LEADERSHIP
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Production-centered and Employee -
Leadership centered
Definition of Leadership Leader Behaviors
Need for Leadership Managerial Grids
Patterns of Situational Leadership
Organizational Leadership Situational Leadership Model
Traits Contingency Theory of Leadership
In Search of Leadership Path-Goal Model
Physical Traits Normative Decision-Making Model of
Intelligence Leadership
Personality Traits Determinants of Leadership Effectiveness
Leader Behaviors Choosing a Leadership Style
Authoritarian, Strategies for Improving Leadership
Democratic, and Reciprocal Influence of Leader and
Laissez-Faire Follower
Leadership
Initiating Structure and
Consideration
LEARNING OBJECTIVES 4. Identify some of the major situational
factors influencing leadership and
After studying this chapter you explain how they influence group
should be able to: performance.
1. Explain the difference 5. List and describe the major variables
between management and that determine the appropriate
leadership and identify some leadership style.
of the major personal traits
associated with leadership. 6. Explain some of the strategies for
improving leadership effectiveness.
2. Explain the limitations of
using personal traits to
understand leadership.
3. Identify and describe the two
major leadership behaviors that
occur within a group.
LEE JACOCCA: AN AMERICAN LEGEND
Lee Iacocca, the son of Italian immigrants, rose spectacularly through the ranks of Ford Motor
Company to become its president, only to be toppled eight years later in a power struggle with Henry
Ford II. After being fired from Ford, however, he immediately went to Chrysler Corporation and led
that company back from the brink of financial disaster by convincing the United States government to
provide Chrysler with a $1.2 billion loan guarantee. Iacocca has been heralded as the epitome of an
effective modern leader by the authors of a book about leaders.
He provided the leadership to transform a company from bankruptcy to success. He created a vision
of success and mobilized large factions of key employees to align behind that vision. Almost
exclusively because of Iacocca’s leadership, by 1983 Chrysler made a pro6t, boosted employee
morale, and helped employees generate a sense of meaning in their work. He empowered them. In
Fact, we believe that Iacocca’s high visibility symbolizes the missing element in management today
his style of leadership is central to organizational successful. Because of his success in rescuing
Chrysler and the highly visible role he played in restoring the Statue of Liberty, Iacocca became a
media celebrity and an American folk hero. During the 1988 presidential campaign, many People
urged him to run for the presidency. Public opinion polls confirmed his popularity and showed that he
was a viable political candidate until he withdrew himself by saying, ‘And if drafted, [shall not run.’2
Lee Iacocca is described as a big man with an imposing presence. He stands 6’1” and weighs 194
pounds. His facial features and personal mannerisms have led one author to describe him as a
‘Florentine prince.” A biography of Iacocca attributed his leadership ability to six character traits:
1. The ability to break away from rigid, stereotyped thinking and use upbeat, energetic approaches
to problem solving.
2. His realism and courage.
3. His devotion to homework by being thorough, careful, and well informed.
4. His aggressive curiosity.
5. His uncommon capacity for personal growth.
6. His ability to surround himself with people possessing strong personality ties without being
intimidated or threatened by them.4
In his autobiography, Iacocca describes three key elements that contributed significantly to his
successful leadership. First, Iacocca believed that he was extraordinarily effective in motivating
people because he knew them well, he expressed sincere appreciation for their contributions, and he
provided a vision for them of where the company was going. Second, Iacocca developed a quarterly
review system that focused the energies of his people on successful goal accomplishment. Every three
months, Iacocca required his managers to submit specific written goals and objectives and then, in a
face-to-face, MBO type interview, he required them to explain how they planned to achieve the goals.
Finally, Iacocca believed in being decisive. Although he was a strong advocate of being well informed
and gathering all the facts before making a decision, he also argued that if you waited until you had
100 percent of the facts, the opportunity would have passed. Although he liked to be fully informed,
he was not afraid to go with his gut feeling and he did not rely on committee* decisions. Iacocca’s
definition of management by consensus was, “Consensus, is when we have a discussion. They tell me
what they want, then I decide.”
Leadership is an extremely popular topic in organizational behavior because of the role we assume it
plays in group and organizational effectiveness. We assume that the success of a group depends
primarily on the quality of leadership. To have a winning season requires a good coach; to achieve a
military victory commander; and to have a productive work group requires a supervisor. Whether
they deserve it or not, leaders are usually credited for the group’s success and blamed for the group’s
failure. When a team has a losing season, instead of firing the team, the coach is fired. Although
leadership is similar to management, there is a clear difference between these topics. For managers to
be effective, they need to be good leaders. However, not all leaders are good managers. Leadership is
more narrowly defined; it refers to influencing the behavior of others. Not all acts of influence,
however, are necessarily acts of leadership. There are important differences, for example, between
leadership and the exercise of power described in the next chapter.
Definition of Leadership
The word “leadership’ has been used in at least three different ways. Occasionally it refers to a
position within an organization, e.g., “We are inviting all of the leadership to attend the seminar.
‘Leadership” has also been used to describe a personality characteristic, e.g.. ‘Our new supervisor
doesn’t have as much leadership as our previous one.”
Neither of these definitions is very useful in studying organizational behavior, and a better definition
is needed to understand why some individuals are at he more effective leaders than others. The most
useful definition of leadership, well, and the one we will use in this chapter, is a form of behavior by
which one person influences others. ‘Our team won the championship because of the leadership of
the quarterback.” In other words, leadership is the incremental influence one individual exerts over
another, above and beyond mechanical compliance with routine directives. Leadership occurs when
one individual MBO-influences others to do something voluntarily rather than because they were the
required to do it or because they feared the consequences of noncompliance. It strong is this voluntary
aspect of leadership that distinguishes it from other influence processes, such as power and authority.
Although leaders may use force or coercion to influence the behavior of followers, leaders by our
definition use their ability to induce voluntary committee. By this definition, anyone in the
organization can be a leader, whether or not that individual is formally identified as such. Indeed,
informal leaders are extremely important to the effectiveness of most organizations.
An important distinction is made by some between leadership and management. To manage means to
direct, to bring about to accomplish, and to have responsibility for. The functions of management, as
described in chapter one, are planning, organizing, directing, and controlling. The successful manager
is viewed as someone who achieves results by following the prescribed activities and by maintaining
behaviors and products within prescribed limits. To lead, however, is to inspire, to influence, and to
motivate. Effective leaders inspire others to pursue excellence, to extend themselves and to go beyond
their perform job requirements by generating creative ideas. It has been said that managers are people
who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing.” This distinction is somewhat
overstated, since effective leaders do a lot of managing and effective managers need to lead. But it
serves to emphasize an Important organizational outcome: the creation of an energetic and highly
committed work force that is successfully adapting to the demands of a changing environment and
competently producing a viable product or service
Need for Leadership
Why is leadership necessary? Most organizations are highly structured and have relatively clear lines
of authority, stated objectives, and momentum to carry them forward. Why, then, is there a need for
incremental influence beyond the routine directives and formal job requirements? Four reasons have
been proposed to explain the need for ongoing leadership.
Incomplete organizational structure.
The first reason why leadership is necessary is because there is a degree of incompleteness in every
organization design. Social organizations cannot be designed to be like machines, which are simply
turned on and allowed to run untouched. Leaders are needed to structuring the tasks, decide who
should do what, and delegate work assignments, level. Leaders help the people they lead to
accomplish their collective goals.
External change.
The second reason why leadership is necessary is because the organization exists in a changing
environment. As the external environment changes, leaders are needed to identify the strategic
mission of the organization and help it adapt to its changing environment.
Internal change.
The third reason for leadership stems from the dynamics of internal change in the organization.
Leadership is needed to coordinate the efforts of diverse organizational units, particularly during
periods of rapid growth or decline. Leadership is necessary to solve internal conflicts and settle
differences of opinion.
Motivate and inspire.
The fourth reason why organizations require leadership stems from the need to motivate people and
maintain their involvement in the organization. Individuals are not permanent fixtures within the
organization. Instead, they come and go, and when they are present, their needs and Intel interests
change. Effective leadership provides meaning and purpose by creating a vision of where the
organization is going. This ability to inspire and motivate others and transform them into committed
contributors to the organization is the function of leadership that has captured the interest of philoso-
phers and scholars and propelled the study of leadership.
