LEADERSHIP

WHAT IS LEADERSHIP? Leadership and management are two terms that are often confused. Whats the difference between them? What is a leader? Industrial/Organizational psychologists do not seem to be able to agree on a definition. One way to understand leadership, however, is through the differences between a leader and an authority. Authorities are those who hold formal positions that give them the power to direct the behavior of their subordinates. Managers, supervisors, and bosses are authorities. They may or may not also be leaders, depending on whether they rely solely on their official positions when applying influence on others. A true leader does not use force and coercion to direct his or her followers toward a common goal. John Kotter of the Harvard Business School argues that management is about coping with complexity. Good management brings about order and consistency by drawing up formal plans, designing rigid organization structures, and monitoring results against the plans. Leadership, in contrast, is about coping with change. Leaders establish direction by developing a vision of the future; then they align people by communicating this vision and inspiring them to overcome hurdles. Robert House of the Wharton School at the university of Pennsylvania basically concurs when he says that managers use the authority inherent in their designated formal rank to obtain compliance from organizational members. Management consists of implementing them to overcome hurdles, coordinating and staffing the organization, and handling dayto-day problems. Although Kotter and House provide separate definitions of the two terms, both researcher and practicing managers frequently make no such distinctions. So we need to present leadership in a way that can capture how it is used in theory and practice. We define leadership as the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals. The source of this influence may be formal, such as that provided by the possession of managerial rank in an organization. Since management positions come with some degree of formally designated authority, a person may assume a leadership role simply because of the position he or she holds in the organization. But not all leaders are managers; nor, for that matter, are all managers leaders. Just because an organization provides its managers with certain formal rights is no assurance that they will be able to lead effectively. We find that no sanctioned leadership that is, the ability to influence that arises outside the formal structure of the organization is often as important or more important than formal influence. In other words, leaders can emerge from within a group as well as by formal appointment.

Distinguishing Leadership from Managership

Managership
Engages in day-to-day caretaker activities: Maintains and allocates resources Exhibits supervisory behaviour: Acts to make others maintain standard job behaviour Administers subsystems within organizations Asks how and when to engage in standard practice Acts within established culture of the organization Uses transactional influence: Induces compliance in manifest behaviour using rewards, sanctions, and formal authority Relies on control strategies to get things done by subordinates Status quo supporter and stabilizer

Leadership
Formulates long-term objectives for reforming the system: Plans strategy and tactics Exhibits leading behaviour: Acts to bring about change in others congruent with long-term objectives Innovates for the entire organization Asks what and why to change standard practice Creates vision and meaning for the organization Uses transformational influence: Induces change in values, attitudes, and behaviour using personal examples and expertise Uses empowering strategies to make followers internalize values Status quo challenger and change creator

Leadership Theories: Definition and framework

There are many leadership theories. Arthur G. Jago (1982) proposed a framework that organizes leadership theories based on each theorys focus and approach. Focus refers to whether leadership is viewed as a set of traits or as a set of actions. Focus on Traits: Theories with such a focus see leaders as having certain innate or inherent personality traits that distinguish them from nonleaders. These personality traits are supposed to be relatively stable and enduring. Focus on Behavior: Theories with this type of focus see leadership as observable actions of the leader instead of personality traits. Approach is concerned with whether a particular theory or model of leadership takes a universal or a contingent perspective. Universal Approach: This approach believes that there is a universal formula of the traits or behavior for an effective leader. In other words, the universal approach assumes that there is one best way to lead in all situations. Contingent Approach: Contrary to the universal approach, the contingent approach does not believe the one best way formula. It believes that effective leadership depends on the specific situation.

The popular leadership theories I will be introducing here are Early Trait Approach Behavioral Approach Fiedlers Contingency Theory Path-Goal Theory Vertical-dyad Linkage Model Emerging Perspective: Leadership Substitutes and Charismatic Leadership One last comment before we move on: Organizations need strong leadership and strong management for optimum effectiveness. In todays dynamic world, we need leaders to challenge the status quo, to create visions of the future, and to inspire organizational members to want to achieve the visions. We also need managers to formulate detailed plans, create efficient organizational structures, and oversee day-to-day operations.

