is needed, a leader must evaluate the employees and assess how competent and how committed they are to perform a given task.
  • Because employees skills and motivation vary over time, the theory suggests that leaders should change the degree to which they are directive or supportive to meet those needs.
  • A leader must match their style to the competence and commitment of the subordinates.

 

Leadership styles

  • Directive Style: Assist group members accomplish a goal through giving directions, establishing goals, setting timelines, schedules, defining roles. It is a one way communication.
  • Supportive style: Help group members feel comfortable about themselves, their co-workers, and the situation. It involves two-way communication. Examples include asking for input, problem solving, praising, and sharing information.

 

There are four distinct categories:

S1 -Directing - High Directive, Low Supportive

  • Leader focuses on goal achievement communication and less focus on support. Leader gives instructions on how goals are to be achieved and supervises them carefully

 

S2 - Coaching - High Directive, High Supportive

  • Leader focuses on both goal achievement and supportive communication. Leader gives instructions on how goals are to be achieved and supervises them carefully. Leader still owns the final decisions.

 

S3 - Supporting - High supportive, Low Directive

  • Leader does not focus exclusively on goals, but uses supportive behavior that brings out the employees skills around the task. The style includes listening, praising, asking for input, and giving feedback. It gives the subordinate the decisions making on a day to day basis.

S4 - Delegating - Low supportive, Low Directive

  • The leader offers less task input and less social support. They facilitate employees confidence and motivation. They lessen their involvement in planning, control of details, and goal clarification. Subordinates take responsibility for getting the job done as they see fit.

 

 

 

 

Development Levels

This is concerned with the development levels of subordinates. This is their degree of competence and commitment to accomplishing a task. Employees are at the high development level if they possess the skills and the confidence to get a task done. Alternatively, they are at a low development level if they lack the skills, but possess the confidence to do a particular task.

 

On a particular task, an employee can be classified into 4 categories:

  • D1 or R1
    • Employees are new to a task or do not know how to do it, but they are excited about the challenge in it.
  • D2 or R2
    • Employees have some competence, but low commitment.
  • D3 or R3
    • Employees who have moderate to high competence, but low commitment.
  • D4 or R4
    • Employees who have both a high competence and a high degree of commitment.

 

How does the situational approach work?

The approach is centered around the idea that employees move forward and backward along a development continuum. For leaders to be effective, they need to diagnose where subordinates are on the continuum and adapt their style to it. Leaders can begin by asking questions:

  • What is the task that needs to be accomplished?
  • How complicated is the task?
  • Are subordinates sufficiently skilled to do the task?
  • Do they have the desire to get the task done?

 

There is a 1-1 relationship between the Leader styles and the development levels. Because subordinates move back and forth, it is imperative that leaders adjust their style. Subordinates may move between levels either quickly or slowly.

 

The bell curve superimposed upon the larger box is the key to implementing the situational leadership model. In this model, it is the situation, or the readiness and development level of the followers that determines the appropriate leader style. By erecting a perpendicular line from any point on the development or readiness scale, we can determine the appropriate amount of directive and supportive behavior at the point where the line intersects the bell curve. If, for example, we were to draw a perpendicular line directly up from the D1 label in the development box to the bell curve, it would intersect the curve right about where the "C" in directing is located. From this position on the grid, we see that the amount of directive behavior necessary is at about 80 percent of the maximum, while supportive behavior is at about 35 percent of the maximum. If we follow the same procedure for the D2 point on the development scale, we will intersect the curve at a point just to the left of the initial C in coaching. In this case, directive behavior needed is at about 60 percent of the maximum and the supportive behavior needed is near the maximum at about 90 percent. At the D3 level, directive behavior is still substantial at about 40 percent, while supportive behavior is at 90 percent. Finally, the highest level of development, D4, requires only 25 percent supportive behavior and 25 percent directive behavior. The curve demonstrates that as followers move from the lowest level of development toward higher levels, the amount of supportive behavior that leaders should exhibit first increases at a fairly dramatic rate and then begins to decrease at about the same rate. Directive behavior, on the other hand should constantly decrease at a steady rate.

 

One of the strengths of the situational leadership model is that it makes the leader responsible for helping followers move to higher developmental levels. But leaders must also be aware that their work situation changes as followers move to higher developmental levels. In order to continue to be effective, leaders must learn to modify their own behavior as the situation changes

 

The situational leadership model is widely used in training and development of leaders, because it is

easy  to conceptualize and  also  easy  to  apply. The  straightforward nature  of  situational  leadership

makes it practical for managers to use.  It is applicable in virtually any type of organization, at any

level, for almost all types of tasks, so there are a wide range of applications for it. From a practical

point of view it is perhaps the best leadership model so far. But it is also a product of its own time,

1960´and 1970´s, in which leadership is perceived as being a one-to-one relationship.

 

Strengths

  • It is well known and frequently used; it has stood the test in the marketplace 400/500 fortune 500 companies
  • Intuitively simple.
  • It is very practical, but still based on sound theories
  • It is prescriptive: it tells you what to do and not to do in various contexts
  • It emphasizes the concept of leader flexibility
  • It  reminds  us  to  treat  each  subordinate  differently  based  on  the  task  at  hand  and  to seek
  • opportunities to develop subordinates.

 

Weakness

  • There have been only a few research studies conductedd to  justify the basic assumptions behind

this approach. Does it really improve performance?

  • The  concept  of  the  subordinates´  readiness  or  development  level  is  rather  ambiguous  (Graeff 1997; Yukl 1998)
  • Also how the commitment is conceptualized is criticized (Graeff 1997)
  • The match of the leader style and the followers´ readiness level is also questioned. Two studies conducted (300 high school teachers, University employees). Performance of mature teachers was unrelated to the style exhibited by principles.
  • Does not address demographic variations.
    • Education, Experience, age, and gender.
    • Studies conducted by Vecchio & Boatwright in 2002 showed that levels of education were inversely related to the directive style and not related to the supportive style.
    • Age was positively related to the desire for structure.
    • Female employees expressed desire for more supportive style.
  • It  does  not  fully  address  the  issue  of  one-to-one  versus  group  leadership  in  an  organizational setting. Example: Would a 20 employees match their style to each individual or to the overall development level of the group?
  • The leadership questionnaires that accompany the model have also been criticized. They are bias because the answers have been predetermined.

 

 

Leadership Instrument

Many similar instruments are available. They provide 12-20 situations where the respo0ndants select the preferred style.

 

In their work with leaders, Hersey and Blanchard have determined that most leaders have some flexibility in the style of leadership they employ. To measure leadership style, Hersey and Blanchard developed a tool they called LEAD. This tool has two parts. The first is called the LEAD self, in which the leader himself responds to a variety of hypothetical situations. The second part, the LEAD other, asks co-workers to describe the behavior of one of their colleagues. The two parts of the LEAD tool help to paint a clear picture of a manager's leadership style. A leader may use different styles with different followers, or he or she may have a main style and a backup style that comes into play when the main style doesn't seem to be working. Still, other leaders seem only to have one main style. Hersey and Blanchard's research focused on leaders who used two styles. By creating a style profile for a leader, trainers using the situational leadership approach are able to pinpoint situations in which a leader may have some difficulty and can prepare them to deal with those situations.

 

For example, a leader with an S1, S3 profile works with a high directive, low supportive style or a high supportive, low directive style. Such a leader would have difficulty in working with a group of followers where many are changing developmental levels by moving from D1 to D2. This leader might either continue to use the now inappropriate S1 style, or move directly to the also inappropriate S3 style.

 

A leader with an S1, S4 profile seems to judge everything on competence. If workers don't have it and S1, S4 leader will "ride" the followers and closely supervise their activities. Once a follower shows job competence, the S1, S4 leader pulls back showing neither directive nor supportive behavior. An S2, S3 leader is able to vary the amount of directive behavior, but maintains a high level of supportive behavior. An S1, S2 leader is able to vary the amount of supportive behavior shown, but maintains a high level of directive behavior. An S2, S4 profile leader shows behavior which is either high in both directive and supportive behavior or is low in both. Finally, an S3, S4 leader is characterized by never showing a high level of directive behavior but varying his supportive behavior from high to low.

 

 

 

 

Contingency Theory

    The Contingency Theory

    • The theory is concerned with styles and situations.
    • Many approaches can be called contingency, but the most widely recognized is Fiedler's in 1964, 1967. Fred Fiedler from University of Illinois developed it.
    • This is a leader-match theory which tries to match the right leader for the situation.
    • The approach was developed by studying the styles of many different leaders who worked in different contexts, primarily military.
    • Hundreds of leaders were analyzed who were good and bad.
    • The LPC (Least Preferred coworker) was developed to measure the leaders styles. Leaders who score high or Low are task motivated. The LPC is closely related to the "Semantic differential scales" (The measurement of meaning, book).
    • The LPC scale. Fiedler thought that how a leader feels about people he or she works with might be a good indicator of whether he or she would be effective in dealing with them. In his earliest work Fiedler actually used two scales. He asked his respondents to describe both his or her least preferred coworker and his or her most preferred coworker. Fiedler then calculated the difference between the evaluation of the most preferred coworker and that of the least preferred coworker. He chose to call the resulting score the Assumed Similarity of Opposites (ASO) score. Fiedler later discovered that there was very little variation in the way the most preferred coworker was described by most people. On the other hand, the evaluations of least preferred coworkers varied quite widely. As a result, the only thing that was contributing to the results was the least preferred coworker score.

     

    Leader Styles

    Task motivated: concerned with reaching a goal

    Relationship motivated: concerned with developing close relationships.

     

    Situational variables

    1. Leader member relations
      1. Group atmosphere and degree of confidence, loyalty and attraction that followers feel about their leader.
    1. Task Structure
      1. The degree to which the requirements of a task is clear and well defined.
      2. Well structured tasks give more control to the leader.
      3. Vague and unclear tasks give less control and influence.
      4. A task is considered structured when
        1. The requirements of the task are clearly stated and structured.
        2. The path to accomplishing the task has few alternatives.
        3. The completion of the task can be clearly demonstrated.
        4. Limited number of correct solutions to the task exist.
      1. An example of a structure task is "Cleaning the milk machine at McDonald's"
      2. An example of an unstructured tasks is to run a fund raiser for an organization.
    1. Position Power
      1. The amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish employees.

     

    • The 3 situational factors determine the favorableness of the situations.
    • The most favorable situations are defined by having a good leader-follower relation, defined tasks, and strong leader position power.       
    • The least favorable situations are defined by having a poor leader-follower relation, unstructured tasks, and weak leader position power.       
    • The theory posits that certain styles be more effective in certain situations.
      • Task motivated individuals are more effective in Very favorable & very unfavorable situations.
      • Relationship motivated individuals are more effective in moderately favorable situations.

