CHAPTER 11 Leadership: Fundamentals Chapter Overview This chapter addresses the issue of leadership in organizations by presenting the major theories on leadership and discussing some pertinent issues related to the concept. Most of the chapter centers on the presentation of major leadership theories that are classified into three categories: • Trait theories • Behavioral theories (University of Michigan studies, the Ohio State studies) • Situational theories (Fiedler's Contingency Leadership Model, Path Goal Model, Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory, and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory) In presenting each theory, the authors explain the underlying principles and provide a critical assessment, focusing on the theory's strengths and shortcomings. Several tables and figures are provided to help students visualize how the theories work. The chapter includes a discussion of a number of important leadership issues, such as whether leadership is really important and if it truly affects follower satisfaction and performance. Learning Objectives By the end of the chapter, students should be able to: 1. Define the term leadership. 2. Describe why managers appear to prefer the Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership theory. 3. Discuss whether employees can develop into effective leaders. 4. Compare the situational factors used in discussions of the contingency and path-goal approaches to leadership. 5. Identify the assumptions made about followers of the path-goal and the leader-member exchange theories. Lecture Outline PowerPoint Slide Material from Text to Support Slide / Additional Comments The authoritative source of leadership theory and research, the Handbook of Leadership, defines leadership as “an interaction between members of a group. Leaders are agents of change; persons whose acts affect other people more than other people’s acts affect them. Leadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or competencies of others in the group.” The leadership definition implies that it involves the use of influence and that all interpersonal relationships can involve leadership. A second element in the definition involves the importance of being a change agent—being able to affect followers’ behavior and performance. Finally, the definition focuses on accomplishing goals. The effective leader may have to deal with individual, group, and organizational goals. Leader effectiveness is typically measured by the accomplishment of one or a combination of these goals. Individuals may view the leader as effective or ineffective according to the satisfactions they derive from the total work experience. In fact, acceptance of a leader’s directives or requests rests largely on the followers’ expectations that a favorable response can lead to an attractive outcome. A useful framework for organizing ideas and theories about leadership is presented in Figure 11.1. This figure indicates many of the terms and concepts of leadership ideas and theory. It includes the various traits, behavioral styles, and situational variables found in the leadership literature. To a significant extent, the personnel testing component of scientific management supported the trait theory of leadership. In addition to being studied by personnel testing, the traits of leaders have been studied by observation of behavior in group situations, by choice of associates (voting), by nomination or rating by observers, and by analysis of biographical data. Those who study these traits have correlated nearly every measurable characteristic of leaders Although some studies conclude that traits such as those in Table 11.1 differentiate effective from ineffective leaders, research findings are still contradictory for a number of possible reasons. First, the list of potentially important traits is endless. Every year, new traits, such as the sign under which a person is born, handwriting style, and order of birth are added to personality, physical characteristics, and intelligence. This continual “adding on” results in more confusion among those interested in identifying leadership traits. Second, trait test scores aren’t consistently predictive of leader effectiveness. Leadership traits don’t operate singly to influence followers, but act in combination. This interaction influences the leader–follower relationship. Third, patterns of behavior depend largely on the situation: leadership behavior that’s effective in a bank may be ineffective in a laboratory. Finally, the trait approach fails to provide insight into what the effective leader does on the job. Observations are needed that describe the behavior of effective and ineffective leaders. In the late 1940s, researchers began to explore the idea that how a person acts determines that person’s leadership effectiveness. Instead of searching for traits, these researchers examined behaviors and their effect on measures of effectiveness such as production and satisfaction of followers. The preponderance of theory and research along these lines has depended on the idea that leaders must cope with two separate but interrelated aspects of their situations: they must accomplish the task, and they must do so through the efforts of those they lead. Thus, even though a variety of different terms have been used to identify these two facts of leadership, all can be understood as relating to tasks and people. In 1947, Rensis Likert began studying how best to manage the efforts of individuals to achieve desired production and satisfaction objectives. The purpose of most leadership research of the Likert-inspired team at the University of Michigan (UM) was to discover the principles and methods of effective leadership. The effectiveness criteria used in many of the studies included 1. Productivity per work-hour, or other similar measures of the organization’s success in achieving its production goals. 