CH-12 Leadership: Emerging Perspectives – Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes : Chapter Notes

CHAPTER 12 Leadership: Emerging Perspectives Chapter Overview This chapter examines emerging leadership models, research and applications. Five perspectives are presented: • Vroom-Jago leadership model • Attribution theory of leadership • Charismatic leadership • Transactional leadership • Transformational leadership • Substitutes for leadership The Vroom-Jago model is a normative model of leadership that is used to help managers make choices about decision styles. The Attribution perspective is concerned with the cognitive processes by which a leader interprets subordinates' behavior. Charismatic leadership is discussed by presenting J. Conger's model. This model asserts that charisma evolves through four processes. The chapter also presents the differences between transactional and transformational leadership. Insufficient research evidence exists to promote charismatic, transactional, or transformational practices in organizations. The chapter concludes with a discussion of substitutes for leadership (any individual, task, environmental, or organizational characteristic that tends to negate the leader's ability to influence follower satisfaction or performance). Learning Objectives By the end of the chapter, students should be able to: 1. Define what is meant by a prescriptive model of leadership. 2. Describe the type of research needed to further develop a clearer explanation of charismatic leadership. 3. Discuss why leaders make attributions about employee performance problems 4. Compare the differences between transformational and transactional leaders 5. Identify situations and settings in which self-managed groups and self-leadership would be useful and effective. Lecture Outline PowerPoint Slide Material from Text to Support Slide / Additional Comments The United States found itself in the midst of an economic recession and crisis over homeland security. Partly as a result of the attacks and the mysterious deaths linked to anthrax sent in the mail to various high-profile human targets, the United States plunged further into an economic recession, saw its consumer spending decrease, and experienced wide scale layoffs in several industries (especially travel and tourism-related industries). Probably not since the Cuban missile crisis of the early 1960s has the United States been in such need of strong, decisive leaders. To help the United States recover and Americans regain their sense of confidence, it has been argued that strong leadership is needed in a variety of areas. Although the actual list is arguably quite long, the following areas have been defined as having a high priority: 1. Economic management—The Federal Reserve can take several decisive steps to help stabilize and improve the overall health of the U.S. economy. 2. Large companies are taking steps—These steps benefit not only customers but also the environment or society. 3. Corporate leadership—Chief executive officers and presidents of companies have been asked to remember the importance of employment during this difficult national trauma. By taking a longer-term view of profits, some executives are taking steps to retain as many employees as possible during this time of shrinking corporate profits and increasing unemployment. Leadership appears to play a role in helping individuals and groups attain performance goals. Some leaders are better at performance enhancement than others. Efficient leaders provide a coordination and control function that seems to bring people together, to chart the direction, and to provide verbal encouragement and recognition. Certainly there are many factors outside a leader’s control. Self-managed groups, self-leadership, situational approaches transformational leaders, contingency leadership, and no leadership at all are all possible in a changing world. In our opinion, the least likely occurrence is that no leaders at all will exist in work settings in the 21st century. We believe that leaders will be important, will be constantly trained, and will have to experiment with how to best lead followers. There simply is no one universally accepted model or approach. Although unnecessarily isolating effective leadership traits or behaviors seems impossible, it’s likely that sets of characteristics do, in fact, fit with situations and followers. Vroom and Yetton initially developed a leadership and decision-making model that indicates the situations in which various degrees of participative decision making are appropriate.5 In contrast to Fred Fiedler, Vroom and Yetton attempted to provide a normative model (prescriptive) that a leader can use in making decisions. Their approach assumes that no one particular leadership style is appropriate for each situation. Unlike Fiedler, they assume that leaders must be flexible enough to change their leadership styles to fit situations. It was Fiedler’s contention that the situation must be altered to fit an individual’s leadership style. In developing their model, Vroom and Yetton made these assumptions: 1. The model should be of value to leaders or managers in determining which leadership styles they should use in various situations. 2. No single leadership style is applicable to all situations. 