Patterns of Organizational Leadership
The type of influence required for effective leadership is not the same for all leaders. Depending on
their level in the organization, different cognitive and affective skills are required of leaders. Three
basic leadership roles have been identified: origination, interpolation, and administration.
1. Origination. Origination refers to strategic decision making regarding policy formulation or
structural change. These critical decisions determine the culture and mission of the organization.
2. Interpolation. Interpolation refers to interpreting strategic decisions and designing a method for
implementing them within the organization. Interpolation includes adapting or supplementing
the present structure to new policy directives,
3. Administration. Administration consists of implementing the policies and procedures tha have
been provided to keep the organization operating efficiently.
These three types of Leadership are typically performed at different levels in the organization and
require different abilities and skills, as shown in Exhibit 161. The origination of new programs and
policies, which may involve a change in the organization’s structure or a reinterpretation of the
organization’s mission, occurs at the top level of the organization. Individuals at this level must have
an understanding of the entire organization and of the ways it interacts with the external
environment. Top-level managers symbolize the organization and what it stands for.
Interpolation — interpreting policy decisions and applying them to the existing organization—is
typically done by intermediate-level managers. Middle-level managers must maintain a two-way
orientation by taking directives from hose above and accommodating them for people below.
Type of Leadership Typical Organizational Cognitive Affective (Emotion)
Process Level (Knowledge)
Origination: change, Top echelons System perspective Charisma
creation, and
elimination of structure
Interpolation: Intermediate levels: Subsystem perspective: Integration of primary
supplementing and pivotal roles two-way orientation and secondary
piecing out of structure relations: human
relation skills
Administration: use of Lower levels Technical knowledge Concern with equity in
existing structure and understanding use of rewards and
of system of rules sanctions
EXHIBIT 16.1 Three Leadership Patterns, Their Location in the Organization, and Their
Skill Requirements
Source: Adapted from Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978), p. 539.
Lower-level supervisors administer the policies and procedures of the organization. Successful
supervisors need to possess both technical knowledge and a clear understanding of the
organization’s rules. Lower-level supervisors must be concerned with equity and with the
administration of rewards and punishments, since they continually deal with these issues in leading
others, contingency theories of — leadership. Leadership plays an essential role in organizational
dynamics and often makes the difference between effective and ineffective organizations. As defined
earlier, leadership occurs when one person influences others to do something of their own volition
they would not ordinarily do. Leadership is an essential organizational process and, like other
processes it can be studied on three different levels—the individual, the group, and the organization.
At the individual level of analysis, leadership studies have focused on the traits of successful leaders,
At the group level, leadership studies have focused on leadership behaviors of both formal and
informal leaders. The organizational level of analysis has examined how organizational effectiveness
is determined by the interaction between the leader, the follower, and the situation. These studies
have given rise to situational leadership theories or contingency theories of leadership. Each level
will be analyzed separately, beginning with leadership traits.
In Search of Leadership
Although early writers attempted to describe the characteristics of effective leaders, systematic
investigations of leadership traits first began after the turn of the century. World War I highlighted the
need for selecting and training effective leaders, and for the quarter century between World War land
World War II, numerous studies investigated the personal traits of good leaders. These studies are
generally referred to as trait studies, since their primary goal was to identi6’ the traits and personal
characteristics of effective leaders.
A variety of methods was used to study leadership traits, and this variety is probably one reason why
the results were so inconsistent. Most studies compared effective leaders with ineffective leaders or
leaders with non-leaders. The--studies were inconsistent in the methods used to identify leaders Some
were identified by outside observers, some were selected by the group via nominations or voting,
others were named by qualified observers such as teachers, and1 some were selected because they
occupied a position of leadership such as student-body president or team captain. The studies were
also inconsistent -the way they measured traits. In some studies the traits were measured b
psychological tests; other studies relied on observers to identify the traits they saw; and some studies
relied on the individuals to report their own character traits.
In general, the trait studies were quite disappointing, especially to researchers who had hoped to
develop a measure of leadership that predicted leader effectiveness as accurately as intelligence tests
predicted problem solving ability. Because of weak results, the focus of leadership research shifted
from trait studies to contingency studies, which examined more than just the traits of the leader.
Research on leadership traits should not be dismissed too quickly, however. Although the traits
studies were disappointing, they were not worthless.
Several traits produced a significant difference in leadership effectiveness, but they did not act alone.
Instead, they interacted with other situational variables to influence leader effectiveness, Four major
reviews have surveyed the trait studies, and the results can be summarized according to physical
traits, intelligence, and personality traits).
Physical Traits
Trait studies examined such physical factors as height, weight, physique, energy, health, and
appearance. To the extent that anything can be concluded regarding the relationship between these
factors and leadership, it appears that the leaders tend to be slightly taller and heavier, have better
health, a superior physique, a higher rate of energy output, and a more attractive appearance.
To illustrate, one of the early studies on the effects of height found that executives in insurance
companies were taller than policyholders, that bishops were taller than clergymen, that university
presidents were taller than college presidents, that sales managers were taller than sales
representatives, and that railway presidents were taller than station agents.” Results of this sort, how-
ever, have not always been consistent. While one literature review found nine studies showing that
leaders tend to be taller, it reported two studies showing that leaders tended to be shorter.
Attractiveness and a pleasant appearance found to be highly correlated with leaders among Boy
Scouts: but among groups of delinquent youth, leaders were rated as more slovenly and unkempt.’
In summary, studies of personal characteristics are not particularly interesting or useful. The results
are generally too weak and inconsistent to be useful in selecting leaders, nor are they useful for
training purposes, since very little can be done to change most of these physical traits.
Intelligence
Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between leadership and general intelligence, and
they generally agree that leaders are more intelligent than non-leaders. The relationship between
intelligence and leadership probably stems from the fact that so many leadership functions depend
upon careful problem solving. All three leadership roles—origination, interpolation, and
administration require significant mental ability.
One review of leadership studies reported twenty-tree experiments showing that leaders were brighter
and had greater levels of intelligence.” Only five studies reported that intelligence made no
difference. In general, it appears safe to conclude that leaders are more intelligent than non-leaders,
but again the correlations are small. Obviously, many other variables besides intelligence influence
leadership effectiveness.
An interesting conclusion coming from these studies is the suggestion that leaders should be more
intelligent than the group but not by too wide a margin. Members who are significantly brighter than
other group members are seldom selected as leaders. Because of their superior intellect, other group
members tend to reject them; they are too different from and out of touch with the rest of the group.
Individuals with high IQ's tend to have different vocabularies, interacts, and goals, which create
communication and interpersonal relations problems.
Leadership effectiveness also appears to be related to two other variables closely associated with
intelligence: scholarship and knowledge. Leaders generally excel scholastically and receive better
than average grades. General information, practical knowledge, and simply knowing how to get
things done appears to be important for effective leadership, and several studies have shown a
positive relationship between general knowledge and leadership ability.
Personality Traits
Studies of the relationship between leadership and personality traits have examined a lengthy list of
factors. Unfortunately, most of the results have been inconsistent and even contradictory. Only a
limited number of personality traits appear to be related to leadership, and most of these relationships
are not especially strong. A list of the personality traits most frequently associated with leadership
are lead shown in Exhibit 16.2. This list is based upon the 1948 review by Ralph Stogdill were of 124
studies of leadership traits)4 This list suggests that the average leader is use a more social, displays
greater initiative, is more persistent, knows how to get things done, is more self-confident, displays
greater cooperativeness and adaptability, and possesses greater verbal skills to facilitate
communication. Studies examining personality integration or emotional adjustment consistently
found that leaders were more emotionally mature than non-leaders. Rather consistent. The support
was also found for the relationship between leadership and self-confidence or self-esteem. Indeed, the
relationship between self-confidence and leadership generally produced some of the highest
correlations of any of the personality traits tested Consequently, it is not correct to conclude that
personal characteristics are unrelated to leadership; there are indeed some relationships, but they are
more complex than they first appear to be.
