Transcript Document

So What Is It, this Leadership Thing?
And How Can I Get Me Some?
The Paradox: Leaders are necessary for
teamwork but their very existence often
threatens teamwork (and vice versa)
First Research

Great Person Theory
Leaders are born with something special; they
either have it or don’t.
If they have, there must be some universal traits.
So what are they?
Is it that leaders are endowed with these certain
traits or attributes and those who can’t lead, are
not?, e.g., perseverance, dynamism,
aggressiveness?



This is one of the earliest approaches in the study of
leadership (and the least productive).
After lots of attempts to specify the traits, >1500 studies
found little connection between traits and leadership.
Despite this, we often talk about our leaders using trait
language, especially political leaders and often in selection
and recruitment discussions about candidates.
Few Consistent Findings from Trait Studies: Here
are some about which there is limited agreement
These come from exhaustive review of literature >1,500 Studies (Stodgdill, 1975)






Strong drive for responsibility and task completion
Persistence in 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
Traits (continued):


Readiness to absorb interpersonal stress
Willingness to tolerate frustration and delay
(Stodgdill, 1974 Handbook of Leadership)
Status of Trait Approach
Massive research failed to find traits that
guarantee leadership success
 A major reason: lack of attention to
intervening variables in the causal chain:
Traits
Intervening Variables
Outcomes

Summary of Trait Studies




Hindered by methodological problems
Problem connecting abstract trait and how it
“shows up in behavior”
Can’t examined traits one-at a-time
If traits matter, it is probably a constellation of
interacting traits which can’t be reduced to
single traits, thus very difficult to study.
Late 1940’s and into 1950’s
Research shifted to the question
“What is effective leadership?
What do good leaders actually
do?”
e.g., listen skillfully, are interpersonal competence,
clarify tasks, have group facilitation skills,
promote goals
Summary of Leadership Styles Research: The Two
Clusters of Behavior: Task and People
People
Task








Autocratic
Initiating Structure
Job Center
Task Centered
Concern for People
Task Oriented
Directive Behavior
Manager Makes Decision








Participative
Consideration
Employee Centered
People Centered
Concern for Productivity
Relationship Centered
Supportive Behavior
Group Makes the Decision
Blake & Mouton’s Managerial Grid
9
9, 1
Country Club
Manager
9, 9
Team Manager
5, 5
Bureaucratic
Manager
1, 1
Impoverished
Manager
1
1
1, 9
Authoritarian
Manager
Task-Centered Leadership
9
Buy now
http://www.teleometrics.com/frontEnd/cm_catalogPage.jsp?categoryID=21
NO CONTINGENCIES or
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
IDENTIFIED
Why Trait and Behavior
Approaches Fall Short
Trait approaches consider
personal characteristics of the
leader that may be important
in achieving success in a
leadership role.
Behavioral approaches attempt
to specify which kinds of
leader behaviors are
necessary
for effective leadership.
Fail to take
into account the
interaction between:
1. leaders behavior,
and 2. tasks, and
The situation, the
“contingencies”
Leadership as a
Contingency:“It Depends on
the Situation”
The First Major Contingency
Model of Leadership:
Leader Match Theory: Fred
Fiedler
LPC
Pleasant
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Unpleasant
Friendly
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Unfriendly
Rejecting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Accepting
Helpful
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Frustrating
Unenthusiastic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Enthusiastic
Tense
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Relaxed
Distant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Close
Cold
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Warm
Cooperative
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Uncooperative
Supportive
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Hostile
Boring
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Interesting
Quarrelsome
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Harmonious
Self-Assured
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Hesitant
Efficient
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Inefficient
Gloomy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Cheerful
Open
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Guarded
Total
Situations According to Fiedler’s Contingency Model.
Leader-Member
Relations
Good
Task
Structure
Position
Power
Cell Number
Bad
High
Low
High
Strong
Weak
Strong
Weak
1
2
3
4
Very
Favorable
Strong
5
Situational
Favorableness
Low
Weak
Strong
Weak
6
7
8
Very
Unfavorable
RESULTS FROM CONTINGENCY MODEL RESEARCH
1.00
Positive correlations:
Relationship-centered
leader (High LPC) does
best
Correlation
between LPC and
Performance
00
Negative correlations:
Task-oriented leader (Low
LPC) does best
-1.00
Ldr-Mem. Relations
Task Structure
Position Power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Good
High
High
Good
High
Low
Good
Low
High
Good
Low
Low
Poor
High
High
Poor
High
Low
Poor
Low
High
Poor
Low
Low
Situational
Favorability
Source: Adapted from Fred Fiedler, 1967.
MANAGER ACTIONS THAT CAN CHANGE
SITUATIONS AS DEFINED BY FIEDLER
MODIFYING LEADER-MEMBER RELATIONS
1. Spend more – or less – informal time with your subordinates (e.g., lunch,
leisure activities, etc.).
2. Organize some off-work group activities which include your subordinates (e.g.,
picnics, bowling, softball teams, excursions, etc.
3. Request particular people for work in your group.
4. Volunteer to direct difficult or troublesome subordinates.
5. Suggest or effect transfers of particular subordinates into or out of your unit.
6. Raise morale by obtaining positive outcomes for subordinates 9e.g., special
bonuses, time off, attractive jobs).
7. Increase or decrease your availability to subordinates (e.g., open door policy,
special gripe sessions, time available for personal consultation>
MODIFYING POSITION POWER
To raise your position power, you can:
1.
Show your subordinates “who’s boss” by exercising fully the powers which the
organization provides.
2.
Become, as quickly as possible, an expert on the job (e.g., through training).
3.
Make sure that information to your group gets channeled through you.
To lower your position power, you can:
1.
Try to be “one of the gang” by socializing, by playing down any trappings of
power and rank the organization may have given you.
2.
Call on members of your group to participate in planning and decision-making
functions..
3.
Inform group members quickly of higher level decisions and permit them to
have easy access to your boss.
4.
Let your assistants exercise relatively more power.
MODIFYING TASK STRUCTURE
If you wish to work with a less structured task, you can:
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 member and invite them to
work with you on the planning and decision-making phases of the task.
3. Where possible, leave the task in relatively vague form.
If you wish to work with a more highly structured task, you can:
1. Ask your superior to give you, whenever possible, the tasks which are more
structured or to give you more detailed instructions.
2. Learn all you can about the task, so that you can prepare a detailed plan for
performing the job, and get additional instruction and expert guidance
if needed.
3. Break the job down into smaller subtasks which can be more highly structured.
A Very Popular
Contingency
“Theory” –in its dayHersey-Blanchard’s
Situational
Leadership
Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard
http://www.situational.com/
Leadership style you choose is dependent on a number of situational factors.