     

     

     

    How does the Contingency Theory work?

    By measuring the LPC score and the three variables, one can predict whether a leader will be effective in a particular situation. Once the nature of situation is determined, the fit between the leader and the situation can be evaluated. leaders will not be effective in all situations.

     

    Contingency  theory  represents    a    major  shift  in  leadership  research  from  focusing  only  on  the

    leader to   considering the situational context.  It’s lesson has been to emphasize the importance of

    matching  a  leader’s  style with  the demands  of a  situation and wider context.  In  everyday  life we

    have noticed that some executives, who may be extremely successful in one organization, can fail in

    another organization with a different culture, values and way of operation.

     

    The contingency theory has many applications in the real world. It can explain for example why an individual is effective or ineffective in  a certain situation based on the various variables. It can also predict whether an individual was effective in a certain position can be effective in another.

     

    Strengths

    • It is supported by a great deal of empirical research
    • It has forced us to consider the impact of situations on leaders
    • It is predictive and provides useful information regarding the type of  leadership that will most

    likely be effective in certain contexts

    • It  is  realistic  in  saying  that  leaders  should  not  expect  to  be  able  to  lead  effectively  in  every situation
    • It provides data on leaders´ styles that could be useful to organizations in developing leadership

    profiles.

     

    Weakness

    • It fails to explain fully, why individuals with certain leadership styles are more effective in some

    situations than in others. Fiedler calls this a "Black Box". The theory explains that the low LPCs are effective in extreme situations is that they feel more certain where they have control.

    • The leadership scale, which the model uses, is often criticized. It does not seem valid on the surface.
    • It is difficult to apply in practice. It requires analyzing the leader style and three relatively complex situational variables.
    • It fails to explain adequately what organizations should do when there  is a mismatch between

    the leader and the situation in the workplace.

     

    Leadership Instrument

    The LPC scale is used in the contingency theory. It measures your style by having you describe a coworker with whom you have difficulty completing a job. The scores are indicated by three categories (Low LPC, Middle LPC, and High LPC). Low LPCs are task motivated. High LPCs are relationship motivated, and Middle LPCs are socio-independent.

     

     

    Historical overview of the leadership theory

    Basketball teams and surveying teams. Based on his study of the literature on leadership, Fiedler predicted that people who describe their least preferred coworker in positive terms would make better leaders. Such people, he theorized would be able to get along with a wider variety of people. To test this idea he decided to measure the LPC of some leaders and correlate their scores with the success of the group. For this purpose he needed groups for which a clear indication of success was possible. He chose boys' high school basketball teams in the state of Illinois. At the beginning of the season he went to a number of teams and had each team member complete the LPC scale. He also asked each boy to nominate those on the team they liked, those they looked up to, those they hung out with, etc. These are called sociometric questions. Using his results, Fiedler was able to determine who the informal leader of the team was. At the end of the season he correlated the informal leader's LPC score with the team's winning percentage and found a result that surprised him. There was a quite substantial and statistically significant negative correlation. The leaders with low LPC scores tended to be on winning teams. Since he had made the opposite prediction, he felt it was necessary to replicate those results before publishing the results. With another set of high school basketball teams he found the same results. He replicated the research with three-person surveying teams from engineering classes, using the instructor's grade on their practice surveys as his measure of success. Again he found that low LPC informal leaders had more successful teams.

     

    Bomber crews are not basketball teams. Convinced that he had found an important factor involved in leadership, Fiedler expanded his horizons. He obtained a research grant to study leadership effectiveness in Air Force bomber crews. Using very similar techniques to those he had used with the basketball teams he obtained LPC scores and bombing run scores for a substantial number of bomber crews. He tested all crew members, but correlated the plane captain's LPC score with the crew's bombing run scores. To his shock and dismay, the correlation was not significant. Determined to understand what had happened he tried to determine what differences existed between the bomber crews and the basketball teams. He though that one important difference might be that in the basketball teams the leaders were emergent, nominated by the team members, while the plane captains were assigned. Going back to his data he determined that most plane captains would qualify as informal leaders using the same criteria he used with the basketball teams. He then dropped the captains who did not qualify as informal leaders and recalculated the correlation. With this selected sub sample the correlation was now significantly negative, that is the low LPC captains tended to have crews with higher bombing run scores. The correlation, however, was substantially lower than those he had found in his previous studies. So he began searching for another difference between bomber crews and basketball teams and found one. While all the players on a basketball team must work hard and play together to win games, the same was not true of bomber crews, at least not on practice bombing runs. He determined that on a bombing run there is one key member of the team whose actions determine how high the score will be. On daylight bombing runs this was the bombardier, on nighttime runs it was the radar operator.

     

    The first contingency. Armed with this information Fiedler began to look at how the dynamics of the relationship between the captain and his key man might be involved in the failure to find strong support for the relationship of low LPC with effective leadership. Since Fiedler had obtained sociometric nominations from the bomber crews, he was able to determine how each captain felt about his key man. Some plane captains had named a key man as someone they liked to work with and some plan captains had not named a key man as someone they liked to work with. Fiedler then divided the sample up into those captains who felt positively toward a key man and those who did not. He then correlated the captains' LPC scores with the bombing run scores within each of those two groups. The results were striking. In the group of crews where the captain felt positively about the key man, the correlation was substantial, significant and negative. As with the basketball teams, plane captains in that subsample with low LPC scores had high bombing run scores and those with high LPC scores had low bombing run scores. Surprisingly, in the subsample of crews where the plane captain had not voiced positive feelings for the key man, the correlation was significant, substantial and positive. In that subsample, plane captains with high LPC scores had high bombing run scores and captains with low LPC scores had low bombing run scores. In the bomber crews the relationship between leader's LPC score and team success was contingent on the kind of relationship between the captain and the key man on the team.

     

    Fiedler interpreted these results to mean that there was an optimum distance that needed to be maintained between a leader and his/her followers. He felt that low LPC leaders tend to be somewhat distant because of their basic leadership style. He also proposed that when a leader nominated a key man as someone he liked to work with, that leader tended to have a more close relationship with that man. On the other hand, when the leader did not feel that the key man was someone he liked to work with, that leader tended to have a more distant relationship with that man. The explanation went as follows. A low LPC leader tends to be somewhat distant by nature. When this low LPC leader chooses the key man as someone he likes to work with, the distance is not increased and they work productively together. When the low LPC leader does not like to work with the key man, the distance is further increased to a level too great for a productive working relationship.

     

    A high LPC leader, on the other hand, tends to maintain quite close relationships with people because of his basic nature. When the high LPC leader chooses the key man as someone he likes to work with, the naturally close relationship becomes perhaps even closer, too close for a good leader-follower interaction. In these conditions the leader may fail to be as critical and demanding as a leader needs to be in order to get the best productivity from a follower. When a high LPC leader does not meet a key man with whom he likes to work, he creates enough distance to maintain a productive working relationship. This conclusion suggests an interesting application. If you are a high LPC person (that is you describe your least preferred coworker in very positive terms) then you should try to work with people you don't particularly like if you want to be productive. On the other hand if you are a low LPC person (you describe your least preferred coworker in quite negative terms) then you should try to work with people you like and respect. Fiedler abandoned this social distance interpretation when he developed the full contingency theory.

     

    The contingency theory. Fiedler and his associates conducted many research studies on LPC and leader effectiveness over the next several years. In that period he discovered two other contingencies that had a moderating effect on the relationship between LPC and leader effectiveness. Eventually he arranged the three contingencies he had found in the manner shown in figure 6.1 on page 111 of the textbook. By dichotomizing each of the contingencies, he produced eight combinations arranged in the order shown. As the textbook author points out, the contingency combinations going from left to right are considered also to be from most favorable to least favorable for the leader. Thus we can see that the most important contingency is leader-member relations, because a situation with good leader-member relations is always considered better than a situation with poor leader-member relations regardless of the nature of the other contingencies. We can also see that task structure is more important than leader position power, since a high structure situation is always better than a low structure situation regardless of the amount of position power.

     

    Fiedler then surveyed the research that had been done to that time using LPC and placed each study into a category based on leader-member relations, task structure, and position power of the leader. In seven of the eight categories there were at least a few studies relating leader LPC to performance of the group. In the three most favorable categories on the left (octants 1, 2 and 3) the average relationship was quite substantially negative and almost all the studies produced a negative relationship between leader LPC scores and performance. Surprisingly, in octant 4 (good leader-member relations, low structure and weak position power) the relationship shifted in the opposite direction. In octant 4 the average relationship between LPC and performance was substantially positive, meaning that in these conditions high LPC leaders tended to have groups with high performance and low LPC leaders tended to have groups with low performance. Nearly all the studies that fell into octant four produced positive relationships between LPC and group performance. The studies in octant five produced results similar to those in octant four. Fiedler actually had no studies where the conditions fell into octant six when he first proposed the contingency theory in 1964. In octant seven the average relationship between LPC and performance was positive but low. In octant eight the average swung quite sharply again. In the conditions of octant eight, where none of the contingencies were favorable for the leader, the average relationship was substantially negative and almost all of the studies produced a negative relationship. In these worst conditions for a leader, low LPC leaders were again clearly more effective in producing results. Subsequent research predicts which kind of leader is likely to be more effective for each octant. There is still some doubt, however, whether a clear prediction can be made for octant seven.

     

    Fiedler's interpretation of the theory. In his many publications on the model, Fiedler proposes that the low LPC leader who is effective in promoting productivity in both the three most favorable contingency situations (octants 1, 2 and 3) and the most unfavorable situation (octant 8) does not behave the same in the favorable and unfavorable circumstances. He has suggested that all leaders prioritize what they try to accomplish. For a low LPC leader, the main focus is goal achievement and task accomplishment and the secondary focus is building good relationships and developing followers. The reverse is true of the high LPC leader. His or her main goal is building good relationships with the secondary goal of task accomplishment. In situations which are moderately to very difficult for the leader, most of his or her efforts go into promoting the main goal--task accomplishment for the low LPC leader, and relationship building for the high LPC leader. According to contingency theory, in the worst conditions for a leader (octant 8), working for task accomplishment at all costs is apparently the best thing to do. In this unfavorable situation, the low LPC leader shines. In moderately difficult situations (octants 4, 5 and 6), it appears that a strong, driving task orientation on the part of the leader does not work very well. In those moderately difficult situations, the high LPC leader is more successful.

     

    In the three most favorable contingency situations (octants 1, 2 and 3), the leader has the luxury of taking it easy on his/her main goal and putting effort into the secondary goal. The high LPC leader may press harder for task accomplishment in these situations feeling that the goal of relationship development does not require so much attention. The low LPC leader on the other hand, backs off from so much pressure on task accomplishment and puts more effort into relationship building. Fiedler has indicated that he has evidence that low LPC leaders engage in more relationship behaviors than high LPC leaders in these situations that are favorable for the leader.