3. The main focus should be the problem to be solved and the situation in which the problem occurs. 4. The leadership style used in one situation should not constrain the styles used in other situations. 5. Several social processes influence the amount of participation by subordinates in problem solving. Applying these assumptions resulted in the initial model that was concerned with leadership and decision making. The Vroom-Yetton leadership model generated interest among researchers, practitioners, and trainers. However, to improve the accuracy and predictability of the initial model, Vroom and Jago have developed a modified model. The new model shares two key features with its predecessor. First, it employs the same decision processes as those of the original Vroom-Yetton model. The terms for describing decision Second, the new model also retains the criteria against which the effects of participation are evaluated. Like the earlier model, the new model concerns evaluating the effects of participation on decision quality, decision acceptance, subordinate development, and time. Nature of the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model The new model shares two key features with its predecessor. First, it employs the same decision processes as those of the original Vroom-Yetton model. The terms for describing decision processes—AI,AII, CI, CII, and GII, with the addition of GI and DI for individual problems—are carried over intact from the previous model. These are presented in Table 12.1. Decision Effectiveness The new model retains the concept of decision effectiveness (DEff). As shown in the following equation, DEff is dependent on decision quality (DQual) and decision commitment (DComm). Decision quality refers to the technical aspects of a decision. A decision is considered to be of high quality to the extent that it’s consistent with the organizational goals to be attained and with potentially available information. Decision commitment refers to the acceptance of decisions by subordinates. Participation in decisions by subordinates tends to produce feelings of commitment and joint ownership. DEff = DQual + DComm - DTP There is a third term in the equation, DTP (decision time penalty).This term acknowledges that having sound thinking and a committed group to implement the decision is often not all that is needed to produce effective decisions. Decisions must also be made in a timely manner. Many decisions are made under severe time constraints. DTP takes on a value of zero whenever no stringent time constraints limit the process chosen. Decision effectiveness is the criterion to use if there are no values attached to either time or development or if those values are completely unknown. However, a more comprehensive criterion called overall effectiveness (OEff) is introduced. OEff is greatly influenced by decision effectiveness, but as shown in the following equation, its values reflect the remaining two criteria affected by degree of participation. Both consequences pertain to effects of the decision process on available “human capital.” Independent of the effectiveness of the decisions produced, a decision process can have effects, either positive or negative or both, on the energy and talent available for subsequent work. OEff = DEff – Cost + Development One of the biggest differences between the traditional Vroom-Yetton model and the new one lies in the problem attributes. Vroom-Yetton used seven problem attributes; the new model continues the use of these seven and adds five. The most important additional problem attribute takes into consideration the information and expertise possessed by subordinates. This additional attribute pertaining to information was included because the original Vroom-Yetton model performed somewhat better in accounting for differences in the acceptance of decisions than it did in predicting decision quality. Incorporating information possessed by subordinates and that possessed by the leader is expected to improve predictions about the quality of decisions and to further enhance the validity, or batting average of the model. The original Vroom-Yetton model utilized dichotomous (yes–no) judgments in generating the prescriptions of the model: do you have enough information to make a high-quality decision? Of the 12 problem attributes in the new model, 10 have been designed to be expressed at five-point scales. The four attributes dealing with importance (quality, commitment, time, and development) are answered on scales ranging from “no importance” to “critical importance.” Another six attributes (leader information, problem structure, commitment probability, goal congruence, conflict, and subordinate information) are expressed as probability estimates. For example, the question “Do you have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?” can now be answered no, probably no, maybe, probably yes, or yes. Table 12.2 shows 1 of the 12 attributes, an example of the questions used to measure them, and the permissible responses for each. Table 12.2 Using the manager’s analysis of the situation represented by that manager’s responses to the diagnostic questions, the formulas predict the most appropriate way of handling the situation, the second-best way, and so forth. However the equations’ complexity precludes their pencil-and-paper application. Vroom and Jago offer two alternatives for