After four major reviews of the trait studies, researchers concluded that the effective leadership does
not depend solely upon a combination of personality the traits. Situational variables were also
important: they frequently determined of whether a personality characteristic was positively or
negatively associated with effective leadership. Each review concluded that leadership must be
examined as an interaction of three variables: characteristics of the leader, characteristics of the
subordinate, and the nature of the task.
Capacity Achievements Responsibility Participation Status
Intelligence Scholarship Dependability Activity Socioeconomic
position
Alertness Knowledge Initiative Sociability Popularity
Verbal facility Athletic Persistence Cooperation
accomplishment
Originality Personality Aggressiveness Adaptability
adjustment
Judgment Self-Confidence Humor
Desire to Excel
EXHIBIT 16.2 Personality Factors Most Frequently Associated with Effective Leadership
While the trait studies focused on individual leaders, another line of research examined leader
behaviors within the context of a group and attempted to describe what leaders actually do. These
studies essentially asked whether certain ways of behaving were more effective than others: How do
effective readers behave differently from other group members? Most of these studies occurred
during the l940s and 50s.
Various styles of leadership were defined as a result of these studies of leader behaviors. One of the
earlier studies compared three leadership styles: authoritarian democratic and laissez-faire. Perhaps
the best research on styles of leadership, however, occurred simultaneously at The Ohio State
University and the University of Michigan. At each university, researchers identified two leader
behaviors that were essentially similar, even though both investigations were conducted
independently. These two dimensions of leadership have been to form an instrument, called the
Managerial Grid®, that has been used for research and training.
Authoritarian, Democratic, and Laissez-faire Leadership
The contrasting political systems in the United States and Germany preceding World War II inspired
one of the early classic studies of leadership that compared the effects of three leadership styles:
authoritarian, democratic, and laissez.faire.i5 This study involved groups of ten-year-old boys who
were organized in groups of five. Each group met regularly after school to engage in hobbies and
other activities under the direction of a leader who adopted one of the three styles of leadership.
Every six weeks the leaders were rotated among the groups so that each group experienced each type
of leadership. The leaders of these groups, who were graduate students in social psychology, were
trained to lead the boys using one of three leadership styles. Under the democratic style of leadership,
group decisions were made by majority vote in which equal participation was encouraged and
criticism and punishment were minimal. Under the autocratic leader, all decisions were made by the
leader and the boys were required to follow prescribed procedures under strict discipline. Under the
laissez-faire leader, the actual leadership was minimized and the boys were allowed to work and play
essentially without supervision.
During the eighteen weeks of this study, the performance of the boys was observed in order to assess
the effects of the three leadership styles. Under democratic leadership, the groups were more satisfied
and functioned in the most orderly and positive manner. Aggressive acts were observed most fre-
quently under the autocratic leadership. The effects of the leadership styles on productivity were
somewhat mixed, although actual objective measures of productivity were not obtained. Under
autocratic leadership the groups spent more time in productive work activity and had more work-
related conversations. However, the autocratic groups appeared to be more productive Only when the
leader was present. When the leader left the room, the amount of work-related activity dropped
drastically.
The results of this study were somewhat surprising to the researchers who had expected the highest
satisfaction and productivity under democratic leadership. This study was conducted under the
direction of Kurt Lewin, a behavioral scientist who came to America from Germany just prior to
World War Lewin believed that the repressive autocratic political climate he had left in Germany was
not as satisfying, productive, or desirable as a democratic society. He expected the results of the
experiment to confirm his hypothesis. Although the boys preferred a democratic leader, they appeared
to be more productive under autocratic leadership.
Other studies have also shown that democratic leadership styles are not always the most productive.
In fact, some studies have found that both the satisfaction and the productivity of group members is
higher under directive leaders than democratic leaders. For example a study of 488 managers in a
consumer loan company found that employees who had high authoritarianism scores (high
acceptance of strong authority relationships) were more satisfied and productive when they worked
for supervisors who had little tolerance for freedom.’6 Greater satisfaction with an authoritarian leader
was also found in another study of over 1,000 workers. This study found that employees who worked
independently but were required to have frequent interaction with their superior preferred and were
more satisfied with an autocratic leader. Some examples of such employees are fire fighters, police
officers, and administrative aides.
Initiating Structure and Consideration
Following World War II, a major research effort studying leader behaviors was conducted at The
Ohio State University. This project involved a series of studies that ultimately produced a two-factor
theory of leader behavior. The two leadership factors were referred to as initiating structure and
consideration, is initiating structure consisted of leadership behaviors associated with organizing and
defining the work, the work relationships, and the goals. A leader who initiated structure was
described as one who assigned people to particular tasks, expected workers to follow standard
routines, and emphasized meeting deadlines. The factor of consideration involved leader behaviors
that showed friendship, mutual trust, warmth, and concern for subordinates.
These two factors were identified by administering questionnaires containing numerous descriptions
of leader behaviors and combining the items that seemed to measure the same dimension, through a
statistical technique called factor analysis. Some of the statements that were used to describe leader
behavior are illustrated in the experiential exercise at the end of the chapter. After the data from
many employees had been collected and analyzed, the researchers concluded that the responses were
measuring just two factors: initiating structure and consideration. These two leader behaviors
accounted for about 80 percent of the variance in the responses.
The research indicates that initiating structure and consideration are separate and independent
dimensions of leadership behavior. Therefore, a leader could be high on both dimensions, low on
both dimensions, or high on one and low on the other. Since both factors were considered important
dimensions of leadership, the early studies assumed that the most effective leaders were high ~n both
dimensions.
Subsequent research failed to support the initial expectations. In a study of ~c behavior of
supervisors at International Harvester, for example, it was Found that supervisors scoring high on
initiating structure had high proficiency ratings but many employee grievances. Those who had high
consideration scores had low proficiency ratings and also low absences.’
After extensive research it can now be concluded that the most effective leaders are not always high
on both initiating structure and consideration. Although most studies show that leadership
effectiveness is associated with high scores on both dimensions occasionally other combinations
have produced the highest levels of satisfaction and performance, such as being high on one scale
and low on the other or being at moderate levels on both dimensions
Production-Centered and Employee-Centered Leader
Behaviors
About the same time as the Ohio State University researchers were discovering the dimensions of
initiating structure and consideration, a similar research program at the University of Michigan
identified two similar dimensions of leadership behavior which they labeled production-centered and
employee centered behaviors2’ Production-centered behaviors were similar to initiating structure in
which leaders established goals, gave instructions, checked on performance, and structured the work
of the group. Employee-centered behaviors were similar to the dimension of consideration in which
the leader developed a supportive personal relationship with subordinates, avoided punitive
behavior, and encouraged two-way communication with subordinates.
Studies on the relationship between production-centered and employee centered behaviors also
found them to be independent dimensions of leadership. A review of twenty-four studies dispelled a
popular myth which suggested that supervisors focused on either production or employees, and to
the extent they focused on one, they were necessarily disinterested in the other. These studies
indicated instead that supervisors can be interested in both production and employees.22 Therefore, a
leader who has a strong production orientation is not necessarily disinterested in the employees.
Knowing an individual’s orientation on one leader dimension says nothing about that person’s
orientation on the other.
Managerial Grid
A conceptual framework combining a concern for task accomplishment and a concern for people
was created by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton called the Managerial Grid.- An illustration of the
Managerial Grid is shown in Exhibit Managerial Grid® 16.3. The concern for production dimension
is measured on a nine-point scale and represented along the horizontal dimension, while the vertical
dimension measures an individual’s concern for people, again using a nine-point scale. Blake and
Mouton assume that the most effective leadership style is a 9,9 style, demonstrating both concern for
production and concern for people. By responding to a questionnaire developed by Blake and
Mouton, individuals can place themselves in one of the eighty-one cells on the managerial grid.
Five different grid positions are typically used to illustrate different leadership styles. A 9,1 leader is
primarily concerned with production and task accomplishment and unconcerned about people; This
person wants-to get the job - -done and wants a schedule followed at all costs. The 1,9 leadership style
reflects a maximum concern for people with minimum concern for production. This individual is not
concerned whether the group a small produces anything, but is highly concerned about the members’
personal needs, interests and inter-personal relationships. The 1,1 leadership style reflects minimal
concern for both production and people and is characteristic of a person who essentially abdicates the
leadership role. The 55 leadership style reflects a moderate concern for both people and production,
while the 9,9 leadership style reflects a maximum concern for both production and people. A 9,9 leader
wants to meet schedules and get the job done but at the same time is highly concerned about the
feelings and interests of the group members.