     

    The effects of training and experience on leader effectiveness. Some of the most interesting and provocative aspects of contingency theory involve ideas about the effect of training and experience on leader effectiveness. According to contingency theory, training and experience allows the leader to give more structure to his or her work situation. In other words, if a leader is working in a situation where the task has low structure, such as octants 3 and 4 and octants 7 and 8, as he or she gains experience or is given good training the task becomes more structured. Thus a leader in a situation like octant 4, with good leader-follower relations, low structure and weak power, would with training and experience change to a situation like octant 2, with good leader-follower relations, high structure and weak power. At first glance, this should be a good thing, transforming a moderately difficult situation into one that is much more favorable for the leader. But wait. If the leader in question is high LPC, he or she was likely quite effective working in the octant 4 situation. Shifting this leader to octant 2, according to contingency theory, would result in lowered effectiveness. However, if the leader were low LPC the shift from octant 4 to octant 2 should increase effectiveness.

     

    In another example, if the leader starts in octant 8, with poor leader-follower relations, low structure and weak power, and is able through training and experience to bring structure to the task, he or she would end up in octant 6. In this case we would expect improved performance from high LPC leaders and reduced performance from low LPC leaders. In other words the effectiveness of training and experience in improving leader performance depends on the LPC scores of the leaders you train and the contingency situation in which they are now working. This conclusion suggests that in some situations a little (or a lot) of training can be a dangerous thing. Fiedler has even suggested that some leaders be rotated back into more unfavorable circumstances when their experience has allowed them to improve the situation by imposing greater structure.

     

    Martin Chemers, at the University of Utah, conducted a fascinating study that demonstrated the differential effect of training based on the LPC of the leader and the contingencies of the situation. The study was conducted at the height of the Viet Nam war. At that time students at most universities, including the University of Utah, felt quite negatively about the government, the military, and the war. Chemers used Army ROTC cadets from the university as his leaders. The study was conducted on days when they would be wearing their uniforms. The other students in the groups were not ROTC cadets, creating conditions where the leader follower relations would likely not be very good. The task the groups were given was to decode messages. The groups were not given any training or instruction in how to go about breaking these codes, guaranteeing that the task was quite unstructured. Since these groups met in a lab as volunteers for a psychology experiment and were given credit for just showing up, the leaders had no position power over the other group members. The situation was set up to be an octant 8 combination of contingencies. Half of the ROTC student leaders were high LPC based on an earlier test, and half were low LPC. Finally, half of the ROTC student leaders were given a short training session prior to the group meeting on how to go about breaking codes, and half were given no training at all.

     

    Ordinarily, we would expect all groups whose leaders had been given training in how to break codes to do better than all groups whose leaders had not been given any training. On the other hand, contingency theory says that in the worst situation for a leader, octant 8, low LPC leaders should have groups that perform better than those of low LPC leaders. If the training changed the situation to octant 6, we would expect the trained high LPC leaders to do better than the trained low LPC leaders. This was exactly what happened. The groups with trained, low LPC leaders solved fewer codes than the groups with untrained, low LPC leaders. The groups with trained, high LPC leaders performed better than the groups with untrained, high LPC leaders. In other words, the training helped the leader be more effective if he was high LPC, but made his performance worse if he was low LPC.

     

    Where does contingency theory fit?

    The situational leadership has passed the test of the market. It is very popular with organizations but has very little research validation. Contingency theory has passed the test of research. It literally grew out of research relating leadership style with follower productivity. The contingency model is reproduced in every organizational and industrial psychology textbook, but has made very little impact on the leadership training of business organizations. Fiedler, Chemers, and others have attempted to apply the theory through their Leader Match training programs, but these have not been very popular. The problem seems to be with the basic idea of how much leaders can change their behavior. Situational leadership seems to make the assumption that an intelligent person can easily change his or her behavior to match the demands of the situation. All they have to learn is how to diagnose the development level of their followers. Contingency theory seems to argue that leaders can't really change. They are effective or ineffective depending on the situation they are in and whether it matches their own nature. The truth of the matter is likely somewhere in between. Leaders may be able to make some changes in their behavior, but these changes will be difficult, and require considerable training and effort. It is also likely that organizations could benefit substantially from devoting more attention to matching the styles of their leaders to the demands of the situation and moving leaders around to enhance the match.

     

     

 

 

 

The Expectancy Theory

This is not a leadership theory, but I covered it here because the path-goal theory was based on it. The Expectancy theory was designed to explain why there is not a very high relationship between the offer of incentives in a workplace and an increase in the effort put forth by the workers there. Expectancy theory explains the many places where the connection may be broken.

 

  1. The nature of the incentive. What is offered must be valued by the person for whom it is supposed to have incentive value. For example, workers may be told that if they work hard and perform well they will be promoted to a supervisory position. Some individuals in the work group may place high personal value on such a promotion. Others however, may not want the added responsibilities. So, the first principle of expectancy theory is that the incentive or reward must be valued by the individual or it will not result in greater work effort.
  2. Self-confidence. The worker must believe that if he or she puts forth increased effort, this will result in the level of performance specified as necessary to earn the incentive. Many workers are not sure that if they work even harder, they can perform at the specified level.
  3. Level of uncertainty about the reward. Many incentives are offered on a vague or uncertain basis. Workers may be told that if their performance is up to certain standards they will become eligible for promotion, for raises in pay or bonuses. There are usually not enough promotions so that everyone who is performing well can be promoted. Often workers do not have faith that effort and performance level is the primary determinant of who gets promoted. Raises and bonuses are dependent to some degree on how well the company is doing economically, and not just on how well employees are performing. As a result, the uncertainty about actually receiving the reward may cause some workers to feel that purring forth extra effort is not justified by the probability of receiving the reward.

 

The bottom line is that a person is likely to put forth extra effort as the result of an offered incentive only if that person values the reward highly and has a high degree of expectation that such increased effort will result in actually result in receiving the reward. Path-goal theory is designed to help leaders understand the various things that may prevent a worker from believing the goal can be reached. The leader's behavior is designed to help workers believe they can perform well and that performance will yield many valued rewards.

 

 

 

Path-Goal Theory

    Path-Goal theory

    • This theory is about how leaders motivate subordinates to accomplish goals.
    • It focuses on enhancing employees performance by focusing on employees motivation.
    • It first appeared in the 1970s heavily drawing from research on motivation based on the works of (Evans, 1970), (House,1971), (House & Dessler, 1974).
    • The path-goal theory emphasis the relationship between the leader's style and the characteristics of the subordinates and work setting.
    • Based on the expectancy theory, the Path-Goal theory, assumes that subordinates will be motivated
      • if they think they are capable of performing their work 
      • if they believe their efforts will result in a certain outcome
      • if they believe that the payoffs for their work are worthwhile
    • Effective leadership will select the style that meets the subordinates needs
      • Choose behavior that supplement or complement what is missing in the work setting.
      • Leaders information or rewards to subordinates to enhance goal attainment (Indvik, 1986)
    • Leadership motivates when it makes the path to the goal clear, easy to reach, provide coaching, removes obstacles, make the work itself personally satisfying. (House & Mitchell, 1974)
    • When leaders select the proper style, they increase the subordinates chance for success and satisfaction.
    • Path-Goal theory is complex. 

     

     

    The basic principle behind Path-Goal theory

     

     

    The major components of the Path-Goal theory 

     

    Leader Behavior

    • There are four behaviors, but the theory is left open for inclusion of additional behaviors.
    • The following 4 behaviors were examined
      • Directive
        • Similar to "Initiating Structure" or "Telling" style in situational leadership
        • A leader who gives instructions about a task, how is it done, expectations, and the timeline.
      • Supportive
        • Resembles "Consideration Behavior".
        • Being friendly and approachable as a leader, attending to the well being and human needs of subordinates.
        • Supportive leaders go out of their way to make work pleasant for employees, treat them as equal.
      • Participative
        • Refers to leaders who invite subordinates to share in decision making.
      • Achievement-Oriented
        • Characterized by a leader who challenges subordinates to perform work at the highest level possible.
        • This establishes a higher standard of excellence and seeks continuous improvement.
        • These leaders show a high degree of confidence that subordinates are capable of accomplishing the work.
    • House & Mitchel suggested that leaders may exhibit any or all of these behaviors with various subordinates and in different situations. The leader is NOT locked into a specific style.
    • There maybe instances where a leader may use a blend of different behaviors.
    • Leader should adapt their behavior to the situation and the motivation of the subordinates.
    • The leader behavior itself is contingent on the other two components of the Path-Goal theory (Characteristics of the subordinate and characteristics of the task)

     

    Subordinates Characteristics

    • Determines how the leader behavior will be interpreted by subordinates in a given work context.
    • Research has focused on subordinate needs for affiliation, preferences for structure, desire for control, and self perceived levels of task ability.
    • Affiliation
      • The theory predicts that subordinates who have a strong "Affiliation" needs prefer supportive style. Friendly and concerned leadership is a source of satisfaction.
      • The theory predicts that subordinates who are "Dogmatic and Authoritarian" prefer Directive style. This provides psychological structure and task clarity. These subordinates feel more comfortable when a leader provide a sense of certainty in the work setting.
    • Desire for control
      • Subordinates with internal locus of control believe they are in charge of the things that occur in their life.
        • Participative style is most satisfying. It allows subordinates to feel in charge and be a part of the decision making.
      • Subordinates with external locus of control believe that chance, fate and outside forces are the determinants of life events.
        • Directive leadership is best because it parallels the subordinate feelings that outside forces are in control.
    • Motivation
      • As subordinates confidence of their own abilities go up, the need for directive leadership goes down.

     

    Task Characteristics

    • Task characteristics have a major impact on the way a leader's behavior influences subordinates.
    • The characteristics include
      • Design of the subordinate task
      • Formal authority system of the organization
      • primary work group of subordinates
    • These characteristics can collectively provide motivating for the subordinates.
    • An example is when a situation provides a structured task, strong group norms, and an established authority system, the employees will feel as if they can accomplish the task on their own. Leadership in these contexts can be seen as unnecessary, un-empathetic, and excessively controlling.
    • Other examples that need leadership include tasks that are repetitive, so leadership can keep the employees motivated, or ambiguous tasks that may need leadership to clarify them.
    • A special focus of the path-goal theory is for leaders to help remove obstacles. This increases the odds of the successfully completing the tasks and increases the employees confidence.
    • in 1996, House published an additional 8 classes of behaviors for the Path-Goal theory
      • Directive
      • Supportive
      • Participative
      • Achievement oriented
      • Work facilitation
      • Group oriented decision process
      • Work Group representation and networking
      • Valuer based leader behavior
    • The revised theory asserts that effective leadership need to help subordinates by giving them what is missing in their environment and by helping them compensate for deficiencies in their abilities.