Trait Theories
When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of Great Britain, she was regularly singled out for her leadership. She was a described interim such as confident, iron-willed, determined, and decisive. These terms are traits and, whether Thatchers advocates and critics recognized it at the time, when they described her in such terms they became traittheorist supporters. The media have long been believers in trait theories of leadership. They identify people such as Margaret Thatcher, South Africas Nelson Mandela, Virgin Group CEO Richard Branson, Appleco-dounder Steve Jobs, New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and American Expresss President Ken Chenault as leaders and then describes them in terms such as charismatic, enthusiastic, and courageous. Well the media arent alone. The search for personality, social, physical, or intellectual attributes that would describe leaders and differentiate them from nonreaders goes back to the 1930s. Research efforts at isolating leadership traits resulted in a number of dead ends. For instance, a review of 20 different studies identified nearly 80 leadership traits, but only five of these traits were common to four or more of the investigations. If the search was intended to identify a set of traits that would always differentiate leaders from followers and effective from ineffective leaders, the search failed. Perhaps it was a bit optimistic to believe that there could be consistent and unique traits that would apply universally to all effective leaders, no matter whether they were in charge of Daimler Chrysler, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Teds Malibu Surf Shop, the Brazilian national soccer team, or Oxford University. If, however, the search was intended to identify traits that were consistently associated with leadership, the results can be interpreted in a more impressive light. For example, six traits on which leaders tend to differ from nonreaders are ambition and energy, the desire to lead, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, intelligence, and job-relevant knowledge. Additionally, recent research provides strong evidence that behavior in different situations-are much more likely to emerge as leaders in groups than low self-

monitors. Overall, the cumulative findings from more than half a century of research lead us to conclude that some traits increase the likelihood of success as a leader, but none of the traits guarantee success. But the trait approach has at least four limitations. First, there are no universal traits that predict leadership in all situations. Rather, traits appear to predict leadership in selective situations. Second, traits predict behavior more in weak situations than in strong situations. Strong situations are those in which there are strong behavioral norms, strong incentives for specific types of behaviors, and clear expectations as to what behaviors are rewarded and punished. Such strong situations create less opportunity for leaders to express their inherent dispositional tendencies. Since highly formalized organizations and those with strong cultures fit the description of strong situations, the power of traits to predict leadership it may organizations is probably limited. Third, the evidence is unclear in separating cause from effect. For example, are leaders self-confident, or does success as a leader build self-confidence Finally, traits do a better job at predicting the appearance of leadership than in actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders. The facts that an individual exhibits the traits and others consider that person. The facts that an individual exhibits the traits and others consider that person to be a leader to not necessarily mean that the leader is successful at getting his or her group to achieve its goals. These limitations have led researchers to look in other directions. Although there has been a resurgent interest in traits during the past 15 to 20 years, a major movement away from traits began as early as the 1940s. Leadership research from the late 1940s though the mid-1960s emphasized the preferred behavioral styles that leaders demonstrated.

Limitations:
No universal traits that predict leadership in all situations. Traits predict behaviour better in weak than strong situations. Unclear evidence of the cause and effect of relationship of leadership and traits. Better predictor of the appearance of leadership than distinguishing effective and ineffective leaders.

Behavioral Theories
The inability to strike gold in the trait mines led researchers to look at the behaviors that specific leaders exhibited. They wondered if there was something unique in the way that effective leaders behave. For example, Times Mirror chairman Mark Willes and Titan International CEO Morry Taylor both have been very successful in leading their companies through difficult times. And they both rely on a common leadership style tough-talking, intense, and autocratic. Does this suggest that autocratic behavior is a preferred style for all leaders? In this section, we look at four different behavioral theories of leadership in order to answer that question. First, however, lets consider the practical implications of the behavioral approach. It the behavioral approach to leadership were successful, it would have implications quite different from those for the trait approach. If trait research had been successful, it would