High 9 1,9 9,9
Country club management Team management
Thoughtful attention to needs of Work accomplishment is from
people for satisfying committed people:
relationships leads to a interdependence through a
8 comfortable, friendly "common stake" in organization
organization atmosphere and purpose leads to relationships of
7 work tempo. trust and respect.
6
5,5 Organization man
management
Concern for people Adequate organization
performance is possible
5 through balancing the
necessity to get out work
with maintaining morale
or people at a
4 satisfactory level.
3 1,1 9,1
Impoverished management Authority-obedience
Exertion of minimum effort to Efficiency in operations results
get required work done is from arranging conditions of
2 appropriate to sustain work in such a way that human
organization membership. elements interfere to a minimum
Low 1 degree.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low Concern for production High
EXHIBIT 16.3 The Management Grid
Source: R.R. Blake and J.S. Mouton, The New Management Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing
Company, 1978), p. 11. Reproduced by permission.
The Managerial Grid® is popular among managers, and they have used it rather extensively to assess
their leadership style as part of a training program designed to move them to the 9,9 style. In spite of
its popularity, however, the usefulness of the Managerial Grid® has not been consistently supported by
research. Most of the available research consists of case analyses which have been loosely interpreted
to support it. However, empirical research has failed to show that a 9,9 leadership style is universally
superior. The demands of the situation, the expectations of other group members, and the nature of the
work being performed interact in complex ways that call for a variety of leadership styles.
Consequently the 9,9 leadership style is not always the most effective. Although the research has not
shown that one leadership style is universally superior, this research helps to identify the important
leadership roles that occur within a group. Rather than thinking of leadership strictly in terms of the
behavior of the formal leader, it is helpful to think of leadership as leadership roles performed within a
group. Thinking of leadership this way implies that leadership consists of leader behaviors performed
by any group members, whether they are formally appointed as leaders or not.
The two major leadership roles, initiating structure and consideration are similar to the work roles and
maintenance roles described in Chapter 10.” These two roles are necessary for a group to be effective
and can be performed either by the formally appointed leader or by other group members. If a task is
already highly structured, or if other group members are adequately structuring the task, then efforts by
the leader to add additional structure are unnecessary and ineffective. Likewise, the maintenance role
of showing consideration and concern for group members may be performed by other group members
thereby eliminating the need for the formal leader to perform this role. In summarizing research on
consideration and initiating structure, one review concluded that when the formally appointed leaders
fail to perform either of these leader behaviors, an informal leader will emerge and perform them if it is
necessary for success and if the group desires success.
SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP
In analyzing leadership at the organizational level of analysis, the effectiveness of the different
leadership styles must be combined with different organizational factors to assess their effect
effectiveness. At this level of analysis, the study of leadership has given rise to contingency theories of
leadership or situational leadership theories. Four situational leadership theories have received the pri-
mary attention: Paul Hersey’s and Ken Blanchard’s situational leadership model, Fred Fiedler’s
contingency theory of leadership, Robert Houses path-goal theory of leadership, and Victor Vroom and
Philip Yetton’s normative decision-making model of leadership.
Situational Leadership Model
Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed a situational leadership model that combined three
variables: (1) the amount of guidance and direction (task behavior) a leader gives; (2) the amount of
emotional support (relationship behavior) a leader provides; and (3) the readiness level (maturity) that
follows, exhibit in performing a specific task or function.27 The focus of this model is o~ the
relationship between the leaders and followers, and the maturity of the followers is viewed as the most
important situational variable influencing loader behaviors.
Maturity is defined as the ability and willingness of people to take responsibility for directing their
own behavior as it relates to the specific task being performed. An individual or group may
demonstrate maturity on some tasks and immaturity on others. Effective leadership requires that the
leader’s task behaviors and relationship behaviors must change to match the maturity of the group.
The maturity of followers varies along a continuum and is determined by two components: job
maturity (ability) and psychological maturity (willingness). Job maturity refers to the ability to do
something and is a function of the follower’s knowledge and skills. Psychological maturity refers to
the willingness or motivation to do something and is a function of the followers commitment and
confidence. The appropriate combination of task and relationship behaviors for (oar different levels of
follower maturity are shown in Exhibit 16.4. The bell-shaped curve is called a “prescriptive” curve
because it shows the appropriate leadership style directly above the corresponding level of maturity.
Four potential leadership styles are created by combining different amounts of task and relationship
behaviors.
S1: Telling. Provide specific instructions and closely supervise performance. This style is suited for
followers of low maturity who are unable and unwilling.
52: Selling. Explain your decisions and provide opportunity for clarification. This style is appropriate
for followers who are willing but unable.
INSIGHTS-FOR MANAGERS
These two roles represent essential functions
Research on leadership behaviors has of a successful group: both the task structuring
identified two essential roles that leaders fill. activities and the interpersonal relationship
One role consists of activities must be performed by someone. It is
Leader activities that focus on task possible For the appointed leader to perform
accomplishment and includes such behaviors both functions, but other group members can
as identifying the task at hand, deciding boy, also perform either or both functions.
it should be done, setting goals and Effective group leaders are probably those
objectives, delegating assignments, providing who can sense which leadership roles are not
feedback, and supervising performance. being adequately performed and either perform
The other role consists of leader them then,-selves or delegate then, to other
behaviors that focus on interpersonal group members. Although these leadership roles
relationships and includes such behaviors as are important to the effective functioning of a
creating a vision of the organization, group, they do not necessarily need to be
communicating that vision to each member, performed by the formally appointed leader.
inspiring and motivating people, evaluating Indeed the most effective groups may occur
and rewarding performance, providing ‘when the leadership rotes are ‘widely shared by
personal support and encouragement, and many group members.
creating a friendly atmosphere.
High Relationship and Low Task High Task and High Relationship
Participating Selling
S3 S2
S4 S1
Delegating Telling
Low Relationship and Low Task High Task and Low Relationship
S3: Participating. Share ideas and facilitate in making decisions. This style is suited
for followers who are able but unwilling.
S4: Delegating. Turn over responsibility for decisions and implementation. This
style is appropriate for followers who are able and willing.
Hersey and Blanchard have developed instruments for measuring maturity to determine the appropriate
leadership style, and they have applied their teacher-student relationships and parent-child
relationships. Support for their theory is provided by the experiences of managers who have used it and
a small number of research studies. They also have used this model to reinterpret and understand the
inconsistent findings in other leadership studies.
Contingency Theory of Leadership
The most popular and extensively researched situational theory of leadership was first proposed by
Fred Piedler during the 1960s. Fiedler’s model claims that group performance depends on the
interaction of the leader style and the favorableness of the situation. Fiedlers major contributions
consist of(l) identifying the leadership orientation of the leader and developing a way to measure it, and
(2) identifying three situational factors influencing leadership and developing a method of measuring
them
Leader orientation. Fiedler’s definition of the leader’s orientation emerged largely from earlier studies
in which leaders were classified as either relationship-oriented or task-oriented. Relationship-oriented
leaders look at others as coworkers and see close interpersonal relations as a requirement for accom-
plishing the task. Task-oriented leaders show a strong emotional reaction against people with whom
they have difficulty working. If they are forced to make a choice between getting the job done or
worrying about interpersonal relations, they choose the task first and worry about interpersonal
relations later. Following earlier research, Fiedler suggested that individuals could be placed along one
continuum characterized by two basic leader orientations:
relationship-oriented versus task-oriented.
LPC scale. Leadership orientation is measured by the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale, as
illustrated in Exhibit 16.5. Individuals are asked to think of a person with whom they have worked who
they least preferred as a coworker, and describe this person using sixteen scales. When the responses
arc summed, an individual with a favorable description of the least preferred coworker would have a
high LPC score, suggesting a relationship-oriented leader. An unfavorable description of the least
preferred coworker would result in a low score, suggesting a task-oriented leader.