     

    Leader Behavior

    Group Members

    Task Characteristics

    Directive Leadership

    Provides guidance and psychological structure

    Dogmatic

    Authoritarian

    Ambiguous

    Unclear rules

    Complex

    Supportive Leadership

    Provides nurturance

    Unsatisfied

    Need affiliation

    Need human touch

     

    Repetitive

    Unchallenging

    Mundane and Mechanical

    Participative

    Provides Involvement

    Autonomous

    Need for control

    Need for clarity

    Ambiguous

    Unclear

    Unstructured

    Achievement  Oriented

    Provides Challenges

    High expectations

    Need to excel

    Ambiguous

    Challenging

    Complex

     

     

     

    How does the Path-Goal theory work?

    • The Path-Goal theory is complex, but pragmatic.
    • It provides a set of assumptions about how leadership styles will interact with characteristics of subordinates and tasks and how it affects motivation.
    • The theory provides direction about how leaders can help subordinates to accomplish tasks.
    • For tasks that are structured, unsatisfying, and frustrating, the theory suggests the supportive style.
    • The theory suggests that the directive style is best for the tasks that are ambiguous, unclear organizational rules, dogmatic, and authoritarian employees.
    • Participative leadership is also suggested for ambiguous tasks because it brings clarity.
    • Achievement oriented leadership is most effective in settings where subordinates are required to perform ambiguous tasks.
    • Although  the  path-goal  theory  is  not  applied  in  many  management  training  programs,  it  brings many interesting perspectives to leadership thinking. It was one of the first theories to specify four conceptually distinct varieties of leadership; not only task-oriented and relationship oriented leadership. It  was  also  one  of  the  first  theories  to  explain  how  task  and  subordinate characteristics affect the impact of leadership on subordinate performance.
    • It can be applied at all levels within an organization.

     

    Strengths

    • It provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding how various leadership behaviors affect the satisfaction of the subordinates and their performance.
    • It attempts to integrate the motivation principles of the expectancy theory into a theory of leadership. It is the only theory that deals with motivation.
    • It provides a model that in a certain way is very practical.
    • It reminds leaders of their purpose which is to guide and coach employees as they move along the path to achieve a goal.

     

    Weaknesses 

    • It is quite complex and tries to incorporate many different aspects of leadership that make it a little confusing.
    • It has received only partial support from the many empirical studies
    • It fails to explain adequately the relationship between leadership behavior and worker motivation
    • The approach treats leadership as a one-way event w1here the leader affects the subordinate. It places a great deal of responsibility on the leader and less on the subordinates which can make them too dependent on the leader.

     

    Leadership instrument

    The path-goal questionnaire is the preferred instrument. The scores represent the four types of behavior and tells the leader which style they use more dominantly.

 

 

 

LMX Theory

    Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory

    • While most theories have emphasized the point of view of the leader, the LMX theory conceptualize leadership as a process that is centered on the interaction between leaders and followers.  
    • LMX theory makes a dyadic relationship between leaders and followers as the focal point of the process.
    • It was first described in 1975 by Dansereau, Graen, and Haga. It had undergone several revisions since.
    • Prior to LMX, researchers treated leadership as something leaders did towards followers and assumed leaders treated followers in a collective way as a group using an average leadership style.

     

    Early Studies

    • This is based on the vertical dyad linkage (VDL theory). The focus was on each of the VDLs that are formed between the leader and each of the followers.
    • It was determined there are two dyads:
      • in-groups (extra roles)
      • out-groups (defined roles)
    • Subordinates become either part of the in-group or the out-group based on how well they work with the leader and how the leader works with them. Personality and other characteristics are related to this process.
    • Becoming part of the in-groups involves subordinates  negotiating with the leader about what they are willing to do to become part of the group. The activities involve going beyond their formal job descriptions and the leader in turn does more for these subordinates.
    • Subordinates that are not interested in taking different job responsibilities become part of the out-group.
    • Subordinates in the in-group receives more information, influence, confidence, and concern from the leaders. They are also more dependable, highly involved, and more communicative.
    • Subordinates in the out-group are less involved and receive less attention and perks from the leader. They just come to work, do their job and go home.

     

     

    Later Studies

    • A shift in focus took place. Early studies focus on in-groups and out-groups. Later studies focused on how the LMX theory is related to the organizational effectiveness.
    • Research determined that high-quality Leader-Member exchanges produced
      • Less employee turn over
      • More positive performance evaluations
      • Higher frequency of promotions
      • Greater organizational commitment
      • More desirable work assignments
      • Better job attitudes
      • More attention and support from leaders
      • Great participation
      • Faster career progress over 25 years
    • Organizations prosper from high quality L-M exchanges

     

    Leadership Making

     

    Stranger

    Acquaintance

    Partner

    Roles

    Scripted

    Tested

    Negotiated

    Influence

    One Way

    Mixed

    Reciprocal

    Exchanges

    Low Quality

    Medium Quality

    High Quality

    Interests

    Self

    Self/Other

    Group

     

    • This is a prescriptive approach to leadership. It emphasizes that a leader should develop high-quality exchanges with all of their subordinates rather than just a few. It attempts to make every employee part of the in-group.
    • Leadership making suggests that leader create partnerships throughout the organization which benefits the organization at larger as well as their own career.
    • Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991) suggests that leadership making develops over time in 3 phases
      • The stranger phase
        • Interactions are rule bound.
        • Relies heavily on contractual relationships
        • Leader-Member relay to each other within the described organization roles
        • Lower quality exchanges similar to the out-groups
        • Subordinate complies with the formal leader who has hierarchical status for the purpose of achieving economic rewards.
        • The motives are directed towards self interest rather than the good of the group.
      • The acquaintance phase
        • Begins by an offer from the leader or the subordinate for improved career oriented social changes.
        • It involves sharing more resources and personal information.
        • It is a testing period for both leader and employee.
        • Dyads shift from away from the prescribed job description and the defined roles.
        • Leader-Member exchange is improved.
        • They tend to focus less on self interest and more on the goals of the group.
      • The mature partnership phase
        • This is a partnership.
        • High quality leader-member exchanges.
        • High degree of mutual trust.
        • Respect and obligation toward each other.
        • Leaders and subordinates are tied together in a productive way that goes beyond traditional hierarchy.
        • Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, and Yammarino (2001) found that good leader-member relations were more egalitarian and influence and control were equally balanced.

     

    How does the Leader-Member Exchange theory work?

    • As a whole, it is a very interesting approach to the leadership process, and it offers us a lot of ideas to understand better the relationship between a leader and a follower.
    • Although, this theory has not been packaged to be used in training and development, it offer much insight that managers can use to improve their leadership behavior.
    • The ideas set forth by the LMX theory can be used at all levels of the organization.
    • The ideas also apply to creating networks within an organization and calling upon this network to help  solve problems or advance career goals.
    • The theory tells us to be fair to all employees, and to be sensitive.
    •  It works in 2 ways:
      • It describes leadership - Highlights the importance of recognizing the existence of in-groups and out-groups.
        • The differences on how goals are accomplished using the in-groups or out-groups are substantial.
        • in-group members  do more that job description requires and look for innovative ways to advance the group. In response, leaders give them more responsibilities and more opportunities. Leaders also give them more time and support.
        • out-group members operate strictly within their prescribed organizational roles. They do what is required of them, but nothing more. Leaders treat them fairly and according to the formal contract, but do not give them special attention. They get standard benefits.
      • It prescribes leadership -
        • The authors advocate that leaders should try to create special relationships with all subordinates.
        • Leaders should offer each subordinate the opportunity to take new roles and responsibilities.
        • Leaders should nurture high-quality exchanges with their subordinates.

    Strengths

    • It is a strong descriptive theory that makes intuitively sense.
    • We may not like it because it is unfair, but it is a reality that the theory describes.
    • It is the only leadership theory that makes the concept of the dyadic relationship the centerpiece of the leadership process.
    • It directs our attention to the importance of communication in leadership.
    • There is also a large body of research that substantiates how the practice of the LMX theory is related to positive organizational outcomes. It is related to performance, organizational commitment, job climate, innovation, organizational citizenship behavior, empowerment, procedural, distributive justice, and career progress.

     

    Weaknesses 

    • On the surface it runs counter to the basic human value of fairness.
    • The existence of in-groups and out-groups may have undesirable effects on the group as a whole. Our culture repels the discrimination of age, gender, etc and this theory awakens the discrimination factors. 
    • Questions have been raised regarding the measurement of leader-member exchanges in this theory. The measurement scale lacks content validity.
    • The basic ideas of the theory have not been fully developed. It does not explain how the high-quality leader-member exchanges are created. It mentioned that personality compatibilities are key to these high-quality exchanges, but never went in depth about the details.

     

    Leadership instrument

    The LMX-7 provides a reliable and valid measure of the quality of leader-member exchanges. It is designed to measure respect, trust, and obligation. 

 

 

 

Transformational Leadership








 

 

 

 

Team Leadership

    The Team Leadership theory

    • This approach has become one of the most popular and rapidly growing areas of leadership today.
    • Teams are organizational groups who are interdependent, share common goals, and must coordinate activities to reach their goals.
    • The study of groups began in the 1920s and 1930 (Porter and Beyerlein, 2000) with focus on human relations. The focus shifted to "group dynamics" in the 1940s. The focus shifted again in the 1950s moved to sensitivity training and T-Groups. In the 1960s/70s, the focus shifted to developing team and leadership  effectiveness through intervention. Due to competition from Japan in the 1980s, the focus shifted to  quality teams, benchmarking and improvement. In the 1990s, while still focused on quality, shifted to global perspective.
    • The organizational team structure is one way organizations today  can respond to adapt to the rapidly changing workplace conditions (new technology, global economy, economic competition, and increasing diversity).
    • Current research I focused on practical problems and how to make teams more effective.
    • Effective team leadership is the primary ingredient of team success (Zaccaro, Ritman, & Marks, 2001). Ineffective leadership is the primary reasons why teams fail to develop, yield improvement,  and quality.
    • The  organizational  structure  of  excellent  companies  has  changed  from  a  functional  and  matrix organization into a process and team organization. Teams are important performance and  learning units  in  organizations  today.  Team  work  should  enable  the  company  to  offer  better  customer service, improve  the  efficiency of  internal processes and   improve the motivation of personnel.  It should be  remembered  that a  team  is a means  of operation,  not a goal  itself;  it should  always be evaluated,  if team work  is the best way to achieve the objective. Moving over  to  team work  is   a lengthy development process itself, which needs a lot of training.  A working group needs time to develop through different phases of being a pseudo-team, potential team and real team (Katzenbach & Smith 1994, 84). Nevertheless, the use of organizational teams has been found to lead to greater productivity, more  effective use of resources, better decisions and problem  solving, better  quality product and services and increased innovation and creativity (Parker 1990).
    • Organizing and leading teams, rather than groups engaged in working together to manufacture or sell a product, has proved challenging. Organizations that are able to make teams work have a significant advantage in the world market.
    • The team leadership and the team leadership model do not compose a theory that makes predictions and is tested by research. This discussion is more of an attempt to highlight the special problems and difficulties that exist in the leadership of teams. It identifies places to look when problems arise in working with a team and gives a new team leader some guidelines as to how she or he could analyze and approach the task at hand.