the application of their new model to actual managerial problems. The first is a computer program that guides the manager through the analysis of the situation and, with speed and accuracy, solves the relevant equations. The second method, more familiar to users of the original Vroom-Yetton model, employs a decision tree that represents the operation of the complex equations if certain simplifying assumptions are made. Figure 12.1 shows one of these decision trees. The first simplifying assumption is that each problem attribute can be given a clear yes or no (or high or low) response. This restricts the application of the model to relatively unambiguous situations. The second simplifying assumption is that 4 of the 12 problem attributes are held constant. Severe time constraints and the geographical dispersion of subordinates (relatively infrequent occurrences) are assumed not to exist. Additionally, it’s assumed that the manager’s motivation to conserve time and to develop subordinates doesn’t change. Figure 12.1 depicts what Vroom and Jago label the “time-driven” decision tree. It’s designed for the manager who places maximum weight on saving time and minimum weight on developing subordinates. After a thorough review of leadership theories, models, and concepts, one behavioral scientist concluded that the Vroom-Yetton approach is unsurpassed in terms of scientific validity and practical usefulness. Nevertheless, the model has limitations. The model forces a person to make a definite response. Because it fails to permit a “probably yes” or a “probably no,” a yes or no response must be made. Work situations aren’t that easy to categorize; in many situations, neither yes nor no is accurate. The model is also criticized for being too complex. It includes decision trees, ratings, and problem sets. Although the model is complex, we believe this criticism is not warranted. The model is precise and specific, which means that some complexity is likely to be needed. Instead of discussing complexity, we might better state that the model, like most leadership explanations, simplifies how managers think and process stimuli. Finally, organizational life is complex, and the way individual managers think is complex. The model, according to some critics, fails to deal with the realities of what today’s managers face in terms of change, technological advancement, and international competition. Can any model deal with every contingency of leading and remain understandable and useful? Perhaps critics are expecting too much. Chapter 4 used attribution theory to explain how managers assign causes or motives to peoples’ behavior. Attribution theory also has application value as an explanation and analysis of leadership. Attribution theory mainly concerns the cognitive process by which a person interprets behavior as being caused by (attributed to) certain cues in the relevant environment. Because most causes of subordinate, or follower, behaviors are not directly observable, determining causes requires reliance on perception. In attribution theory, individuals are assumed to be rational and to be concerned about the causal linkages in their environments. The attributional approach starts with the position that the leader is essentially an information processor. In other words, the leader searches for information cues as to “why” something is happening and then attempts to construct causal explanations that guide her leadership behavior. The process in simple terms appears to be follower behavior leader attributions leader behavior. The leader’s primary attributional task is to categorize the cause of follower, or subordinate, behavior into one of three source dimensions: person, entity, or context. That is, for any given behavior, such as poor quality of output, the leader’s job is to determine whether the poor quality was caused by the person (e.g., inadequate ability), the task (entity), or some unique set of circumstances surrounding the event (context). The leader seeks three types of information when forming attributions about a follower’s behavior: distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus. For any behavior, the leader first attempts to determine whether the behavior is distinctive to the task—that is, whether the behavior occurs on this task but not on other tasks. Next, the leader is concerned about consistency, or how frequently the behavior occurs. Finally, the leader estimates consensus, the extent to which others behave in the same way. A behavior unique to one follower has low consensus; if it is common to other followers, this reflects high consensus. The judgment of responsibility moderates the leader’s response to an attribution. Clearly, the more a behavior is seen as caused by some characteristic of the follower (i.e., an internal cause) and the more the follower is judged to be responsible for the behavior, the more likely the leader is to take some action toward the follower. Figure 12.2 presents an attributional leadership model that emphasizes two important linkages. At the first linkage point, the leader attempts to make attributions about poor performance. These attributions are moderated by the three information types: distinctiveness, consistency, and consensus. The second linkage point suggests that the leader’s behavior, or response, is determined by the attributions