Difficulty in interpreting the LPC scores has been a problem for Fiedler’s contingency theory. The LPC
scale is not related to any of the well-known personality measures. In spite of uncertainty about what
exactly it measures, however, the evidence indicates that it is a reliable measure of something, and
Fiedler concludes that “there can be little doubt that we are dealing with a very important aspect of
personality.” A review of 25 years of research using th~3 LPC scale concluded that high LPC leaders
are primarily relationship-oriented while low LPC leaders are primarily task-oriented consistent with
Fiedler's claims.’ In general, a low LPC leader is more directive, more structuring, more goal-oriented,
and more concerned with efficiency. A high LPC leader is more considerate, more human relations
oriented, more participative, and more sensitive to the feelings of others.
Situational favorableness. Fiedler’s model claims that whether a high LPC leader or low LPC leader
will be more effective depends upon the favorableness of the situation. In some situations, a high LPC
leader is most effective, while a unenthusiastic low LPC leader is more effective in other situations.
Fiedler claimed that the favorableness of the situation is determined by three variables: (1) whether the
relationships between the leader and the members are good or poor. (2) whether the task is relatively
structured or unstructured, and (3) whether the power position of the leader is relatively strong or weak.
In studies testing the model, Fiedler and his colleagues developed instruments to measure each of these
three situational variables.” Of the three situational variables, the leader-member relations variable was
considered to be the most important for determining the favorableness of the situation. Leader-member
relations were measured using a simple questionnaire with ten scales on which the leader was asked to
describe the group. This instrument was called a “group atmosphere scale” and two sample items are
shown here.
The second most important situational variable was the task structure which was evaluated by judges
who examined four aspects of the task structure.
1. Coal clarity: the degree to which the requirements of the job are clearly stated and known by the
people performing then,
2. Coal-path multiplicity: the degree to which the problems encounter in the job can be solved by a
variety of procedures.
3. Decision verifiability: the degree to which the correctness of the solutions or decisions can be
demonstrated and ascertained.
4. Decision specificity: the degree to which there is generally more than one correct solution involved
in performing the task.
In a highly structured task, goals are very clear, there is on! y one correct procedure for performing the
task, the correctness of the decisions can be immediately verified, and there is only one correct solution.
Obviously, a highly structured task does not require leaders to provide additional structure.
The third situational variable was the power position of the leader. This factor was measured by a series
of questions asking whether the leaders could recommend rewards or promotions, whether they could
assign tasks and evaluate performance, and whether they had been given official titles by the
organization to differentiate them from subordinates.
By determining whether a group is high or low on each of the three situational factors, Fiedler
classified each group into one of eight categories, which ranged along a scale from extremely favorable
situations to extremely unfavorable situations for the leader. A highly favorable situation consisted of
good leader-member relations, a highly structured task, and a strong power position, as illustrated in
Exhibit 16.6. On the other hand, an extremely unfavorable situation existed when the leader-member
relations were poor, the task was unstructured, and the leader possessed a weak power position.
Group effectiveness. Fiedler examined the relationship between the leaders' LPC score and the
effectiveness of the group in a variety of situations. The results indicated that a high LPC leader was
most effective when the situation was moderately favorable. If the situation was extremely favorable or
unfavorable, however, the low LPC leaders tended to have the most effective groups. These
relationships are illustrated in Exhibit 16.7.
Although these results may look rather complex and difficult to understand, they seem plausible after a
brief consideration. Relationship-oriented leaders (high LPC) tend to excel in situations of intermediate
favorableness where concern for the group members is apparently a necessary prerequisite for
motivating them to perform well. In these situations, people want to have leaders who care about
them. Task-oriented leaders (low LPC), however, are more effective when the situation is either very
favorable or very unfavorable. In a highly favorable situation, the personal needs of members are
apparently already satisfied and what is needed is a task-oriented leader to get the job done. In an
extremely unfavorable situation, however, satisfying individual needs is probably impossible. A task-
oriented leader who simply focuses on getting the work done is more effective than a relationship-
oriented leader who spends time fruitlessly trying to build good relationships in an impossible situation.
Fiedler's theory has some interesting implications for the selection and training of leaders in
organizations. Candidates for leadership positions should be evaluated to assess their basic
orientations, and they should be placed in jobs consistent with their leadership orientation. The
favorableness of a situation should be assessed before assigning a leader to that position. Leaders who
are struggling may need to be placed in a different situation, or their current situation may need to be
changed.
When leaders are not successful, it is tempting to suggest that they need to change their leadership
orientation. Fiedler does not recommend this approach, however, and argues that the basic leadership
orientation of an individual is a relatively stable personality characteristic that cannot be easily
changed. Rather than changing the leader to fit the situation, Fiedler recommends changing the
situation to fit the leader through what he calls job engineering. Job engineering consists of changing
one of the situational factors to increase or decrease the favorability of the situation. For example, the
task structure and power position can be effectively changed through job redesign programs or changes
in personnel policies.
The validity of Fiedler's contingency theory has been examined in numerous studies. Although most of
the studies have been supportive, there have been enough contradictory findings for the model to
remain somewhat controversial among leadership scholars. The most serious controversy about
Fiedler's model concerns the LPC scale. Although the theory seems to predict leader effectiveness, the
ambiguity over what the LPC score is actually measuring is disturbing.
Path-Goal Model
Another situational leadership theory is the path-goal model developed primarily by Robert House.
This model is fairly well known because it is based upon a popular theory of motivation — expectancy
theory. The path-goal model explains how leaders can facilitate task performance by showing
subordinates how their performance can be instrumental in achieving desired rewards. Expectancy
theory explains how an individual’s attitudes and behavior are influenced by the relationships between
effort and performance (goal paths) and the valence of the rewards (goal attractiveness). Therefore,
individuals are satisfied and productive when they see a strong relationship between their effort and
performance and when their performance results in highly valued rewards. The path-goal model claims
that the most effective leaders are those who help subordinates folio’s the path to receiving valued
rewards.
Essentially, the model explains what leaders should do to influence the perceptions of subordinates
about their work, the personal goals of subordinates, and the various paths to goal attainment. The
model claims that leader behavior is motivating and satisfying to the extent that it clarifies the paths to
the goals and increases goal attainment,
Leader behaviors. The path-goal model suggests that leadership consists of two basic functions. The
first function is path clarification: the leader helps subordinates understand which behaviors are
necessary to accomplish the tasks. The second function is to increase the number of rewards available
to subordinates by being supportive and paying attention to their personal needs. To perform these
functions, leaders may adopt a variety of leadership styles. Four distinct leadership styles are
explained in the model:
1. Directive leadership: tells subordinates what is expected of them and provides specific
guidance, standards, and schedules of work.
2. Supportive leadership: treats subordinates as equals and shows concern for their well-being,
status, and personal needs; attempts to develop pleasant interpersonal relationships among
group members.
3. Achievement-oriented leadership: sets challenging goals expects sub-ordinates to perform at
their highest level, and continually seeks improvement in performance.
4. Participative leadership: consults with subordinates and uses their suggestions and ideas in
decision making. Unlike Fiedler's model, which suggested that leadership style was resistant
to change, the path-goal model suggests that these four styles can be performed by the same
manager at different times and in different situations. In other words, the path-goal theory
suggests that if a directive leader discovers the situation has changed and now requires a
participative leader, it is possible. For the leader to change. The appropriate leadership style
depends on the situation. Although the path-goal model does not explain how to identify the
appropriate leadership leader style, the model does present a list of situational factors that need
to be considered.
Situational factors. Two types of situational factors are proposed—the characteristics of the follower
and environmental factors. Three characteristics of the followers have been identified as significant
variables determining the appropriate leadership style:
1. Locus of control: As explained in chapter 3, locus of control refers to the individual’s belief
concerning the determinants of reward. Individuals with an internal locus of control believe
their rewards are based on their own efforts, while those with an external locus of control
believe their rewards are controlled by external forces. Internals prefer a participative
leadership style while externals are generally more satisfied oh are with a directive leadership
style.
2. Authoritarianism: Authoritarianism refers to an individual’s willing to accept the influence of
others. High authoritarian followers tend to be less receptive to a participative leadership style
and more responsive to directive leadership.