Directing: the leader provides clear instructions and closely supervises the work of the
follower(s);
Selling: the leader explains decisions and provides opportunities for clarity and buy-in
through negotiating, influencing and consulting with follower(s);
Participating: the leader provides support and facilitates problem solving and decision
making through a joint approach, to support and develop the followers' confidence in
their abilities;
Delegating: the leader turns over responsibility for task implementation to the
follower.
The style the leader chooses, depends on the level of readiness of the follower. This
readiness is composed of two dimensions:


Willingness to perform the task (psychological readiness or motivation);
Ability to perform the task (knowledge, skills and availability of resources).
Situational Leadership II® and SLII are the registered trademarks of The Ken Blanchard
Companies.
Participation in
Decision Making:
Vroom et. al.
http://mba.yale.edu/framesets/faculty.asp?/faculty/professors/vroom.htm
FIVE DECISION STYLES A MANAGER CAN CHOOSE
DECISION STYLE
DEFINITION
AI
Manager makes the decision alone.
AII
Manager asks for information from subordinates but makes the decision
alone. Subordinates may or may not be informed about what the problem
is.
CI
Manager shares the problems with subordinates and asks for information
and evaluations. Meetings take place as dyads, not as a group, and the
manager then goes off alone and makes the decision.
CII
Manager and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the problem, but
the manager makes the decision.
GII
Manager and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the problem, and
the group makes the decision.
NOTE: A = Autocratic; C = Consultation; G Group
Source: Victor H. Vroom and Phillip W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,
1973).
HOW MUCH SUBORDINATE PARTICIPATION? QUESTIONS THAT DEFINE THE
SITUATIONAL CONSTRAINTS-THE CONTINGENCIES
A. Does the problem possess a quality requirement?
B. Do I have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?
C. Is the problem structured?
D. Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates important for effective
implementation
E. If I were to make the decision by myself, am I reasonably certain
that it would be accepted by my subordinates?
F. Do subordinates share the organizational goals to be attained in
solving this problem?
G. Is conflict among subordinates likely in preferred solutions?
A
B
C
D
E
F
No
Yes
G
1: AI, AII, CI, CII, GII
GII
Yes
No
No
State
the
Problem
2: GII
3: AI, AII, CI, CII, GII
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
4: AI, AII, CI, CII
Yes
No
Yes
5: GII
No
No
6a: CII
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
6b: CII
No
No
7: AII, CI, CII
No
Yes
Yes
8: AII, CI, CII, GII
No
No
9: CII
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
10: CII, GII
No
Yes
11: GII
No
12: CII
Summary Examples of Contingencies
Studied
Quality of leader-member relations.
Willingness of follower to perform the task (psychological readiness or
motivation).
Ability of follower to perform the task (knowledge, skills and availability of
resources).
Quality Requirement: One best way to make decision/do the job?
Does leader have enough information about the problem?
Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates important?
Task Structure: little/lot
Position power of leader: Strong/ weak
Do subordinates share goals?
Is conflict among subordinate probable?
1980’s-90’s: Transactional
vs.
Transformational
Models of Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Idealized Influence or Charisma
Intellectual Stimulation
Individualized Consideration
Transactional Leadership
Contingent Reward
Laissez-faire Leadership
Management by Exception