2. Job satisfaction of members of the organization. 3. Turnover, absenteeism, and grievance rates. 4. Costs. 5. Scrap loss. 6. Employee and managerial motivation. Through interviewing leaders and followers, researchers identified two distinct styles of leadership, referred to as job-centered and employee-centered. The job-centered leader focuses on completing the task and uses close supervision so that subordinates perform their tasks using specified procedures. This leader relies on coercion, reward, and legitimate power to influence the behavior and performance of followers. The employee-centered leader focuses on the people doing the work and believes in delegating decision making and aiding followers in satisfying their needs by creating a supportive work environment. Employee-centered leaders concerned themselves with followers’ personal advancement growth, and achievement. Such leaders emphasized individual and group development with the expectation that effective work performance would naturally follow. Although the findings of this extensive research effort are quite complex, we can credit it with making a very strong case for the relative advantage of employee-centered over job-centered leadership. However, the studies suggest that a leader must be either one or the other; an individual cannot be both job- and employee-centered. The seeming inability to be both job-centered and person-centered and be an effective leader stimulated other studies to test that conclusion. Among the several large leadership research programs that developed after World War II, one of the most significant was undertaken at Ohio State University (OSU). This program resulted in the development of a two-factor theory of leadership and indicated that leaders could be both job- and employee-centered. A series of studies isolated two leadership behaviors, referred to as initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure (or job-centered in Likert’s terms) involves behavior in which the leader organizes and defines the relationships in the group, tends to establish well-defined patterns and channels of communication, and spells out ways of getting the job done. The leader with a high initiating structure tendency focuses on goals and results. Consideration (or employee-centered in Likert’s terms) involves behavior indicating friendship, mutual trust, respect, warmth, and rapport between the leader and the followers. The leader with a high consideration tendency supports open communication and participation. The OSU researchers measured leaders tendencies to practice these two leadership behaviors and were able to depict them graphically. Figure 11.2 shows behaviors of five different leaders. Individual 1 is high on both initiating structure and consideration; individual 4 is low on both dimensions. The original premise was that a high degree of consideration and a high degree of initiating structure (high-high) was the most effective of the four possible combinations. Since the original research undertaken to develop the questionnaire, there have been numerous studies of the relationship between these two leadership dimensions and various effectiveness criteria. The two theories of leadership behavior are compared and contrasted in Table 11.2. These two theories have provided practitioners with information on what behaviors leaders should possess. This knowledge has resulted in the establishment of training programs for individuals who perform leadership tasks. Each approach is associated with highly respected theorists, researchers, or consultants, and each has been studied in different organizational settings. Yet, the linkage between leadership and such important performance indicators as production, efficiency, and satisfaction hasn’t been conclusively resolved by either of the two personal behavioral theories. The simplicity of the initiating structure and consideration view of leadership is appealing. However, most researchers believe that environmental variables play some role in leadership effectiveness. For example, when successful initiating structure behavior is found, what other variables in the environment are at work? A worker who prefers to have a structured job and needs to have a job is likely to perform effectively under high initiating structure. What situational variables need to be considered? Neither the Ohio State nor the University of Michigan approach points out situational factors. The search for the “best” set of traits or behavior has failed to discover an effective leadership mix and style for all situations. Thus, situational theories of leadership evolved that suggest leadership effectiveness depends on the fit between personality, task, power, attitudes, and perceptions. A number of situation-oriented leadership approaches have been publicized and researched. Only after inconclusive and contradictory results evolved from much of the early trait and personal behavior research was the importance of the situation studied more closely by those interested in leadership. Eventually, researchers recognized that the leadership behavior needed to enhance performance depends largely on the situation: what’s effective leadership in one situation may be disorganized incompetence in another. The situational theme of leadership, while