3. Abilities: The ability and experience of the followers will influence leader whether they are
able to work more successfully with an achievement oriented leader who sets challenging goals
and expects high performance, or a supportive leader who is willing to patiently encourage and
instruct them. The path-goal model identifies three environmental factors moderating the
effects of leadership styles: (1) the nature of the task, (2) the formal authority system within the
organization, and (3) the group norms and dynamics. These environmental factors can
influence the effectiveness of different leadership styles in a variety of ways. A highly
structured task, for example, may reduce the need for a directive leader and even make a
directive leader’s attempt to provide additional structure seem unwarranted and unwanted.
However, a directive leader would be more likely to succeed than a participative leader if the
organization had a highly formal authority structure that followed a strict chain of command.
Likewise, a concern for the personal needs of subordinates by a supportive leader may seem
superficial and unnecessary in a highly cohesive work group. The basic elements of the path-
goal model of leadership axe illustrated in Exhibit 16J. This model shows how leadership
styles interact with follower - characteristics and environmental factors to influence the
personal perceptions and motivation of the followers. The perceptions of the followers
concerning the situation and the followers’ level of motivation determine their job satisfaction,
performance, and acceptance of the leader.
Some simplified applications of the path-goat model are shown in Exhibit 16.9. In the first two
situations, subordinates have an ambiguous job or they feel insufficiently rewarded. Both
situations call for a directive leader who explains the job and helps subordinates know how to
get rewarded for performing it. The next two situations, boring work and a lack of self-
confidence call for a support leader. Repetitive jobs are not as boring if a supportive leader
helps subordinates see that their work is meaningful and significant. Likewise, a supportive
leader can help subordinates feel greater self-confidence by coaching them and praising their
accomplishments. In situation 5, subordinates are not challenged by the task. An achievement-
oriented leader will set high goals and emphasize the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards from more
effort. Finally, situation 6 involves a task that is unstructured and poorly defined, calling for
participative leadership. By participating in the decision making, subordinates help to create an
effective solution to the problem and, as a result of their involvement, feel committed to
making it work.
Research on the path-goal model. The relationships specified by the path-goal model have been
examined in a modest number of empirical studies. This research has tested the theory’s predictions
concerning the moderators of leadership effectiveness to determine whether the situational variables
interacted with the leadership styles in the predicted manner. The evidence seems to indicate that the
model does quite well in predicting how the situational variables and leader styles combine to
influence individual satisfaction and group morale? However, the model has not been-shown to be a
good predictor of individual or group performance. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage in trying to’
validate the model empirically is that it contains too many variables and tries to explain too much. An
experiment testing the full pat-goal model is difficult because too many variables have not been clearly
identified and instruments -have not been developed to measure them. Nevertheless, the available
studies tend to support the model, although they suggest that it understates the complexity of the
situation. Furthermore, the research suggests that other variables, such as conflict and structure, also
need to be incorporated into it.
Perhaps the major contribution of the path-goal model is that it provides a method for viewing
leadership in terms of the rewards and punishments administered by the leader. The path-goal model
explains why a particular style works best because of the reward contingencies determined by the
environment and the leader's capacity to administer rewards and punishments. As more research
accumulates, this type of explanation will have practical applications for those interested in the
leadership process.
Normative Decision-Making Model of Leadership
Another situational leadership theory is the nonnative decision-making model formulated by Victor
Vroom and Philip Yetton? It is considered both a decision making model and a theory of leadership
since it explains how leaders should make decisions. This model tends to equate leadership with
decision making, suggesting that making decisions is one of the most important functions a leader
performs.
The normative decision-making model is a contingency theory of leadership since it assumes that no
single leadership style is appropriate for all situations. Instead, leaders must develop a repertoire of
leadership styles and adopt the style that is most appropriate to the situation. This model also
disagrees with Fiedler by suggesting that leaders can use a variety of decision making strategies.
Knowing whether to involve others in the decision making process or whether to make the decision
alone is an important leadership issue that dependant upon several considerations. Leaders need to
know when to consult others and when consultation is a waste of time. Briefly stated, Vroom and
Yetton’s classic model identifies five decision-making styles along with a series of diagnostic
questions to determine which style is most appropriate. These normative decision-making model
diagnostic questions are arranged sequentially in the form of a decision tree to help managers select
the appropriate leadership style.
Decision making (leadership) styles of leaders. The Vroom-Yetton model identifies five decision
making styles: two types of autocratic decision making (AL and Aft), two types of consultative
decision making (CI and CII), and a group decision making style (GIL). These five styles are defined
as follows:
Al The leader decides alone without soliciting any input from members
All The leader decides alone after obtaining the necessary information
from members.
Cl The leader makes the decision after obtaining information, ideas
suggested alternatives and evaluation from members individually.
CII The leader makes the decision after meeting with the members as a
group to collect their information, ideas, suggested alternatives, and
evaluation.
OH The leader and members arrive at a group decision through consensus decision making.
Although the leader may serve as the chairman of the group, the leader is simply one of the
group and does not decision try to influence the group to adopt a particular solution.
Criteria for selecting a leadership style. Two criteria are used for assessing the effectiveness of a
leadership style: quality and acceptance. The quality of the decision refers to its accuracy and the
extent to which it will achieve some objective, such as increase profitability, raise productivity,
lower costs, reduce turnover, or increase sales. Decision quality depends on gathering accurate and
which tree relevant information, identifying good alternatives, and evaluating them carefully to
select the best solution. Consulting other group members often provides additional information, but
when there are severe time constraints or styles vested interests on the part of the members,
participative decision making would be inappropriate. For example, participative decision making is
quite quality inappropriate during a commando raid, in the middle of a police rescue action, style is
autocratic or during the twenty-second huddle of a football team.
Decision acceptance refers to the degree to which the subordinates or might group members are
willing to implement the decision. There are two questions that leaders should consider in order to
determine whether acceptance is an issue: (1) Do subordinates feel strongly about the decision? and
(2) Is individual initiative and judgment on the part of members required to implement the decision?
If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then the acceptability of the decision is important.
Regardless of the technical quality of the solution, the decision may be a failure if the members are
not willing to accept it.
Diagnostic decision rules. Vroom and Yetton suggest that leaders select an able appropriate
decision making style by diagnosing the situation using a sequence of decision rules. These decision
rules are designed to help the leader know how to involve subordinates in decisions in a way that
enhances the quality and series acceptability of the decision. The first three rules focus on the quality
of the decision.
The decision rules are contained in eight questions that a leader answers either yes or no.
1. As long as it is accepted, does it make any difference which decision is selected? Are some
decisions qualitatively superior to others?
2. Do I have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?
3. Do subordinates have sufficient additional information that needs to be considered to result
in a high-quality decision?
4. Do I know exactly what information is needed, who possesses it, and how to collect it?
5. Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates critical to effective implementation?
6. If I were to make the decision by myself is it certain that it would be accepted by my
subordinates?
7. Can subordinates be trusted to base their solutions on considerations consistent with the
organization’s goals?
8. Is conflict among the subordinates likely, given the preferred solutions?
These diagnostic questions are used to determine the appropriate decision making style. The
application of these diagnostic questions is contained in the decision-tree chart shown in Exhibit
16.10. The chart reads from left to right and the letters at the top, A through H, represent the
questions shown above the decision tree. The boxes in the decision tree below each number
represent the point where that question is asked. The lines connecting the boxes indicate the
decision making path the manager follows, depending upon whether the answers to the questions
are yes or no. The symbols at the far right illustrate which decision style is appropriate for the
various paths through the decision tree.
At the endpoints of some of the decision sequences, several alternative styles are feasible. For
example at the starting point all five decision styles are appropriate, and the model suggests that
each style is likely to lead to a high-quality decision acceptable to subordinates. When more than
one decision style is acceptable, the model recommends that managers choose the most
autocratic of the styles to save time and minimize costs. If saving time and minimizing costs
were not the most important objectives, one oft he other styles might be recommended when
more than one style is acceptable. For example, if the goal was to further the personal
development of subordinates, the participative styles. GII and CII, would be preferred more
frequently.