     

     

    Leader roles in the various team structures.

     

    The "Functional Model" of the team Leadership

    • Early scholars identified  two critical functions of leadership:
      • Help the group accomplish its task. (Team Performance)
        • Include solving problems, adapting to changes, making plans, achieving goals.
      • Keep the group maintained and functional. (Team Development)
        • Include developing positive climate, solving interpersonal problems, satisfying members' needs, and developing cohesion.
    • The current focus of research is on "teams" as opposed to "groups". It also focuses on the effect of the environment on the teams.
    • Effective leadership helps the team balance the internal and external demands.
    • McGrath developed  a model for team leadership that looks at two dimensions:
      • Monitoring versus taking actions
      • Focus on internal group issues versus external group issues.
    • The functions within this model of leadership does not require that the leader alone carries the responsibility of execution, but experienced members within the team itself can also share these leadership behaviors as well.
    • The key assertion of the functional model is that a leader needs to do whatever in order to take care of any unmet needs of the team. If the team members are taking care of most of the needs then the leader has to do very little.

     

     

    • The functional model is a practical approach that is designed primarily to answer "What functions does the leader perform to help the group be more effective?"
    • The leader is the one who processes information (Barge, 1996). They essentially help the team develop an organizing framework or set of procedures.  This structure help both the leader and teams members interprets information, make judgments, and take action for the good of the group.
    • Effective team performance begins with the leader's mental model of the situation. The mental model reflects not only the components of the problem confronting the team, but also the environmental and organizational contingencies that define the larger context. Here the leader develops a mental model of the what the team problems are within the current context. The leader needs to be behaviorally flexible.

     

    Monitoring

    • To develop an accurate mental model, a leader needs to monitor both internal and external environments, continually gather information, reduce equivocality, provide structure,  and overcome barriers. 
    • There are two phases to monitoring (defined by Fleishman et al., 1991)
      • Information search: seek out information
      • Information structuring:  Analyze, organize, and interpret.
    • All members of the group can be engaged in monitoring (information search and structure)

     

    Action Taking

    • In addition to information gathering, there is also taking the 'right' action.
    • Action mediation is at the heart of leadership because it involves selecting from among competing courses of actions and helping the group create a system of organizing that allows the team to make quality decisions. (Barge, 1996)
    • There are two skills for actions mediation
      • Ability to facilitate decision making and task accomplishment.  (Task/Team Performance)
      • Ability to manage interpersonal relations (Team Development)
    • Team leaders must learn to be open and objective about diagnosing the team problems and skillful at selecting the most appropriate actions to help achieve the team goal.

     

    Characteristics of effective teams

    • Teams are judged on their performance outcomes and achievements.
    • Researchers began to study organizational work teams t better understand what makes them effective or ineffective (Hackman, 1990; Hughes, Ginnett & Curphey, 1993; LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Zaccaro, 2001)
    • The following criteria were suggested by Hackman and Walton in 1986 as necessary for effectiveness of task-performing  teams:
      1. Clear, engaging direction.
      2. An enabling Performance situation.
        • A group structure that foster competent task work.
        • An organizational context that supports and reinforces excellence.
        • Available, expert coaching and process assistance.
      1. Adequate material recourses.
    • Larson and LaFasto (1989) conducted research that included 6000 team members and 600 leaders from various industries. They found that regardless of the type of team, there were 8 characteristics that were associated with team excellence.

     

     

     

     

    1. Clear, elevating goals
      • Team goals need to be very clear to easily tell if objectives have been realized.
      • Team can fail due to vague goals or if other things replace or shadow the goals such as personal agendas, or power issues, etc.
      • Leaders need to keep the team focused on the goal.
    1. Results-driven structure
      • Teams need to have the best possible structure in order to accomplish their goals.
      • Top management for example deal with power and influence, task forces deal with ideas, customer service teams deal with clients, production teams deal with technology, etc.
        • Problem solving team such as task force need to have a structure that emphasizes 'trust' so that everyone contributes
        • Creative teams need to have a structure that emphasizes autonomy to that everyone can take risks.
        • Tactical teams such as an emergency room team need to have a structure that emphasizes clarity.
    1. Competent team members
      • Groups should be composed of the right number and mix of members to accomplish the tasks.
      • Members need to be provided with sufficient information, training and education.
      • Team members need to not only be able to do the job, but to be able to collaboratively work together.
    1. Unified Commitment
      • Team need to develop a sense of unity and identification.
      • This can be developed by involving team members in all aspects of the process (Larson & LaFasto, 1989).
    1. Collaborative climate
      • Trust based on honesty, openness, consistency, and respect seems to be essential for building a collaborative climate.
      • Members should feel free  to compensate for one another, take risks, listen to each other, be focused on the problems, and listen to each other.
      • The cause of team failures may reside not only in member inability, but also in their collaborative failure to coordinate and synchronize their individual contributions (Zaccaro, 2001).
    1. Standards of excellence
      • It is important to setup standards of excellence within a team for their processes. This will  pressure the members to perform at their highest levels. The standards need to be clear and concrete.
      • The team leader can facilitate this process by:
        • Requiring results - making expectations clear
        • Reviewing results - providing feedback to resolve performance issues.
        • Rewarding results - Acknowledge superior performance.
    1. Principled leadership
      • Leadership is central to the team effectiveness (Zaccaro, 2001). It affects the team through four sets of processes:
        • Cognitive - Helps the team understand the problems facing the team.
        • Motivational - The leader helps the team become cohesive  and capable of setting high performance standards and accomplishing them.
        • Affective - Helps the team handle stress circumstances by providing career goals, assignments and strategies.
        • Coordination - Leader coordinate team activities by matching skills with roles.
    1. External support
      • A common mistake is to give organizational teams challenging assignments, but no organizational support to accomplish these assignments (Hackman, 1990)
      • The best goals do not mean much if you don't have money, equipment, or supplies to accomplish the goals.

     

     

    Leaders can reduce the effectiveness of their team when they are unwilling to confront inadequate performance, when they dilute the team's ability to perform by having too many priorities, and by overwhelming the positive aspects of team performance. Effective leaders perform the following behaviors:

    1. Keeps the team focused on the goal
    2. Maintains a collaborative climate
    3. Builds confidence among members
    4. Demonstrates technical competence
    5. Set priorities
    6. Manages performance

     

     

    Team Leadership Model

    Hill (2001) has also developed a model for team leadership. The model attempts to integrate what

    we know about teams, leadership and effectiveness and to provide specific actions (Mental roadmap) that leaders can perform  to  improve  team  work.  Effective  team  leaders  need  a  wide  repertoire  of   competencies, which  can  be  different  than  traditional  leaders  need. Team  leaders  and  members  could  use  the model to support decision-making about the current state of the team and to consider what specific actions they need  to  take  to improve the  team´s functioning. The model should  offer a cognitive map to analyze the team situation

     

     

    The model demonstrates the mediation decisions that a leader must make?

    1. Decision #1 - Whether monitoring or action taking is the most appropriate for the issue at hand.
    2. Decision #2 - If an action course is needed, then the leaders asks what level of team process needs leadership attention? Is it internal, external, team issues, etc.
    3. Decision #3 - Determine the most appropriate function or skill to be performed in the intervention.  Actions must be carefully selected based on the situation.

     

    There are three sets of skills that a leader need to implement

    1. Internal task leadership functions (this is to improve Task Performance)
      1. Goal focusing (clarifying, gaining agreement)
      2. Structuring for results (Planning, organizing, clarifying roles, delegating)
      3. Facilitating  decision making (informing, controlling, coordinating, mediating, synthesizing, issue focusing)
      4. Training team members in task skills (Educating, Developing)
      5. Maintaining standards of excellence (Assuming team and individual performance, confronting inadequate performance)
    1. Internal relationship leadership functions (this is to improve Team Relationship)
      1. Coaching team members in interpersonal skills.
      2. Collaborating (including, involving).
      3. Managing conflicts and power issues (Avoiding confrontation, questioning ideas).
      4. Building commitment and esprit de corps (being optimistic, innovating, envisioning, socializing, rewarding, and recognizing).
      5. Satisfying individual member needs (trusting, supporting, advocating).
      6. Modeling ethical and principled practices (fair, consistent, normative).
    1. External environmental Leadership functions (This is to improve environmental interface with the team) - Teams do not exist in a vacuum.
      1. Networking and forming alliances in environment (gather information, increase influence).
      2. Advocating and representing team to environment.
      3. Negotiating upward to secure necessary resources, support, and recognition for the team.
      4. Buffering the team member from environmental distractions.
      5. Assessing environmental indicators of team's effectiveness (surveys, evaluations, performance indicators).
      6. Sharing relevant environmental information with team.

     

    How does the Team Leadership theory work?

    • Leaders can use this model to help them make decisions about the current state of their teams and realize what actions they need to take to improve the team's functioning in order to achieve effectiveness.
    • The model provides the leader with a cognitive map to identify group needs.
    • The model helps the leader make sense of the complexity of groups and offer practical suggestions.
    • The model helps the leader understand whether they need to monitor or take actions.
    • Helps the leader distinguish between internal and external challenges.
    • The model helps point the way to constant team analysis.
    • Research suggests that team leaders overestimate their effectiveness on the dimensions of leadership. They score themselves much higher than group members. By comparing scores by the leader and members, the leaders can determine which dimensions of team or leadership are in need or improvement.

    Strengths

    • It focuses on real life organizational work teams and the leadership needed therein. This has not been the focus of other approaches.
    • It provides a practical model that helps leaders to design and maintain effective teams especially when performance is below standards.
    • It takes into account the changing role of leaders and followers in organizations.
    • It can help selecting team leaders by clarifying the competencies which an effective team leader

    will need. It can help in the process of selecting team leaders.

    Weaknesses 

    • It is a new approach, and it is not completely supported or tested by research. Would the model hold true in the new technology connected virtual teams?
    • Although the theory takes into account the complexity of teas, it is complex in and of itself.
    • It does not offer on the spot answers for specific situations.
    • It  is  still more  like a  framework,  but  doesn’t  offer  clear answers  to  specific  situations  for  the team leader.
    • It doesn’t either offer clear instructions how to focus team leadership training.