appealing, is certainly a challenging orientation to implement. Its basic foundation suggests that an effective leader must be flexible enough to adapt to the differences among subordinates and situations. Deciding how to lead other individuals is difficult and requires an analysis of the leader, the group, and the situation. Managers who are aware of the forces they face are able to modify their styles to cope with changes in the work environment. Three factors of particular importance are (1) forces within the managers, (2) forces in the subordinates, and (3) forces in the situation. Developed by Fiedler, the contingency model of leadership effectiveness postulates that the performance of groups is dependent on the interaction between leadership style and situational favorableness. Leader’s Style Fiedler’s studies led him to believe that leaders practice one or the other of two styles: task-oriented leadership or relationship-oriented leadership. He and his colleagues spent many years developing a way to measure an individual’s tendency to practice these two styles, eventually settling on a method that relies on psychological reasoning. According to Fiedler, individuals whose personality favors task completion and a sense of accomplishment would more likely practice task-oriented leadership. An individual whose personality values warm, supportive relationships with others would likely practice relationship-oriented leadership. Moreover, Fiedler’s studies convinced him that individuals cannot be both task- and relationship-oriented. Individuals in leadership positions will be more comfortable, sincere, and effective practicing the leadership behavior that supports their own underlying personality. Thus, the most important leadership issue is to match leaders’ personalities and styles to the situation in which they will be effective. Situational Factors Fiedler proposes three situational factors that determine whether a task- or relationship-oriented style is more likely to be effective: leader–member relations, task structure, and position power. From theoretical as well as intuitive points of view, interpersonal leader–follower relationships are likely to be the most important variable in a situation. The leader–member relations factor refers to the degree of confidence, trust, and respect that followers have in the leader. This situational variable reflects acceptance of the leader. The leader’s influence depends in part on acceptance by followers. If others are willing to follow because of charisma, expertise, or mutual respect, the leader has little need to rely on task-oriented behavior; the followers willingly follow the leader. If, however, the leader isn’t trusted and is viewed negatively by followers, the situation would likely, but not necessarily, call for task-oriented behavior. The second most important situational factor is referred to as task structure. This factor refers specifically to the characteristics of the work to be done. If we think of combining these four characteristics to describe any job, task, or assignment, we can conclude that they do indeed vary from high structure (those clearly known and understood, with relatively few solutions to any encountered problem, whose correctness can be demonstrated) to low task structure (those vaguely known and understood, with many possible solutions to encountered problems, whose correctness cannot be demonstrated). Thus, the second most important situational variable refers to the nature of the task assigned to the leader and the group. Position power in the contingency model refers to the power inherent in the leadership position. The three situational factors can be combined to describe different situations. These situations will differ in the degree to which they are favorable to the leader’s influence attempts. Ask yourself this question: would you rather be a leader in a situation where leader-member relations are good, the task is relatively structured, and your position power is relatively strong or in the opposite situation with poor leader–member relations, an unstructured task, and weak position power? Chances are you selected the first situation because it would be more favorable to your leadership efforts. Figure 11.3 combines the three situational factors such that we now have eight different situations ranging from situation 1, which is very favorable to the leader, to situation 8, which is very unfavorable to the leader. Fiedler recommends that organizations should concentrate on changing situations to fit their leaders, rather than changing (training) leaders to fit their situations. Thus, individuals who prefer task-oriented behavior will not benefit from training in human relations skills. The reverse also holds; relationship-oriented leaders will not respond to training to make them more task-oriented. He also suggests that leaders can make changes that result in more favorable situations. Table 11.3 presents some of his suggestions for changing particular situational factors. Larger print of table details follow. Fiedler recommends that organizations should concentrate on changing situations to fit their leaders, rather than changing (training) leaders to fit their situations. Thus, individuals who prefer task-oriented behavior will not benefit from training in human relations skills. The reverse also holds; relationship-oriented leaders will not respond to training to make them more task-oriented. He also suggests that leaders can make changes that result in more favorable situations. Modifying Leader–Member Relations 1. Spend more—or less—informal time (lunch, leisure activities, etc.) with your subordinates. 