In half the situations the model recommends either AI, AII, or CI strategies in which the
manager decides alone. In four situations the model recommends the CII strategy, where the
manager makes the decision alone after consulting with the subordinates as an advisory group. In
only three situations does the model indicate that the group decision making strategy, GIL, is the
only acceptable method.
Applying the Vroom-Yetton model. Vroom and Yetton have developed a series of decision
making scenarios that portray how the model can be applied. These scenarios can be used for
training managers to learn the appropriate leadership style. Each scenario presents a decision
situation, and the individual is asked to assume the role of the manager and decide which is the
appropriate leadership style by answering the questions in the decision-tree model.
Descriptive research has attempted to identify how closely the actual leadership styles used by
managers correspond with the leadership styles recommended by the Vroom-Yetton model. The
research indicates that most managers use greater participative decision making than the model
recommends. Managers tend to overuse the consultative style (CI and CII) where the model
suggests that the autocratic decision style (AL) is appropriate’8 Other research —has also shown
that business school students are more participative than actual managers; top-level managers are
more participative than lower-level managers; and female managers are more participative than
male managers).
Two studies have examined the question of whether the Vroom-Yetton model actually describes
the way managers should make decisions. In general, these studies support the model. For
example, among forty-five retail franchises in the cleaning industry, those store managers who
used the appropriate decision style as prescribed by the model tended to have more productive
operations and more satisfied employees than managers who used decision styles ~ inconsistent
with the model)0 Another test of the model examined whether 4 managers used the style
recommended by the model in a variety of decision situations. When the manager’s decision
style corresponded with the style recommended by the model, 68 percent of the decisions were
judged to have been failed suggest that managers would do well to consider the diagnostic
questions in deciding whom to involve in decision making.
Comparing the leadership models. All four situational leadership models contribute to our
understanding of leadership by emphasizing the influence of external factors on the effectiveness
of a particular leadership style. Fiedler’s contingency model has been subjected to the most
extensive empirical research and has been more carefully defined than the other models. A
common characteristic of all four models is that each model identifies different leadership styles
and suggests that the effectiveness of the style is determined by various situational factors.
However, the models focus on different styles, different situational factors, and different criteria
for selecting the best style.
The models by Hersey-Blanchard and Fiedler both identify two leadership styles: task-oriented
versus relationship-oriented. But while Hersey and Elan-chard view them in a two-dimensional
matrix as two independent leader behaviors, Fiedler views them as ends of a single continuum.
The path-goal model identifies four leadership styles: directive, supportive, participative, and
achievement-oriented The normative decision-making model identifies three leadership styles:
autocratic, consultative, and participative.
The situational factors influencing the effectiveness of leadership are quite different in each of
the models. An important reason for some of this difference is that the normative decision-
making model equates leadership with making decisions and looks at only this function of
leadership. In addition, the models use rather different criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of
leadership. Both the Hersey-Blanchard and the Fiedler models evaluate the effectiveness of
different leadership styles according to group performance. The path-goal model evaluates
leadership according to job satisfaction, performance, and acceptance of the leader. The
normative decision-making model focuses on decision quality, decision acceptance, and time
required to reach a decision.
DETERMINANTS OF LEADERSHIP
EFFECTIVENESS
Although deciding what makes an effective leader seems as if it should be a simple decision, the
theories and research reviewed earlier illustrate the complexity of the issue. In spite of the
complexity, however, individuals who are in positions of leadership are still faced with the
practical question of deciding which leadership pattern to adopt.
Choosing a Leadership Style
One of the most popular models for selecting an appropriate leadership style is one proposed by
Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt. This model describes a variety of leadership styles
along a continuum from highly autocratic have one end to highly participative at the other, as
illustrated in Exhibit 1611.
Seven different leadership styles along this continuum are identified in the exhibit. At one
extreme the manager uses his/her authority to simply make the decision and announce it. At the
other extreme, the manager provides an area of freedom for subordinates and permits them to
function within these limits to make decisions and direct their own activities. According to
Tannenbaum and Schmidt, the appropriate leadership style is determined by (1) forces in the
manager, (2) forces in the subordinates, and (3) forces in the situation.
Some of the important forces in the manager include the manager's value system and the value
the manager places on participation and involvement by subordinates. The amount of confidence
managers have in their subordinates and the manager's ability to handle uncertainty are also
relevant.
The forces in a subordinate include such things as whether subordinates have high needs for
independence, whether they are ready to assume responsibility for decision making, whether they
are interested in the problems, and whether they possess the necessary experience to deal with
them. As subordinates gain greater skill and competence in managing themselves, leaders ought
to provide more autonomy for them.
The forces in the situation include the culture of the organization and its history of allowing
subordinates to exercise autonomy, cohesiveness in the group and the degree to which the
members work together as a unit, the nature of the problem itself and the question of whether
subordinates have the knowledge and experience needed to solve it, and the pressures of time,
since group decision making is time-consuming and ineffective in a crisis situation.
The framework provided by Tannenbaum and Schmidt provides a useful way to analyze a leadership
situation and choose a successful leadership pattern. The successful leader is one who is aware of the
situational forces and responds appropriately to them. Effective leaders need to understand themselves,
the members of the group, the company, and the broader social environment in which they operate. As a
long-term strategy, Tannenbaum and Schmidt encourage leaders to change their subordinates and the
situation in a way that allows them to gradually provide greater opportunity for subordinate
involvement.
Strategies for Improving Leadership
With thousands of books and articles written about leadership, it is surprising the followers. When we
acknowledge the leader’s capacity to reward the behavior of followers, we should not overlook the
capacity of the followers to reward the leader by the ways they perform. For example, organizations
reward managers according to the performance of their group. Consequently, the managers of high-
performing groups are highly rewarded by the organization.
One study has demonstrated the reciprocal nature of influence between leaders and subordinates. In this
study, data were collected from first-line managers and two of the supervisors who reported to them.
Leaders who were more considerate created greater satisfaction among their subordinates; but, at the
same time, the performance of the subordinates caused changes in the behavior of the leaders.43
Employees who performed well caused their supervisor is to reward them and treat them with greater
consideration. Although research on the reciprocal influence between leaders and followers is still rather
limited, it is important to remember that leadership may be significantly constrained by the followers.
Constraints on leader behavior. Leaders do not have unlimited opportunities to influence others.
Leadership effectiveness is constrained by a variety of factors, such as the extent to which managerial
decisions are preprogrammed due to precedent, structure, technological specifications, laws, and the
absence of available alternatives. Leadership can also be constrained by a variety of organizational
factors limiting the leader’s ability to either communicate with or to reinforce the behavior of
subordinates. The constraints imposed on leaders include external factors organizational policies, group
factors, and individual skills and abilities.
1. External factors. Leaders are constrained in what they can do because of various economic
realities and a host of state and federal laws. For example, leaders are required to pay at least the
minimum wage and they are required to enforce safety standards. Leaders who have unskilled
followers will have difficulty leading regardless of their leadership style, and the availability of
skilled followers is influenced by the external labor market. Some geographical areas have a
much better supply of skilled employees than others.
2. Organizational policies. The organization may constrain a leader’s effectiveness by limiting the
amount of interaction between leaders and followers and by restricting the leader’s ability to
reward or punish followers.
3. Group factors. Group norms are created by the dynamics of the group. If the group is highly
cohesive and very determined, it can limit the leader’s ability to influence the group.
4. Individual skills and abilities. The leader’s own skills and abilities may act as constraints since
leaders can only possess so much expertise, energy, and power. Some situations may simply
require greater skills and abilities than the leader may possibly hope to possess.
Substitutes for leadership. While some situations constrain leaders other situations make leadership
unnecessary. These variables are referred to as substitute variables because they substitute for leadership
either by making the leader’s behavior unnecessary or by neutralizing the leader’s ability to influence
subordinates. Some of the variables that tend to substitute for, or neutralize leadership arc illustrated in
Exhibit 16.12. For example, subordinates who possess extensive experience, ability, and training tend to
eliminate the need. For instrumental leadership. The task-oriented instructions from an instrumental
leader are simply unnecessary when subordinates already know what to do. If the subordinates are
indifferent toward rewards offered by the organization, the influence of both supportive leaders and
instrumental leaders is neutralized.