that he makes. This relationship between attribution and leader behavior is moderated by the leader’s perception of responsibility. Is the responsibility internal or external? In a field study, data were collected from first-line managers and from two of each manager’s first-line supervisors. The purpose of this research was to assess the direction of causal influence in relationships between leader and follower variables. The results strongly suggested that leader consideration behavior caused subordinate satisfaction and that follower performance caused changes in the leader’s emphasis on both consideration and the structuring of behavior–performance relationships. Research on the cause-effect issue is still quite limited. To conclude that all leader behavior or even a significant portion of such behavior is a response to follower behavior would be premature. However, an examination of the leader–follower relationship in terms of reciprocal causation is needed. In reciprocal causation, leader behavior causes follower behavior, and follower behavior causes leader behavior. Japanese management techniques suggest that the reciprocal causation view has some validity. Leaders and followers are emphasized in the Japanese consensus approach to managing. Charisma is a Greek word meaning gift. Powers that couldn’t be clearly explained by logical means were called charismatic. Presently, no definitive answer has been given on what constitutes charismatic leadership behavior. House suggests that charismatic leaders are those who have charismatic effects on their followers to an unusually high degree. Jay Conger has proposed a model that illustrates how charisma evolves. Figure 12.3 presents his four-stage model of charismatic leadership. In stage one, the leader continuously assesses the environment, adapts, and formulates a vision of what must be done. The leader’s goals are established. In stage two, the leader communicates his vision to followers, using whatever means are necessary. Stage three is highlighted by working on trust and commitment. Doing the unexpected, taking risk, and being technically proficient are important to this stage. In stage four, the charismatic leader serves as a role model and motivator. The charismatic leader uses praise and recognition to instill within followers the belief that they can achieve the vision. A number of empirical studies have examined behavior and attributes of charismatic leaders, such as articulation ability, affection from followers, ability to inspire, dominating personality, and need for influence. However, no specific set of behaviors and attributes is universally accepted by theorists, researchers, and practitioners. A descriptive behavioral framework that builds on empirical work has been offered. The framework, presented in Table 12.3, assumes that charisma must be viewed as an attribution made by followers within the work context. The exchange role of the leader has been referred to as transactional. The leader helps the follower identify what must be done to accomplish the desired results: better quality output, more sales or services, and reduced cost of production. In helping the follower identify what must be done, the leader takes into consideration the person’s self-concept and esteem needs. The transactional approach uses the path–goal concepts as its framework. Figure 12.4 presents the transactional leadership roles. An exciting new kind of leader, referred to as the transformational leader, motivates followers to work for transcendental goals instead of short-term self-interest and for achievement and self-actualization instead of security. In transformational leadership, viewed as a special case of transactional leadership, the employee’s reward is internal. By expressing a vision, the transformational leader persuades followers to work hard to achieve the goals envisioned. The leader’s vision provides the follower with motivation for hard work that is self-rewarding (internal). Transactional leaders will adjust goals, direction, and mission for practical reasons. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, make major changes in the firm’s or unit’s mission, way of doing business, and human resource management to achieve their vision. The transformational leader will overhaul the entire philosophy, system, and culture of an organization. The development of transformational leadership factors has evolved from research by Bass. He identified five factors (the first three apply to transformational and the last two apply to transactional leadership) that describe transformational leaders. They are 1. Charisma. The leader is able to instill a sense of value, respect, and pride and to articulate a vision. 2. Individual attention. The leader pays attention to followers’ needs and assigns meaningful projects so the followers grow personally. 3. Intellectual stimulation. The leader helps followers rethink rational ways to examine a situation. He encourages followers to be creative. 4. Contingent reward. The leader informs followers about what must be done to receive the rewards they prefer. 