2. Request particular people for work in your group. 3. Volunteer to direct difficult or troublesome subordinates. 4. Suggest or affect transfers of particular subordinates into or out of your unit. 5. Raise morale by obtaining positive outcomes (e.g., special bonuses, time off, attractive jobs) for subordinates. Modifying Task Structure If you wish to work with less structured tasks: 1. Ask your boss, whenever possible, to give you the new or unusual problems and let you figure out how to get them done. 2. Bring the problems and tasks to your group members and invite them to work with you on the planning and decision-making phases of the tasks. If you wish to work with more highly structured tasks: 1. Ask your superior to give you, whenever possible, the tasks that are more structured or to give you more detailed instructions. 2. Break the job down into smaller subtasks that can be more highly structured. Modifying Position Power To raise your position power: 1. Show your subordinates who’s boss by exercising fully the powers that the organization provides. 2. Make sure that information to your group gets channeled through you. To lower your position power: 1. Call on members of your group to participate in planning and decision-making functions. 2. Let your assistants exercise relatively more power. Like the other situational or contingency leadership approaches, the path–goal leadership model attempts to predict leadership effectiveness in different situations. According to this model, developed by Robert J. House, leaders are effective because of their positive effect on followers’ motivation, ability to perform, and satisfaction. The theory is designated path–goal because it focuses on how the leader influences the followers’ perceptions of work goals, self-development goals, and paths to goal attainment. The foundation of path–goal theory is the expectancy motivation theory. Some early work on the path–goal theory asserts that leaders become effective by making rewards available to subordinates and by making those rewards contingent on subordinates’ accomplishment of specific goals. It is argued that an important part of the leader’s job is to clarify for subordinates the behavior most likely to result in goal accomplishment. This activity is referred to as path clarification. The early path–goal work led to the development of a complex theory involving four specific leader behaviors (directive, supportive, participative, and achievement) and three subordinate attitudes (job satisfaction, acceptance of the leader, and expectations about effort-performance-reward relationships). The directive leader tends to let subordinates know what’s expected of them. The supportive leader treats subordinates as equals. The participative leader consults with subordinates and considers their suggestions and ideas beforereachingadecision.Theachievement-orientedleadersetschallenginggoals,expects subordinates to perform at the highest level, and continually seeks improvement in performance. As is evident, these four behaviors are more refined conceptualizations of the two general behaviors we have been discussing throughout the chapter: directive and achievement-oriented behaviors are but two distinct dimensions of task-oriented behavior; supportive and participative behaviors are two distinct dimensions of person-oriented behavior. The path–goal theory has led to the development of two important propositions. 1. Leader behavior is effective to the extent that subordinates perceive such behavior as a source of immediate satisfaction or as instrumental to future satisfaction. 2. Leader behavior is motivational to the extent that it makes satisfaction of subordinates’ needs contingent on effective performance and that it complements the environment of subordinates by providing the guidance, clarity of direction, and rewards necessary for effective performance. According to the path–goal theory, leaders should increase the number of kinds of rewards available to subordinates. In addition, the leaders should provide guidance and counsel to clarify the manner in which these rewards can be obtained. This means that the leader should help subordinates clarify realistic expectancies and reduce the barriers to the accomplishment of valued goals. Two situational, or contingency, variables are considered in the path–goal theory: personal characteristics of subordinates and environmental pressures and demands with which subordinates must cope to accomplish work goals and derive satisfaction. Environmental variables include factors that aren’t within the control of the subordinate but are important to satisfaction or to the ability to perform effectively. These include the tasks, the formal authority system of the organization, and the work group. The path–goal theory proposes that leader behavior is motivational to the extent that it helps subordinates cope with environmental uncertainties. A leader who reduces the uncertainties of the job is considered to be a motivator because he increases subordinates’ expectations that their efforts lead to desirable rewards. Figure 11.4 presents the path–goal approach. Hersey and Blanchard developed a situational leadership model (SLM) that has appealed to many managers.37 Large firms and small businesses have used the SLM and enthusiastically endorse its value. SLM’s emphasis is on followers and their level of maturity. The leader must properly judge or intuitively know followers’ maturity level and then use a leadership style that fits the level. Readiness is defined as the ability and willingness of people (followers) to take responsibility for directing their own behavior. It’s important to consider two types of readiness: job and psychological. A person high in job readiness has the knowledge and abilities to perform the job without a manager structuring or directing the work. A person high in psychological readiness has the self-motivation and desire to do high-quality work. Again, this person has little need for direct supervision. Leadership Behavior Hersey and Blanchard used the Ohio State studies to further develop four leadership styles available to managers: 1. Telling. The leader defines the roles needed to do the job and tells followers what, where, how, and when to do the tasks. 