     

    Leadership instrument

    Several instruments are available, but Larson & LaFasto, 1989 have developed a survey after studying many excellent organizations teams. Their research has demonstrated 8 criteria or factors that are consistently associated with high performing teams. The team excellence survey contains more than 40 questions across the 8 factors to diagnose the team performance. The team members are given the survey, their results are averaged and compared against the leader's answers.

 

 

 

Psychodynamic Approach

    Psychodynamic Approach

    • Ernest L. Stech brings together several different attempts to apply psychoanalytic theories to social relationships, including leadership.
    • This approach consists of bits and pieces borrowed from a number of scholars and practitioners.
      • The psychodynamic approach to  leadership developed from the methods dealing with emotionally disturbed  individuals  and  from  psychological  theories  of  personality  development.  The psychodynamic  approach  to  leadership  has  its  roots  in  Sigmund  Freud´s  (1938)    development  of psychoanalysis.  Carl  Jung,  one  of  Freud´s  well-known  disciples,  developed  his  own  body  of psychology, which  is  well accepted  even  today,   whereas  classical  psychoanalysis  has  found  less acceptance in recent years (Bennet 1983).  Maslow (1962, 1971) and Rogers  (1961)  could maybe be mentioned here as humanistic psychologists to represent the psychological theory of personality development.    A  leading  proponent  to  psychodynamic  approach  has  been  Abraham  Zalenick (1977). At the moment the most well-known expert in this area is certainly Manfred Kets de Vries (2001). One branch of psychodynamic theory is called psychohistory, which attempts to explain the behavior of famous historical figures (see eg. Kets de Vries 1999).
      • The  psychodynamic  approach  places  emphasis  on  leaders  obtaining  insight  into  their  personality characteristics  and  understanding  the  responses  of  subordinates,  based  on  their  personalities. Leaders should also encourage work group members to gain insight into  their own personalities so that  they  could  understand  their  reactions  to  the  leader  and  each  other.  Important  concepts  in psychodynamic approach to leadership include e.g. the family of origin,  individuation, dependence and independence, regression and the shadow self.  These concepts come from psychoanalysis and psychiatry and can sometimes be abstruse and not easily understood. That  is the reason that there has been attempts to make psychodynamic theory more accessible.
    • There are several fundamental propositions underlying this approach.
      • Leaders are more effective when they have an insight into their own psychological makeup.
      • Leaders are more effective when they understand the psychological makeup of their subordinates.
      • This approach makes no assumptions about personality characteristics or styles. It emphasizes that a leader should have an insight into his or her emotional responses and habitual patters of behavior. An authoritarian leader, as an example, can be effective  if she understands that her own behaviors arise from influences in the past. It is also better if the leader also has an understanding how their behaviors result in different responses.
      • An important assumption is that the personality characteristics of individuals are deeply ingrained and virtually impossible to change. The key is acceptance of one's own personality  feature and quirks and the understanding and acceptance of features and quirks of others.

     

    BACKGROUND

    • The emergence of this approach has its roots in the works of Sigmund Freud, 1938. He was followed by Carl Jung who developed the Jungian psychology.
    • The roots are in the individual and family.
    • Our first experience of leadership was when we were born. Mom and dad were our leaders.
    • Based on the childhood experiences, some people respond and respect authority figures, others rebel.
    • Abraham Zaleznik (1977), a management professor at Harvard is a leading proponent of this approach. He is also behind much of the work on the charismatic leadership theory.

     

     

    Important Concepts in the Psychodynamic approach

    • Family of Origin
      • Underlies any understanding of the behavior of adults.
      • Each of us begins our life into a family of two parents and one or more children (Today, there are many more single parent homes)
      • The child begins life as a very self centered being, more animal than human.
      • The parents role in the early infancy is to meet the child's needs.
      • In one sense the parent has control over the child, but the child also has an equal degree of control.
      • Such total dependency can take place in leadership situations. The leader takes total responsibility for the subordinates (Paternalistic Management"
    • Maturation or individualization
      • The child becomes more independent of the parents with time. Though the child drifts away from the parental home, they still carry a parent inside  "Parent Within" or conscience that is constantly supervising, Analyzing, or judging.
      • The individualization is the process of a child as they step into adolescence, they  become unique and different from each parent. A child o the other hand is attached to their parent with a psychological umbilical cord.
      • Two key issues in the individualization process.
        • The relationship to authority figures.
          • Highly authoritarian parent can induce either a very submissive or very resistant attitude in a child.
          • A Laissez-Faire can create a confused child who has trouble defining boundaries and limits.
          • Responses to authority figures just happen. They are not rational.
        • Intimacy and openness
          • Parents range along a continuum of kindness, tenderness, and nurturance.
          • As an adult, one may continue the style of the parent or rebel and choose the opposite.
          • A nurturing leader can produce feelings of warmth and even love in a subordinate.
    • Dependence and Independence
      • A leader's style results from the models of leadership exhibited by parents, teachers, coaches, and other adults during the maturation process.
      • Followers are more likely to react to an authoritarian leaders. Psychodynamic ally, an individual may react in a
        1. Dependent - Self explanatory.
        2. Counter dependent - rebelliousness, rejecting directives.
        3. Independent  manner - The subordinate assesses leadership attempts and looking at the situation objectively. The team member decides if the directive is ethical, reasonable, practical, etc.
    • Repression and shadow self
      • This approach relies on the "Depth Psychology" or subconscious. Most other leadership theories are based on the behavior or conscious psychology.
      • Repression: The concept of repression is putting in deep recesses of the mid those thoughts and feelings that are not deemed acceptable by society.
      • Shallow: Introduced by Jungian psychology. The shadow self is part of the personality that is unacceptable and consciously denied existence or expression. The shadow self is often evident to others although denied by the self. The only was in which we can be aware of our shadow self is to solicit perceptions of ourselves from others.
    • Archetypes
      • This is a strong pattern in the human psyche that persists over time. It is a template of human behavior and belief.
      • Pearson (1989, 1991) setup 6 archetypes. Pearson asserts that the archetypes are not encountered in a straight line or by everyone. People can get stuck in one of the archetypes. Most people cycle back and forth.
        • Innocent
          • Exists before the journey
        • Orphan
          • Moves out of the home/comfortable territory into the world.
        • Martyr
          • Devotes time and energy to the welfare of others.
        • Wanderer
          • Very independent
        • Warrior
          • Goes out into battle such as the professional on the road to success in today's terms.
        • Magician
          • This is not always attained by individuals.

     

    Warrior Leader

    Magician Leader

    Seeks success for self

    Seeks success for the team

    Want to be seen as strong and aggressive

    Wants to be seen as solid and centered

    Destroys and conquers competitors

    Motivated by competition. Adapts ideas from them.

    Worries about and denies failure

    Learns from failure; moves on.

    Emotionally neutral

    Celebrates successes;  Grieves failures.

    Works for status and Money

    Work is it own reward

    Accumulates money and resources

    Believes there is enough for everyone; make do with the minimum.

     

    • The warrior and the magician archetypes are concerned with leadership.
      • The warrior is the stereotype embodying the goals of strength and effectiveness. Hen faced with danger, the warrior attacks. The wanderer flees, and the martyr sacrifice self for others.  The warrior is competitive and goal oriented. The warrior imposes his/her will on others. The warrior is controlled (poker face) and repress most feelings and works for material reward. The warrior want to be seen as confident and respected.
      • The magician is the stereotype. It represents the notion of changing the lesser into the better. It is about transformational. Someone in the magician mode has gone beyond the aggressive and competitive mode of the warrior. They establish mutuality in the relationship with subordinates. The magician accepts and understands emotional responses. They strive to achieve the team goals through the rule, regulations and norms of an organization. Monetary or status gains are secondary. This archetype was divided into two types by Maslow
        • D-Motivation (Deficit): A person who does not have the money, status, resources, or power and is motivated to get them.
        • B-Motivation (Being): This person as all of the above and is freed to be concerned about others, the team, and the organization.

     

    Relational Analysis

    • A popular psychodynamic model created by Eric Berne (1961). There are 3 ego states:
      • The Parent :
        • Critical - Judgmental, faultfinding, and strict.
        • Nurturing - Kind, gentle, and loving.
      • The Child :
        • Playful: Adaptive and dependent.
        • Rebellious: Counter dependence subordinate.
      • The Adult : As people mature, they operate out of this adult ego state. This is the ability to do reality testing. People operating out of the adult state, make tentative decisions, and use trial and error to find out hat to do. It also incorporates both the Child and Parent ego states when needed.
    • Cathecting: psychodynamic technical term. This means that each person cathects or pulls out the other person matching response pattern. A leader who behaves in a parent ego, will cause a subordinate to behave in child ego and vice versa.
    • A good leader will make every effort to operate out the adult ego state. The leader's responsibility in this approach is to bring issues out into the open so that they can be discussed.

     

     

     

    How does the Transformational theory work?

    • It is a life long endeavor.
    • There are many books, seminars, workshops on the subject.
    • A self assessment by Pearson helps the individual determine which archetype predominates their life at the moment.
    • The basic principle is that a leader who understand their style is more effective. Even more important however, if the leader understands where their style came from (their origins).

     

    The  psychodynamic  approach  brings  an  important  aspect  to  leadership  by  emphasizing  our  past

    experiences,  unconsciousness,  feelings,  self-understanding  and  personality  types.  Also  the

    transactions and the Cathecting process are important to remember.

     

    The approach works because people become aware of each other types and thus the differences are brought into the open where people can discus them.

     

    Strengths

    • It emphasizes the relationship between the leader and the follower, a transaction between these two persons. It results in an analysis of the relationship  between them.
    • The universality of this approach. Presumably are applicable across cultures.
    • It emphasizes also the need for personal insight on the part of the leader and also the follower.
    • It discourages manipulative techniques of leadership. Effective leadership is based on self understanding and empathy.
    • It encourages the leader to pursue a course for personal growth and development.

     

    Weaknesses 

    • This approach is based on clinical observations and treatment of persons with serious difficulties.
    • The subjective nature of the findings of clinical psychologists (also the cultural biases). Psychiatrists and their patients for the most part have been white, at least middle class, with a Judeo-Christian background.
    • Early work in psychodynamics was based on the traditional two-parent family origin. Divorce and remarriage create a set of complex relationships.
    • It does not take into account organizational factors.
    • It does not lend itself to training in any conventional sense.

     

    Leadership instrument

     

    There are a lot of psychological tests which you can use as a tool to improve your self-knowledge.