5. Management by exception. The leader permits followers to work on the task and doesn’t intervene unless goals aren’t being accomplished in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. One of the most important characteristics of the transformational leader is charisma. However, charisma by itself isn’t enough for successful transformational leadership Researchers have identified a wide variety of individual, task, environmental, and organizational characteristics as leadership substitute factors that influence relationships between leader behavior and follower satisfaction and performance. Some of these variables (e.g., follower expectations of leader behavior) appear to influence which leadership style will enable the leader to motivate and direct followers. Others, however, function as substitutes for leadership. Substitute variables tend to negate the leader’s ability to either increase or decrease follower satisfaction or performance. Substitutes for leadership are claimed to be prominent in many organizational settings. However, the dominant leadership approaches fail to include substitutes for leadership in discussing the leader behavior–follower satisfaction and performance relationship. Table 12.4, based on previously conducted research, provides substitutes for only two of the more popular leader behavior styles: relationship-oriented and task-oriented. For each of these styles, Kerr and Jermier present substitutes (characteristics of the subordinate, the task, or the organization) that neutralize the style. Review objectives. Lecture Tips Lecture Ideas 1. Much has been written about the Japanese leadership style. It might be interesting to have a Japanese manager visit the class and describe the leadership style he/she uses. After the visit, have students critique it. Is his or her style different from American leaders’ style? There are more similarities than differences in most leader styles around the world. 2. Charisma is the mystery topic in leadership. Set up some fact finding teams and have groups of students identify the most charismatic leader in the military, government, medicine, acting, singing, professional sports, and entrepreneurship fields. Have them read about the person and compile a charisma profile list. Bring all the lists together in class and determine what the common theme is among charismatic individuals. 3. Lecture on theory, empirical research, and practical conclusions about leadership. Where are we now after sixty years of study? Why do we not have a universal theory? Ask the class and listen carefully. Some student should indicate that in the entire OB field, there is no universal theory. Why should we expect one with regard to leadership? Project and Class Speaker Ideas 1. Have a respected university official (Provost, Dean, Chairperson) come and discuss leadership in academe. The discussion should emphasize the importance of followership. Students are surprised at the diffusion of power in academe. 2. Attempt to have a respected leader from another country visit the class. Americans have been bombarded with criticisms about U.S. management. Inviting an articulate international manager usually sparks good debate after the visit. 3. A student leader might present an interesting contrast with examples used in class. Have a student leader talk about his or her style and opinions about leadership. The student newspaper editor is usually a good choice or the president of a liberal arts oriented group. A local politician is another interesting possibility. Students can learn from listening to the person discuss how style and charisma play a role in securing votes. Give the politician some guidance in preparing the talk. Ask him/her to discuss the issue of political charisma. Ask him/her who has the most charisma in their party or group. Does the class agree or know the person? Discussion Questions 1. Identify three individuals in (past or present) in any field (e.g. business, government, military, religion) who use/used their leadership abilities to build respected, successful organizations. What type of leadership behaviors do/did they use to accomplish this feat? Answer: Student responses will vary. However, there are leadership behaviors that can be identified. These leadership behaviors include the Vroom-Jago Revised Leadership Model (this model suggests that the amount of subordinate participation depends on the leader’s skill and knowledge, whether a quality decision is needed, the extent to which the problem is structured, and whether acceptance by subordinates is needed to implement the decision.). The attribution theory of leadership, which deals with the relationship between individual perception and interpersonal behavior. Charismatic leadership, the ability to influence followers based on supernatural gift and attractive powers. Transactional leadership, where the leader identifies what followers want or prefer and helps them achieve level of performance that results in rewards that satisfy them. Transformational leadership, ability to inspire and motivate followers to achieve results greater than originally planned and for internal rewards. 1. Steve Jobs (Apple): Jobs used transformational leadership behaviors, such as inspiring a shared vision and fostering innovation, to build a successful and respected company. 2. Nelson Mandela (South Africa): Mandela employed servant leadership by prioritizing reconciliation and personal sacrifice, which helped unite and rebuild a nation. 3. Patton Oswalt (U.S. Military): Patton used transactional leadership behaviors, such as setting clear goals and expectations, to achieve military success and drive performance. 