2. Selling. The leader provides followers with structured instructions but is also supportive. 3. Participating. The leader and followers share in decisions about how best to complete a high-quality job. 4. Delegating. The leader provides little specific, close direction or personal support to followers. By determining followers’ readiness level, a manager can choose from among the four leadership styles. Figure 11.5 depicts the important elements of the SLM. Personal behavioral explanations of leadership suggest that the leader’s behavior is the same across all followers. This thinking is similar to assuming that a parent treats or interacts with each of her children the same. Graen has proposed the leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, which proposes that there’s no such thing as consistent leader behavior across subordinates. A leader may be very considerate toward one subordinate and very rigid and structured with another. Each relationship has a uniqueness, and it’s the one-on-one relationships that determine subordinates’ behaviors. The LMX approach suggests that leaders classify subordinates into in-group members and out-group members. In-group members share a common bond and value system, and they interact with the leader. Out-group members have less in common with the leader and don’t share much with her. The LMX explanation suggests that in-group members are likely to receive more challenging assignments and more meaningful rewards. Research indicates that in-group members are more positive about the organization culture and higher job performance and satisfaction than employees in the out-group. An out-group member isn’t considered to be the type of person the leader prefers to work with, and this attitude is likely to become a self-fulfilled prophecy. Out-group members receive less challenging assignments, receive little positive reinforcement, become bored with the job, and often quit. They experience a lower quality relationship with their leader. The LMX approach rests on the assumption that the leader’s perception of followers influences the leader’s behavior, which then influences the follower’s behavior. This exchange or mutual influence explanation is also found in the equity theory explanation of motivation. The Leader-Member Exchange Questionnaire partially presented in Table 11.4 measures in-group versus out-group status. The four models for examining situation leadership have some similarities and some differences. They are similar in that they (1) focus on the dynamics of leadership, (2) have stimulated research on leadership, and (3) remain controversial because of measurement problems, limited research testing, or contradictory research results. The themes of each model are summarized in Table 11.5. Fiedler’s model, the most tested, is perhaps the most controversial. His view of leader behavior centers on task-and relationship-oriented tendencies and how these interact with task and position power. The path–goal approach emphasizes the instrumental actions of leaders and four styles for conducting these actions (directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented). The situational variables discussed in each approach differ somewhat. There is also a different view of outcome criteria for assessing how successful the leader behavior has been: Fiedler discussed leader effectiveness, and the path–goal approach focuses on satisfaction and performance. Review objectives. Lecture Tips Lecture Ideas 1. At some time during your discussion of leadership, students will likely ask: Of what use is leadership theory to practicing managers? Of what real world value are the theories provided in the chapter? One way to spur students to answer these questions is to select two or three theories and have students examine each theory's usefulness to the practicing manager. Such an assessment should provide some interesting insights into the contributions leadership theory provides to management. 2. As the chapter notes, one critical shortcoming of the trait and behavioral theories of leadership is that no single set of traits or behaviors is optimally effective in all situations. Moreover, few people will agree on one set of traits or behaviors as the most effective. To illustrate this point (and spur class discussion), have each student first identify the most effective leader he or she has encountered in his/her own experience and then jot down on paper a list of the respective leader's three traits and three behaviors which he/she believes most accounted for the leader's effectiveness. Then, have the students compare lists. Undoubtedly, there will be much disagreement concerning the “best” leader traits and behaviors (a few blatant contradictions should also emerge). It might be insightful to compare the lists by the leader's gender and age to see if cited traits/behaviors differ according to these factors. 