Although the concepts of substitutes and neutralizers for leadership are a relatively new, early studies
seem to support them. For example, studies have to shown that a highly structured situation neutralizes a
leader’s efforts to structure the group’s behavior.
Realizing that there are constraints on a leader’s behavior and that other the factors may serve to
neutralize or substitute for the influence of a leader helps to explain why the research on leadership has
produced such inconsistent results. The fact that the results are inconsistent and generally weak does not
necessarily mean that leadership is unimportant or that leaders don’t really account for much. Instead, it
illustrates the complexity of the world in which leaders are required to function. Leadership is an
extremely important function that has an enormous influence on the effectiveness of groups and
organizations. The complexity of the situation, however, may prevent us from knowing in advance
which will be the most effective leadership behaviors.
SUMMARY
1. Leadership refers to incremental influence and is s-aid to occur when one individual influences
others to do something voluntarily that they otherwise would not do. A need for leadership
within organizations stems from the incompleteness of the organization design and the
dynamic nature of the internal and external environments. Three basic leadership roles include
origination of policy and structure, interpolation, and administration.
2. The earliest studies of leadership were primarily trait studies that attempted to identify the
characteristics of effective leaders. These studies focused primarily on physical traits,
intelligence, and personality. Although some personal characteristics were frequently related to
leadership, the results were generally weak and often inconsistent. Many studies concluded that
the characteristics of the subordinate and the nature of the task were as important as the
characteristics of the leader in determining success.
3. A second approach to studying leadership focused on leader behaviors—how leaders actually
behave. One of the earliest studies compared three leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic,
and laissez-faire. Although democratic leadership created the greatest satisfaction, autocratic
leadership created the highest levels of productivity.
4. Research conducted simultaneously at two universities identified two similar leadership
behaviors. At The Ohio State University the researchers labeled these two leader behaviors
initiating structure and consideration. At the University of Michigan the same two factors were
labeled production-centered and employee-centered leader behaviors. These two leader behaviors
appear to identify leadership functions essential to the effectiveness of a group. The two Factors
have been used to form a matrix called the Managerial Grid which places a concern for
production on one side of the grid and concern for people on the other Each dimension is
measured on a nine-point scale, and the ideal leadership style is considered to be 9,9, indicating a
leader who is high in both dimensions. The research evidence, however, does not consistently
support this conclusion.
5. The Failure of leadership research to identify leadership traits or universally superior leader
behaviors resulted in the development of four situational theories of leadership. These theories
suggest that the most effective leadership style depends upon situational variables, especially the
characteristics of the group and the nature of the task.
6. Hersey and B1anchard developed a situational leadership model that matched different
combinations of task behavior and relationship behavior with the maturity of the followers. As
the may of the followers increases, the appropriate leadership style is first telling, then selling,
then participating, and finally, for highly mature followers, delegating.
7. The most extensively researched situational leadership theory is Fred Fiedler's contingency
theory of leadership. Fiedler used the LPC scale to measure the leader’s orientation toward
either the task or the person. The most appropriate leadership style was then determined by
assessing three situational variables: whether the relationships between the leader and the
members were good or poor, whether the task was structured or unstructured, and whether the
power position of the leader was strong or weak. When these three situational variables created
an extremely favorable or extremely unfavorable situation, the most effective leadership style
was a task-oriented (low LPC) leader. However, a leader with a high concern for interpersonal
relationships (high LPC) was more effective in situations where there were intermediate levels of
favorableness.
8. The path goal model is another situational leadership theory. This theory is derived from
expectancy theory and suggests that effective leaders must clarify the goal paths and increase the
goal attractiveness for followers. Four distinct leadership styles are proposed in the model:
directive, supportive achievement-oriented and participative leadership styles. The most
appropriate style depends upon two types of situational factors: the characteristics of the follower
arid characteristics of the environment. Three of the most important follower characteristics
include the locus of control, authoritarianism, and personal abilities. The three environmental
factors include the nature of the task, the formal authority system within the organization, and the
group norms and dynamics.
9. Vroom and Yetton’s normative decision-making model is also a situational leadership theory
since it identifies the appropriate styles leaders should use in making decisions. The three
leadership styles include autocratic decision making, consultative decision making, and group
decision making. The decision titles determining which style is most appropriate include such
questions as whether the leader has adequate information to make the decision alone, whether the
subordinates will accept the goals of the organization, whether subordinates will accept the
decision if they do not participate in making it, and whether the decision will
produce a controversial solution.
10. Although most of the literature on leadership emphasizes the influence of the leader on the
group, the influence of the group upon the leader should not be overlooked. The relationship
between the leader and the group implies a reciprocal influence. Groups have the capacity to
influence the behavior of their leaders by responding selectively to specific leader behaviors. The
influence of a leader can also be constrained by several external factors, such as organizational
policies, group norms, and individual skills and abilities. Other variables have been found to
neutralize or substitute for the influence of a leader, such as the skills and abilities of followers
and the nature of the task itself.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Studies of the relationship between physical traits and leadership suggest that leaders tend to be
tall, dark, and handsome. How do you account for these results?
2. What is the relationship between the two leader behaviors, initiating structure and consideration,
and the two group roles discussed in Chapter 10: work roles and maintenance roles? What does
this association suggest in terms of essential activities for group functioning?
3. Apply Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership by identifying two extremely different
situations, one extremely favorable and the other extremely unfavorable, and explain why a task-
oriented (low LW) leader is most effective in each situation.
4. What is the relationship between expectancy theory and the path-goal model 0f leadership? -
5. An important difference in the implications of situational leadership theories is whether lead-
ership styles can be learned or changed. What is your opinion about the possibility of signifi-
cantly changing an individual’s basic leadership style?
6. The relationship between the leader and the group invokes a reciprocal influence relationship.
Who do you think exerts the greatest influence, the leader or the group? Using the principles of
operant conditioning, describe how a group would need to behave in order to create a punitive,
authoritarian supervisor or a rewarding, participative supervisor.
GLOSSARY
Consideration. Leader behavior that focuses on the comfort, well-being, satisfaction, and need fulfill-
ment of subordinates.
Contingency theories of leadership. Leadership theories that recognize the influence of situational
variables in determining the ideal styles of leadership. Four contingency leadership theories include
Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model, Fiedlers contingency theory, House’s path-goal
theory, and Vroom and Yetton’s normative decision-making model.
Initiating structure. Leader behavior that focuses on clarifying and defining the roles and task
responsibilities for subordinates.
LPC scale. A questionnaire with sixteen semantic differential scales that are used to measure the least
preferred coworker. This scale measures a persons leadership orientation.
Leader behaviors. The kinds of behaviors that leaden actually perform in a group. The two leader
behaviors that have been consistently observed including task-related activities, called initiating
structure or production-centered activities, and interpersonal relations activities, sometimes called
consideration or employee-centered activities.
Leadership. The incremental influence that one individual exerts upon another and that causes the
second person to change his or her behavior voluntarily. Three leadership roles include origination of
structure by top-level managers, interpolation or adapting the structure by middle-level managers and
administration or implementation of the policies and procedures by lower-level supervisors.
Managerial Grid® A matrix that combines two factors: concern for people and concern for
production. Each factor is measured with a nine-point scale.
Neutralizers of leadership. Forces that tend to destroy the influence of a leader or make it
ineffective.
Normative decision-making model A decision-making model that is also a theory of leadership
which suggests that the roost appropriate decision-making style for a leader depends upon situational
factors, such as the information possessed by leader and followers and whether group members will
accept the decision.
Path-goal model A contingency theory of leadership based upon expectancy theory which suggests
that the characteristics of the follower and environmental factors should determine which of four
leadership styles is most appropriate.
Relationship-oriented leader (high LPC) According to Fiedler, a leader who sees desirable
characteristics even in his or her least preferred coworker.
Substitutes for leadership. Subordinate, task. Or organizational factors that decrease the importance
of leader’s influence; forces within the environment that supplant or replace the influence of the
leader.
Task-oriented leader (low LPC) According to Fiedler, a leader who shows a strong emotional dislike
for his or her least preferred coworker.