2. Compare the available research on the Vroom-Yetton-Jago model of leadership to the transactional explanation. What research is needed in both of these theories of leadership? Answer: Much more research is needed. Actual on-the-job or organizational setting research is needed to acquire a thorough view of the robustness of each of these theories. 3. Under what circumstances would leadership effects be neutralized in an organization? Answer: According to Kerr and Jermier's substitutes approach, certain subordinate, task, or organizational characteristics may act to neutralize the effects of leader behavior. Students can apply the substitutes listed in Table 12-4 to their own work situation. Leadership effects may be neutralized in an organization under circumstances such as: 1. Lack of Alignment: When leaders' strategies and goals do not align with the organization's mission or values. 2. Inconsistent Execution: When leaders fail to consistently apply policies or practices, leading to confusion and distrust. 3. Poor Communication: When there is ineffective communication between leaders and team members. 4. Resistance to Change: When there is significant resistance from employees to the leader's initiatives or changes. 5. Organizational Culture: When the prevailing culture undermines or conflicts with the leadership style or decisions. These factors can dilute the impact of leadership and hinder its effectiveness. 4. Is it realistic to search for a universal formula or approach to leadership that is effective at most/all types of organizations? Explain. Answer: Probably not. While each theory presented so far offers useful information, all of them have limitations. In addition, there are too many variables in regard to individual leaders, followers, and environments. 5. As you learn more about leadership in this course, what steps can you take to gain more experience as a future leader? Identify three specific ways to gain leadership experience at this point in your life. Answer: The steps a student may pursue to gain experience as a future leader will vary. Steps may include understanding the concept of leadership, exposure to others in leadership roles, and work experience. Ways to gain leadership experience may include understanding the theory of leadership, research in the field of leadership and the selection and working with a mentor or senior person in a work environment. 1. Seek Leadership Roles in Projects: Volunteer to lead group projects or student organizations to practice decision-making and team management skills. 2. Participate in Mentorship Programs: Find a mentor or become one to gain insights and experience in guiding and developing others. 3. Attend Leadership Workshops: Engage in workshops or seminars on leadership to learn new strategies and network with other aspiring leaders. 6. How could a leader use attribution theory to explain the poor performance of an employee team that always seems to miss important project deadlines? Answer: The leader could examine various internal and external reasons for poor performance. Asking questions and answering them on such topics as how much effort went into the work? Is the person committed? Did the person have the proper resources to perform the job? Is the person properly trained to perform? These and similar questions provide hints, suggestions, and reasons why a person's performance is not up to par. Figure 12-2 is a handy guide for developing the type of questions a leader should ask. A leader could use attribution theory to explain the poor performance of an employee team by assessing whether the failures are due to internal factors (e.g., lack of effort or skill) or external factors (e.g., unrealistic deadlines or resource constraints). By identifying whether the issues are attributed to the team’s internal capabilities or external circumstances, the leader can better understand the root causes and address them effectively, such as providing additional training or adjusting project timelines. 7. Many people consider Winston Churchill’s leadership of Great Britain during World War II as an excellent example of how to lead successfully during difficult times. What type of leadership did Churchill display? Answer: Winston Churchill was an effective leader during the war years. He exhibited a team management leadership role. He was a task oriented, people oriented and a charismatic leader. He used a leadership style that was most effective in gaining the acceptance and support required to get Britain through this troubled crisis. He ultimately achieved his goal by providing a superb leadership style to gain the confidence of his followers. 8. Which of the theories explained in Chapters 11 and 12 would be most useful in explaining to someone from India what leadership approaches will be needed to make India more competitive in the international marketplace? Answer: The best answer is that every approach discussed in Chapters 11 and 12 will be needed. The freedom to lead as an autocratic, democratic, or charismatic leader is the key. Any well-developed response is acceptable. India, as well as the United States, needs as many leaders as society can help produce. Transformational leadership theory would be most useful in explaining to someone from India how to make the country more competitive in the international marketplace. This theory emphasizes inspiring and motivating employees to exceed their own self-interests for the good of the organization, fostering innovation, and driving change—qualities essential for improving competitiveness and adapting to global market demands. 