3. Have students respond or discuss there is no one best style of leadership. One should analyze the concept of situational leadership and what is meant by this particular style. Have students discuss transformational versus transactional leadership styles and what particular style applies today in their environment. Project and Class Speaker Ideas 1. Have your students scan recent issues of major business periodicals (e.g., The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Fortune, Forbes, Inc.) and select a reported example of poor or excellent business leadership. The student can report on his or her selected example, explain in what ways the respective leader exhibited poor or excellent leadership, and relate the respective leader's approach to leadership theory. 2. To facilitate a more in-depth understanding of the leadership theories covered in the chapter, have each of your students select one theory, research the theory (by reading three major studies) and draw up a brief report which: (1) addresses the theory's major strengths and shortcomings (based on research), and (2) discusses the theory's practical relevance to practicing managers (based on the student's own opinion). Then select three of the theories covered in the chapter and have the students who have researched the respective theory present their lists of strengths and weaknesses. Class discussion should focus on major agreements and disagreements concerning students’ critical assessment of each theory and, in particular, the theory's relevance to managers. 3. Invite a leader to discuss his or her perspective on the ingredients of effective leadership. Your speaker could be: a noted community leader, a top executive of a fast rising, high growth company, a female executive in a predominantly male organization, or a politician (e.g., state legislator, mayor, state senator, city council member) with business leadership experience. 4. Ask a political scientist (perhaps from your school's political science department) to analyze one or more noted past presidents in terms of leadership style and its strengths and shortcomings. Some U.S. presidents whose leadership styles have been researched and written about extensively: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, and Thomas Jefferson. 5. If a member of your department has or is conducting research in leadership, invite him or her to present a brief discussion on future directions for research in the leadership area (presenting a “where do we go from here?” perspective). You might have the speaker address the call for an end to leadership research made recently by some prominent organizational behaviorists. The speaker might state the pros and cons of this position and then open class discussion on the issue. One interesting question in this regard is whether individual leaders substantially impact organizational performance. Of course, some of the individuals calling for an end to leadership research assert that leaders don't make a difference because of the numerous factors (organizational and environmental), which constrain their actions. Ask students for their own perspective on this position. Discussion Questions 1. Compare the trait, behavioral, and situational approaches to leadership in terms of practical value to organizations seeking to identify and develop present and future leaders. Answer: Some aspects of the trait approach could be used to identify potential leaders, but they would not provide much guidance in developing these leaders. The behavioral and situational approaches hold the most promise for developing leadership skills. Each behavioral and situational approach provides a unique perspective on what leaders must do to be judged effective. 2. In your experience, can leaders relate to followers both as members of the group and as individuals? What are the implications for leadership theory and practice if you decide that leadership is essentially a one-on-one interaction? Answer: Students may react strongly to this question, as most can vividly recall experiences with either good or poor leaders (bosses). If students believe that leadership involves one-on-one interactions, then the leader-member exchange theory would have the most relevance for leadership practice. On the other hand, if leadership is thought to be group-based, then the behavioral and situational approaches have implications for management practice. Many students may come to the conclusion that leaders relate to followers as members of a group and as individuals. Yes, leaders can and should relate to followers both as group members and as individuals. This approach allows leaders to address collective needs while also recognizing personal motivations and challenges. If leadership is seen as a one-on-one interaction, it implies that effective leadership requires personalized attention and tailored strategies for each follower. This shift would emphasize the importance of understanding individual strengths, weaknesses, and aspirations, thereby enhancing motivation, engagement, and overall team performance. 3. Explain the path-goal theory of leadership. Now apply the main ideas of this theory to a different setting, perhaps the case of a parent attempting to help her daughter improve her college study habits and grades. Answer: The parent has to spell out in clear terms how good study habits can result in good grades. The specific study habits - being organized, having a specific schedule, using a good work/study location - need to be communicated in a convincing fashion. 