    One of the most used ones  is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator based on Jung´s psychological types

    (Kroeger and Thuesen 1992).  There are four dimensions of personality types, which are

    extrovert  vs.  introvert,  sensor  vs.  intuitor,  feeler  vs.  thinker  and  perceiver  vs  judger.  As  a

    result of these dimensions there are altogether 16 potential personality types. It can be very useful to

    know  your  own  personality  type.  Sharing  the  leader’s  personality  type  and  those  of  the  team

    members is assumed to improve understanding among the participants.

     

    The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm) is the most widely used instrument for helping members of organizations gain insights into their inner selves. There are some problems with this and other similar measures. The first is the idea of types. In the early history of psychology, researchers and theorists spent a great deal of effort in attempting to measure personality types. A type means that there are categories into which people can be successfully grouped, without a great deal of overlapping between groups. In fact, virtually every psychological scale that has been developed results in a bell-shaped curve of scores. Most scores are bunched near the mean or the median and there are fewer and fewer scores as you go up the scale to higher scores or down the scale to lower scores. This bell-shaped curve means that when you try to use the scores to make up non-overlapping groups you run into trouble. A second problem with types is the assumption that once you have placed an individual into a group, that individual has all of the characteristics you tend to attribute to the group and none of the characteristics that apply to members of other groups. We will see in the next lesson the problems this has created associated with the concepts of sex and gender. We need much more research showing that applying a Myers-Briggs type to an individual and to those he or she works with really results in their being better able to work successfully together.

     

    Another assumption made with the Myers-Briggs test (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm) is that since the person taking the test is responding from their conscious mind, a low score in a certain area indicates that this area is a strong dynamic in the shadow self. This essentially means that an individual is really the opposite of what he or she thinks. Again, we need a lot more research before we can accept this principle at face value.

 

 

 

Women and Leadership

Women and Leadership

 

  • Gender refers to way in which meaning and evaluations are associated with sex by members of a culture.
  • The degree with which Males and Females are expected to behave differently, treated differently, and are valued differently has little to do with sex (biology) and everything to do with gender (learned beliefs)
  • Learned beliefs can easily be misleading when there are only two categories in a set (female/male or masculine/feminine). There are three cognitive distortions with bi-polar categories.
    • People's thinking become simplified because of the belief  that everyone must fit into a specific category.
    • The categories also seem to imply that everyone within a category is identical.
    • Many people erroneously tend to value one category as more superior than the other.
  • Although many executives and managers refer to believe that organizations are objective about merit and gender neutral, the data from research shows that most work places use gender as the basis for many decisions (Hale, 1996).
  • Ongoing research has indicated continued dilemmas for women leaders who seek to balance work demands with personal life (Ensher, Murphy, Sullivan, 2002)
  • The application of this section has three benefits
    • Can help organizations that have experienced difficulties in retaining women.
    • It can inform women of what they need to do to develop as leaders.
    • It can inform men of the subtle patterns enacted everyday in the work place that impedes progress.
  • A study found that males did well under cooperative conditions while females did well under competitive conditions. The female participants were more concerned with the feelings of other participants than the males were. The females spent more time and effort to get to know the others in their groups and perhaps felt that those interpersonal relationships were more important than the game and its outcomes. But why, you might ask, did this make them less able to cooperate with each other. The answer lies in the nature of the game. Winning may be more important to males than to females, whether it is as a group over other groups or as an individual over others in the group. In order for the group to effectively cooperate it was necessary that uncooperative behavior be stopped quickly. When working together to solve a problem under time pressure, males are pretty good at suspending concern for feelings and focusing on the task. Females on the average are less willing or able to do that. There is a general belief that women are more likely than men to adopt a participative or democratic style of leadership. Women seem to prefer working in cooperative situations rather than competitive ones.

 

Overview of research trends

Researchers over the past 20 years, have focused on three main questions:

  1. Can women be leaders?
    1. The answer of course is, Yes. Some interesting demographics.
      1. 135 Million people employed in the US. 46.6% are women (2001).
      2. Women  earned .76 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2001.
      3. Women filled `5.7% of corporate officer including 7.1% of CFO, 16.1 of general counsels.
      4. 5.2% of top-earning corporate officers were filled by women.
      5. 12.4% of seats held in Fortune 500 corporate directors.
      6. 6 Female CEO for Fortune 500 companies and 11 female CEOs of Fortune 500 & 1000.
      7. 44% of small businesses in US (20.4 million) are owned by women.
      8. 5% of venture capitalist and 3% of government contracts are awarded to women owned businesses.
      9. 12% of state governorship. 13% in US Senate. 14% of US House of representatives.
      10. In 1998, Fortune profiled 50 women leaders.
      11. African American women currently represent the largest group of color in management positions and are surpassing African American Men in Executive/Managerial positions.
      12. Women inclusion in leadership has increased over the last few decades, but does not reflect their overall proportion of labor force.
      13. Enhanced Productivity, competitive advantage, and financial performance, are three of the reasons why developing and promoting women leaders are in the best interest of employers. (Barney, 1997) - Capacity to optimize the use of the internal resources.
      14. Underutilized women and people of color are major sources of untapped value that can enhance organization's creativity, change efforts, team work, and financial performance (Appold, Siengthai & Kasarda, 1998)
  1. Do male and females differ in their behavior and effectiveness in organizations?
    1. The purpose of this question shifted many times. Sometimes to research equality, other times is to understand impact of gender on leadership.
    2. Recent research has used meta-analysis (set of statistical procedures that for analyzing all studies to determine the overall trends)
    3. Meta-Analyses in the last 15 years indicate that assuming differences in behavior, cognition could lead to erroneous conclusions. A Meta-Analyses of 160 studies concluded that there is only one difference (Women used a more participative or democratic style and less autocratic or directive style than men did.)
    4. Both Men and Women emphasized task accomplishment when the setting was numerically dominated by leaders of their own sex.
    5. 82 studies did not found that females and males did not differ in effectiveness. (Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Donnell & Hall, 1980; Powel, 1993)
    6. Another meta-analysis found that female and make leaders are evaluated differently (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992) which affect the impact of management training.
      1. Both Female and Male leaders were evaluated equally favorably when they used a stereotypically feminine style (democratic )
      2. Only female leaders were evaluated unfavorably when they used a masculine leadership style (Autocratic or directive)
      3. Women were particularly devalued when they worked in a male dominated setting.
    1. Another study found that females and males leaders differ in:
      1. The length of time they need to go to get promoted
      2. The need to adapt their behavior at work
      3. Amount of support they tend to receive at work
      4. The impact of family variables on career development.
    1. A theory based on sex differences in social behavior (Eagly, 1987) proposes that people are generally expected to engage in activities and actions congruent with their culturally defined gender roles.
    2. Comparison of leader roles favored men over women when three conditions were true:
      1. When the setting was male dominated (especially military)
      2. When a high percentage of subordinates were male.
      3. When the role was seen as more congenial to men in terms of self assessed competence, interest, low requirement for cooperation, high requirement for control.
    1. Comparison of leader roles favored women over men when these three conditions were reversed. In addition, women leaders were favored in middle management in business, education, and government or social services. Men were favored in entry level or supervisory positions especially in the military.
    2. Eagly (1992) concluded that leadership roles maybe defined in a more masculine or feminine fashion depending on the organizational context of management. Across most sectors of the economy other than the military, women's effectiveness increased as they moved up the hierarchy and as cooperation rather than control was required.
    3. Three recent studies by Advanced Teamware, inc. conducted a study where 6000 people completed a questionnaire about 915 middle-upper managers. Of the 31 areas examines, women outperformed men in 28 including conflict resolution, work quality, adaptation to change, productivity, idea generation, and motivation of others. Men handled pressure and coped with frustration better than women did. Both groups scored equally on delegating authority.
    4. Another study by (Saville & Holdsworth in New Zealand) conducted a study of 3000 managers. They found no differences on 30 attributes analyzed. However, they found that women emphasized planning and organizing work and an empathic approach.  They placed less emphasis on the need to win at all costs.
    5. Generally speaking, women leaders tend to be more participative and less autocratic, more effective in middle management, and in situations requiring cooperation.
  1. Why do so few women leaders reach the top?

There are three common explanations.

  1. "Women absence from executive positions is a function of not having been in managerial positions long enough for natural career progression to occur.". There is data to support this.
  2. "Women lack general management or line experience" (Ragins et al, 1998). There is data to support this explanation. However, there are other studies that shows that top executives were not distinguished from middle management by their line experience, but by the breadth of positions and departments they worked in. The study also found that the longer managers served in line positions, the less likely they move into top management.
  3. "Women leaders are themselves the problem. They are either less suited for executive demands rather than men, unavailable because so few are sufficiently qualified, or lacking in self confidence. (Morris, 1998). This has been refuted by a large number of published research.

 

Recent studies have found that women's  slow progress to the top have been the focus of a "Glass Ceiling".  (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). There are three broad categories:

 

  1. Organizational barriers
    1. Higher standards of Performance and efforts for women have been reported in many studies (Mainiero, 1994; Morris, 1998)
    2. Inhospitable corporate culture (Ragins et al, 1998). The culture,
      1. Discourages balancing high career aspirations wit non work obligations
      2. Communicate that women don't belong in executive positions.
      3. Require that women accomplish major tasks without sufficient resources.

A study found that a males only organizational hierarchy hindered women's promotions into lower and middle management while having female leaders fostered women's promotions.

  1. Homophily - The tendency to prefer to work and interact with people who are similar demographically and attitudinally. Homophily can ease the initial interactions in a group, but can restrict creative thinking and balanced decision making (Cox, 1993). Since women of color differ in two demographic from European American men, they are more likely to experience marginalization at work (Bell et al, 1993).
  2. Organizations have limited the challenge of assignments given to women . In a study of 507 managers, both men and women were given opportunities to start new ventures and turn around businesses n trouble, but men were given higher levels of responsibilities. This reduced the potential of promotions for women.
  3. Another study of 2431 white collar employees, showed that both men and women promotions to middle management were fostered by enhancing human capital variables (education, training, and challenging work). Women's promotions were fostered by the presence of a woman in the hierarchy and hindered by the lack of one.  Their promotions to upper management were fostered by career encouragement. Men's promotions were unaffected by these variables.
  1. Interpersonal barriers
    1. Refer to the obstacles that occur primarily in the context of a working relationship. Supportive relationships are especially important in women's leadership advancement.
    2. Gender prejudice can take many forms and usually not conscious. The most basic preconceptions is that a good manager is inherently masculine.
    3. Preconceptions that women are less competent means that women have to prove themselves repeatedly in each new situations.
    4. Women must identify ad explicitly ask for challenging assignments rather than simply having such assignments offered to them.
    5. Women perceived that a need to adapt their behavioral style so that men could avoid feeling intimidated. (Ragin et al, 1998)
    6. Male leaders were positively evaluated when they behaved either cooperatively or autocratically. Women leaders were evaluated positively only when they behaved cooperatively. (Eagly et al. 1992).
    7. Several studies documented that women experienced lower support in their careers than similarly employed men.
    8. Informal networks are very important and yet studies shown that women leaders have either tended to be excluded or had to work harder to be included.
    9. A critical relationship is mentoring. Studies in mentoring had pointed out that there is  dramatic impact on salaries of employees and that European American men were most likely to be the protégé.
    10. Women and men were likely to be mentors, but women were more likely to have same sex protégés.
    11. Bad mentoring can be worse than none at all (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000)
  1. Personal
    1. Women leaders themselves have reported naïveté and lower political savvy as a barrier.
    2. To mature organizationally, black women have adopted perseverance, willingness to change employers, and self generated developmental opportunities.
    3. The most serious challenge for women leaders are the non-work obligations that they remain primarily responsible for in a household. Some studies found that the multiple roles that women play in work and non-work actually enhances their leadership skills.
    4. The ability to balance the "have it all" need has been a frequent theme in women leaders. Some women have coped by purchasing domestic services, supportive or non-employed husband, or scaling back their families.