9. To what extent do you believe that women that women have an advantage over men when it comes to managing in contemporary organizations? Explain. Answer: Student answers will vary but may key on values obtained through early socialization and current leader practices. Women may have certain advantages in contemporary organizations due to their strengths in emotional intelligence, collaboration, and communication, which are increasingly valued in modern management. Studies suggest that women often excel in leadership styles that emphasize inclusivity and teamwork. However, systemic barriers and biases still exist, and advantages can vary based on industry, organizational culture, and individual circumstances. Overall, while women bring valuable skills to management roles, achieving gender parity requires ongoing effort to address these challenges. 10. Why is communication such an important skill in the charismatic, transactional, and transformational explanations of leadership? Answer: Because it is needed to explain the leader's vision, values, style, and approach to problems and situations. Being able to articulate with conviction is an important attribute of the leader in developing the trust and commitment of subordinates. Case For Analysis: Intel Prepares its Top Leaders Case Summary This case discusses the pros and cons of recruiting top executives from within a company. Intel is used as an example where this practice appears to be successful. Benefits include plenty of time to train successors, and no surprises when it is time for a transition. Drawbacks include letting good CEO’s go too soon, and not providing the possibility of higher opportunities for some high level managers. Answers to Case Questions 1. To recruit the CEO from the inside seems to work well for Intel. Do you believe this is a sound policy? Why? Answer: Planning ahead in this way avoids gossip, infighting, and drama over the identity of the new boss. There is plenty of time to transition the new candidate into the new roll. From those perspectives it is a sound policy. However, some talented managers who do not see a path to the top aren’t likely to stick around. 2. How can a non-technically oriented leader like Paul Otelline succeed as CEO in a technical company such as Intel? Answer: Otelline is not required to participate in the day to day technical aspects of the company. He is there to lead the employees in reaching organizational goals. 3. Why do some firms fail to plan effectively for executive succession? Answer: At Intel, the board has an obsession with the future. Many other boards may be more concerned with the here and now. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Many top executives may have their own agendas, such as when Eckhard Pfeiffer launched a coup to remove Rod Canion from the CEO position at Compaq Computer – a company that Rod Canion founded. Experiential Exercise: Vroom-Jago Leadership Style Analysis Objective 1. To learn how to diagnose different leadership situations. 2. To learn how to apply a systematic procedure for analyzing situations. 3. To improve understanding of how to reach a decision. The Exercise in Class This exercise provides an excellent opportunity for students to enhance their understanding of the revised Vroom/Jago model of leadership. Once the student groups have reached agreement on the appropriate leadership style for each of the two cases, it is useful to: 1. Review and discuss the scores for the 12 attributes in each case. This ensures that students conceptually understand the meaning of the attributes. Students may disagree with the scores provided by Vroom and Jago. If they do, encourage them to discuss the reasoning behind the authors' scores and their own. 2. Discuss the groups' leadership style selections for each of the two cases. What are the strengths and shortcomings of each style? 3. Once the exercise is concluded, have students present their overall evaluation of the revised model, focusing on strengths and shortcomings. What is the model's value as an applied tool for managerial decision-making? Key: The decision style that would provide the highest overall effectiveness, according to Vroom and Jago: • R&D Director: CII. • Coast Guard Cutter Captain: AI. Ten Term Paper Topics 1. Training Managers to Be Charismatic: Fact or Fiction 2. Turnaround Companies: The Need for Transformational Leaders 3. Normative Leadership Models: A Critique 4. The Decision Tree: Its Value and Limitation in Explaining Leadership 5. Research Needs in Leadership 6. Attributional Leadership Applied to Workplace Addiction Problems 7. Attribution Theory: An Explanation of Japanese Leadership Success 8. Applying the Vroom Jago Model to Work Situations 9. Charisma: How It Can Be Measured? 10. Training Leaders to Be Stimulating: Is It Possible? Instructor Manual for Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes James L. Gibson, John M. Ivancevich, James H. Donnally, Robert Konopaske 9780078112669, 9781259097232, 9780071086417, 9780071315272