4. Leader-member exchange theory suggests that subordinates who are part of the leader’s in-group will receive better treatment than out-group members. As a member of the out-group, what steps can you take to increase your chances of becoming an in-group member? Answer: Leaders distinguish subordinates as in-group members and out-group members. In-group members share a common bond and value system, and interact with the leader. Out-group members have less in common with the leader and don’t share much with her. This explanation suggests that in-group members are likely to receive more challenging assignments and more meaningful rewards. Research indicates that in-group members are more positive about the organization culture and have higher job performance and satisfaction than employees in the out-group. An out-group member isn’t considered to be the type of person the leader prefers to work with, and this attitude is likely to become a self-fulfilled prophecy. Out-group members receive less challenging assignments, receive little positive reinforcement, become bored with the job, and often quit. They experience a lower quality relationship with their leader. This approach rests on the assumption that the leader’s perception of followers influences the leader’s behavior, which then influences the follower’s behavior. 5. Is leadership a characteristic a person is born with or can it be developed through professional experiences, training, and mentoring? Explain. Answer: According to the trait theory, one will develop certain traits to emulate as a leader of a given group. It is debated that leaders are born with certain genes and in turn become effective leaders. Opposing this view, leadership is learned and developed through experiences and is acquired over time. It is said one’s personality will influence leadership style. On the other hand, the means to become an effective leader is based on one’s exposure to people and the situation they are confronting. There can be arguments supporting leaders are born as well as leadership is acquired and developed over time. 6. Under what circumstances are authoritative or top-down directives more effective than a more participative style of leadership? Answer: In situations of crisis, or with unqualified or unmotivated followers, employees may not have the time, inclination or ability to participate, thus an autocratic approach may be the most effect. 7. According to the contingency theory, an alternative to modifying the style of leadership through training is changing the favorableness of the situation. What's meant by changing the favorableness of the situation? Answer: Situational favorableness can be viewed as a situation in which the most desirable leader member relations, task structure, and position power exist. If a leader has good leader member relations, strong position power, and a highly structured task, the situation is considered favorable. 8. Think about a current or previous supervisor’s leadership style. Which type of supervisor would you prefer to work for, one who leads by displaying consideration or one who leads by initiating structure? Discuss your preference. Answer: Student responses will vary in terms of leadership style each individual would prefer to work for. A supervisor’s leadership style can vary and be adaptive to the situation the leader is in. There are students preferring an authoritarian leader that will direct and make decisions for them in each environment. Other students would prefer a leader that promotes a participative style of leadership. At times students would prefer a supervisor to initiate work structure, however at the same time providing support or consideration for their efforts. Finally there is no one best style of leadership, it will depend on student needs, their perception of leadership and the leadership style they are accustomed to in a given work environment. I would prefer a supervisor who leads by displaying consideration. A leader who shows genuine concern for employees’ well-being and provides support fosters a positive work environment and encourages engagement and loyalty. While initiating structure is important for clarity and direction, a considerate leader enhances job satisfaction and personal growth. 9. In your experience, are leaders flexible enough to adapt leadership styles to the situation or followers? Answer: As the chapter material indicates, there are different perspectives on this question. Thus, this question should help students compare the various leadership approaches. For example, according to Situational Leadership Theory, managers are extremely flexible and must adapt to the situation in order to be effective. The Path-Goal and LMX approaches also allow for leadership flexibility. However, Fiedler believes that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for leaders to change their behavior to fit the situation. Leaders vary widely in their ability to adapt their styles to situations or followers. While some are highly flexible and adjust their approach based on context and individual needs, others may stick rigidly to a preferred style. Effective leaders often recognize the importance of adapting their approach to improve outcomes and engage their teams. 