 

Strengths

  • Research on gender dynamics have made a roader impact on leadership. Improvements in the work places and in society occur only when unconscious patterns and beliefs are uncovered and recognized.
  • Considering the sex of leaders and employees can yield insights within the major theoretical traditions. There are many examples of this discussed in the various theories about situations and acceptable/non-acceptable behaviors.
  • Research in this area has contributed to the broader conversation in the US society about values and questions like this:
    • Do we prefer a work place that rewards talents or demographic characteristics?
    • Does profit matter more than people's well being?
    • Does work matter more than personal relationships?
    • Is merit consistently applied if one sex have to consistently work harder and received less pay and recognition?

 

Weaknesses 

  • The disadvantage of focusing on the individual's sex can become the only or the primary attribute identifying them rather than  one of the many attributes.
  • A serious issue in the research on sex and gender is the assumption that members of each category are identical in race, sexual orientation, age, etc. In fact most of the respondents to the surveys were European American Women.

 

Leadership instrument

The BSRI developed by Bem in 1974 has often been used to measure the self perceptions of gender role.   Another instrument that was developed by  Yost & Herbert in 1985 measures the attitudes toward women as managers (ATWAM)

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership Ethics

    Leadership Ethics

    • Very little research has been published on the theoretical foundations of leadership ethics.
    • There has been many studies on leadership, but little has been related to leadership.
    • One of the first leadership ethics writings appeared in 1996 by W.K. Kellogg

     

    Ethics defined

    • Development of ethics theory dates back to Plato and Aristotle.
    • It is concerned with the kinds of values and morals an individual or society finds desirable.
    • These are rules and principles that provide the basis for understanding what it means to be a morally decent human being.
    • The choices that leaders make and how they respond to a given circumstance are informed and directed by their ethics.

     

    Ethical theories

    Ethical leadership theories fall into two categories

    1. Leader's conduct (Their actions)
      1. Consequences (Theological theories) - Focus on what is right and what is wrong.
        1. Ethical Egoism - An individual should act to create the greatest good for themselves. A leaders should take a career that they would selfishly enjoy (Avolio & Locke, 2002). This is closely related to transactional leadership theories. For example, a middle-level manager who wants their team to be the best in the company is acting out of ethical egoism.
        2. Utilitarianism - We should act to create he greatest good for the greatest number. Maximize the social benefits while minimizing the social costs (Shumann, 2001). Example: when the US government allocates a large portion of the federal budget to the health care instead of catastrophic illness, it is acting out of the utilitarian ethics.
        3. Altruism -  This is the opposite of Ethical Egoism and is concerned with showing the best interest for others even when it runs contrary to self-interest. Authentic transformational leadership is based on altruistic behavior (Bass, Steidlmeier, 1999).
      1. Duty (Deontological Theories)
        • This is telling the truth, keeping promises, being fair, independent of the consequences.
        • Actions should not infringe on others' rights and should not further the moral rights of others.
    1. Leader's character (Who they are)
      1. Virtue-based theories -
        1. These are not innate, but can be acquired.
        2. They are rooted in heart of the individual and in their disposition.
        3. It focuses on telling people  "what to be" as opposed of "what to do"
        4. Examples include courage, temperance, generosity, self-control, honesty, sociability, modesty, fairness, and justice.
        5. This theory is about being  and becoming a worthy human being.

     

    Centrality of ethics to leadership

    • The influence dimension of a leader requires that they have an impact on the lives of those they lead. To make a change in other people carries with it an enormous amount of ethical burden and responsibility.
    • Leaders have an ethical responsibility to treat followers with dignity, respect, as a human being with unique identities.
    • The "respect for people" demands that a leader be sensitive to follower's own interests, needs, and conscientious concerns.
    • Leaders play an important role in establishing the ethical climate of the their organizations.

     

    Heifetz's Perspective on Ethical leadership

    • A psychiatrist who observed world leaders.
    • His approach emphasizes how leaders help followers confront conflict and effect changes from conflict. It is about helping followers deal with conflicting values that emerge in rapidly changing work environments and social cultures.
    • His approach deals with values.
    • Leaders must utilize authority to immobilize people to face tough issues.
    • The leader provides the holding environment in which there is trust, nurturance, and empathy.
    • The leader's duty is to assist followers in struggling with change and personal growth.

     

    Burns's Perspective on Ethical leadership

    • Transformational leadership places a strong emphasis on followers' needs, values, and  morals.
    • It involves attempts by leaders to move followers to higher standards of responsibility.
    • It is the responsibility of the leader to help followers assess their own values and needs in order to raise them to a higher level of functioning, to a level that will stress values such a liberty, justice, and equality.

     

    Greenleaf's Perspective on Ethical leadership

    • He developed a paradoxical approach to leadership called "Servant leadership" in 1970s
    • It gained increased popularity in recent years.
    • It has a strong altruistic ethical overtone and emphasizes that leaders should be attentive to concerns or their followers.
    • He argued that leadership was bestowed on a person who is by nature a servant. The way an individual becomes a leader is by first being a servant.
    • A servant leader focuses on the needs of the followers and helps them become more knowledgeable, more free, more autonomous and more like servants themselves.
    • Servant leader has a social responsibility to be concerned with the have-nots and to recognize them as equal stakeholders in the organization.
    • Greenleaf places a great deal of emphasis on listening, empathy, and unconditional acceptance of others.
    • Many of these ethical theories emphasis that the relationship between leader-follower is an "ethical" one and it s related to the "caring principle"(Gilligan, 1982).

     

    Principles of ethical leadership

    Northouse has listed five principles of ethical leadership. Actually the origins of these

    can  be  traced  back  to Aristotle.    These  principles  provide  a  foundation  for  the  development  of

    sound ethical leadership. According to these principles ethical leaders respect others, serve others,

    are just,  are honest and  build community. To be  an  ethical  leader, we must  be  sensitive  to  the

    needs of others, treat others in ways that are just and care for others.

     

     

  1. Ethical leaders respect others
    1. Immanuel Kant argues that it is our duty to treat others with respect. One should treat others as ends in itself and never as means to an end.
    2. Beauchamp and Bowie (1988) pointed out that "Persons must be treated as having their autonomously established goals and must never be treated purely as the means to another person's goals."
    3. Leaders who respect also allow others to be themselves.  They approach others with a sense of unconditional worth and value individual differences (Kitchener, 1984)
    4. Respect means giving credence to others' ideas and confirming them as human beings.
    5. A leader should nurture followers in becoming aware of their own needs, values, and purposes.
    6. Respect means that a leader listens closely to their subordinates, is empathetic, and tolerant to opposing views.
    7. When a leader exhibits respect, subordinates feel competent about their work.
  2. Ethical leaders serve others
    1. This is based on the concern for others (Ethical egoism)
    2. This is an example of altruism.
    3. An example of this is observed in mentoring, empowerment, behaviors, and team building.
    4. Very similar concept to the "Beneficence" that is taught to health professionals.
    5. Senge contended that one of the important tasks of leaders in learning organizations is to be a steward (servant) of the vision within the organization and highlights the importance of not being self-centered, but integrating one's self or vision with the vision of the organization.
  3. Ethical leaders are Just
    1. Justice demands that leaders place the issue of just at the center of their decision making.
    2. No one should be treated differently unless their particular situation demands it and if that is the case, then the rules for differential treatment should be made clear.
    3. Good coaches are those who never have favorites and those who make a point of playing everyone in the team.
    4. The golden rule (Rawls, 1971) is to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
    5. The principles of distributive justice includes:
      1. To each person, and equal share.
      2. According to individual needs
      3. According to that person's rights
      4. According to individual efforts
      5. According to societal contribution
      6. According to merit.
  4. Ethical leaders are honest
    1. Being honest is not just about telling the truth. It has to do with being open with others, representing reality as fully and a completely as possible.
    2. There are times of course where telling the complete truth can be destructive and counter productive. The challenge is to strike a balance.
    3. It is important for leaders to be authentic, but sensitive to the attitudes And feelings of others.
    4. Dala Costa (1998) made a point in the Ethical Imperative book. "Do not promise what you can't deliver, do not misrepresent, do not hide behind spin-doctored evasions, do not suppress obligations, do not evade accountability, do not accept  the 'survival of the fittest' pressures"
  5. Ethical leaders build community
    1. Leadership is often defined as the "process of influencing others to reach a common or communal goal." This definition has a clear ethical dimension.  The common goal implies that leaders and followers agree on the directions of the group.
    2. Authentic transformation means that a leader cannot impose their will on other. They need to search for goals that are compatible with everyone.
    3. Ethical leadership demands attention to civic virtue (Rost, 1991). This means that both leaders and followers need to attend to community goals and not just their mutually determined goals.

     

    Maybe the most important thing is to realize that leadership involves values; one cannot be a leader

    without being aware of and concerned about one’s own values.   We can say also that  rather than

    telling people what to do, we should tell them what to be and help them to become more virtuous.

    When practiced over time good values become habitual and a part of the persons themselves.

     

    Strengths

    • It provides some direction in how to think about ethical leadership and how to practice it.
    • It reminds us that leadership is a moral process. Other than the transformational theory of Burns, no other theory considered or highlighted ethics.
    • It describes some basic principles that we can use in developing real-world ethical leadership. These ethics have bee present for over 2000 years.

     

    Weaknesses 

    •  It is still in an early stage of development. It lacks a strong body of traditional research.
    • This area of research relies on the writing of a few individuals, whose work has been primarily descriptive and anecdotal.

     

    Leadership instrument

    Craig and Gustafson (1998) developed the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS).  It is based on the Utilitarian ethical theory. It evaluates leaders' ethics by measuring the degree to which subordinates see them as acting in ways that produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

 

 

 

Click here to downloadYou can also download this same content as a PDF file.