10. Would it be difficult for a manager to accurately determine a follower's readiness level? Explain. Answer: Probably. Each manager would have to rely on their own subjective interpretation of "readiness" level and these interpretations may vary from manager to manager. It would be easier for managers to assess a subordinate's readiness level if Hersey and Blanchard were able to develop a reliable and valid instrument for this purpose. Case for Analysis: A New Leadership Position Case Summary The case highlights the need to re educate and train newly appointed leaders. The company philosophy of recruitment from within was the overriding factor in the decision to promote the three individuals. Although each of the candidates possesses style deficiencies, the organization assumed that they could be corrected. The importance of diagnosis is well illustrated in Exhibit 1 of this case. The consultants examined the climate at Dancey, the characteristics required for a general manager, the expectations held by the subordinates of the general managers, and the current style of the candidates. Joe Morris' style is shown as being extremely different than the other factors diagnosed. Management has decided to attempt to integrate through modification procedures the styles of the new general managers. Important issues are: (1) the strict adherence to a recruitment from within philosophy, (2) the thorough emphasis by the consultants on crucial factors in the environment, (3) the need to significantly increase the relationship orientation of the newly appointed general managers, and (4) the definitive stance taken by the consulting firm that the shaded area is ideal. This requires a leap of faith and tremendous confidence in the assessment effort. Answers to Case Questions 1. Do you believe that the diagnosis and resulting profile prepared by the Management Analysis Corporation was a necessary step in the process of finding a potentially successful group of general managers? Explain. Answer: Yes. Diagnosis is the first step needed to recruit from outside or from within. Where the company is now is the issue the diagnosis attempts to pinpoint. Without a diagnosis, the organization would not even have an approximate idea of the type of orientation needed by the new managers. Many organizations disregard the diagnosis step and end up with little knowledge about the reasons for the mismatch between the new manager and the job duties. 2. What alternatives are available to modify Joe Morris’s potential effectiveness in the new general manager position? Answer: The alternatives are to: (a) change the subordinates, (b) change the expectations the company has about the job, (c) train Joe, and (d) counsel Joe. The company position appears to be a selection of alternatives (c) and (d). This conclusion is reached after considering the organization's effort to diagnose the situation. Don Kelly has expressed the opinion that leaders could modify the style of leadership they practice. Modification would require training and/or counseling. 3. Why will it be difficult for Joe Morris to modify his style of leadership? Answer: If the counseling assessments are accurate, Joe will have to alter both his task and relationship orientations. Although the modifications required are large, Joe may be willing to do them because of the promotion. He may be highly motivated to change to comply with the organization's expectations. A motivated person is more apt to change than one who is not motivated. Although Joe may be highly motivated, theory and research show that changing a style or orientation is difficult. Thus, the change process will be long and tedious for all parties involved. Experiential Exercise: Personal and Group Leadership Hall of Fame Objectives The exercise attempts to: • Increase student understanding of leadership traits • Look at leaders through a contemporary and historic lens • Experience small group leadership. The Exercise in Class Students should be asked to identify leaders, six leaders, three current and three historic. Students should then list traits that are associated with these leaders. After giving the students up to five minutes for this phase of the exercise, form groups of five students each. Student groups should be instructed to discuss their answers and come up with a single list of the best three “best” current and historic leaders. Group discussions may take between five and 10 minutes. Student groups report their answers. The instructor can ask the class questions along the following lines: • What made these leaders great? • Are there any differences between historic and current leaders? • Who was the leader in your group and how that did that position evolve? Experiential Exercise: Leadership Coach: Are Employees BOBs or WOWs? Objectives 1. To analyze a leadership failure applying relevant leadership theory. 2. To plan and practice a leadership coaching intervention. The Exercise in Class After providing students five to 10 minutes review the case and questions, form student groups to discuss their responses. Depending on the size of the class, groups can role play or individuals can be asked to role play the coaching discussion for the room. Ten Term Paper Topics 1. Government and Business Leadership: Are They the Same? 2. Topic for Term Paper Debate: Can Leadership Be Learned? 3. An Assessment of Fiedler's Contingency Theory 4. Recent Research on Situational Leadership Theory 5. The Bases of Leadership Power 6. Path Goal Theory: An Assessment 7. Leadership Principles Applied in an International Setting 8. The Influence of Personality on Leadership 9. A Training Program for Young Leaders 10. (Selected Individual): A Profile of an Initiating Structure (or Consideration) Leader Style Instructor Manual for Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes James L. Gibson, John M. Ivancevich, James H. Donnally, Robert Konopaske 9780078112669, 9781259097232, 9780071086417, 9780071315272
Download
Close
Close