have provided a basis for selecting the right persons to assume formal positions in groups and organizations requiring leadership. In contrast, if behavioral studies were to turn up critical behavioral determinants of leadership, we could train people to be leaders. The difference between trait and behavioral theories, in terms of applications, lies in their underlying assumptions. If trait theories were valid, then leadership is basically inborn: You either have it or you dont. On the other hand, if there were specific behaviors that identified leaders, then we could teach leadership we could design programs that implanted these behavioral patterns in individual who desired to be effective leaders. This was surely a more exciting avenue, for it meant that the supply of leaders could be expanded. If training worked, we could have and infinite supply of effective leaders. Ohio State Studies The most comprehensive and replicated of the behavioral theories resulted from research that began at Ohio State University in the late 1940s. These researchers sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior. Beginning with over a thousand dimensions, they eventually narrowed the list into two categories that substantially accounted for most of the leadership behavior described by employees. They called these two dimensions initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure is structure his or her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. It includes behavior that attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals. The leader characterized as high in initiating structure could be described as someone who assigns group members to particular tasks, expects workers to maintain definite standards of performance, and emphasizes the meeting of deadlines. Mark Willes and Morry Taylor exhibit initiating structure behavior. Consideration is described as the extent to which a person is likely to have job relationships that are characterized by mutual trust, respect for employees idea, and regard for their feelings. He or she shows concern for followers comfort, well-being, status, and satisfaction. A leader high in consideration could be described as one who helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable, and treats all emphasizing friendliness and empowerment. Extensive research, based on these definitions, found that leaders high in initiating structure and consideration (a high-high leader) tended to achieve high employee performance and satisfaction more frequently than those who rated low on wither consideration, initialing structure, or both. However, the high-high style did not always result in positive consequences. For example, leader behavior characterized as high on initiating structure led to greater rates of grievances. Absenteeism, and turnover and lower levels of job satisfaction for workers become routine tasks. Other studies found that high consideration was negatively related to performance ratings of the leader by his or her superior. In conclusion, the Ohio State studies suggested that the high-high style generally resulted in positive outcomes, but enough exceptions were found to indicate that situational factors needed to be integrated into the theory.

University Of Michigan Studies

Leadership studies undertaken at the University of Michigans Survey Research Center, at about the same time as those being done at Ohio State, had similar research objectives, to locate behavioral characteristics of leader that appeared to by related to measure of performance effectiveness. The Michigan group also came up with two dimensions of leadership of leadership behavior that they labeled employee oriented and production oriented. Leaders who were employee oriented were described as emphasizing interpersonal relations; they took a personal interest in the needs of their employees and accepted individual differences among members. The production-oriented leaders, in contrast, tended to emphasize the technical or task aspects of the job-their main concern was in accomplishing their groups tasks, and the group members were a means to that end. The conclusions arrived at by the Michigan researchers strongly favored the leaders who were employee oriented in their behavior. Employee-oriented leaders were associated with higher group productivity and higher job satisfaction. Production- oriented leaders tended to be associated with low group productivity and lower job satisfaction.

The Managerial Grid

A graphic portrayal of a two-dimensional view of leadership style was developed by Blake and Mouton. They proposed a Managerial Grid based on the styles of concern for people and concern for production, which essentially represent the Ohio state dimensions of consideration and initiating structure or the Michigan dimensions of employee oriented and production oriented. The grid has nine possible positions along each axis, creating 81 different positions in which the leaders style may fall. The grid does not show results produced but, rather, the dominating factor in a leaders thinking in regard to getting results. Based on the findings of Blake and Mouton, managers were found to perform best under a 9, 9 style, as contrasted, for example, with a 9, 1 (authority type) or 1, 9 (lassiez-faire type) style. Unfortunately, the grid offers a better framework for conceptualizing leadership style than for presenting any tangible new information in clarifying the leadership quandary, since these is little substantive evidence to support the conclusion that a 9,9 style is most effective in all situations.

Scandinavian Studies
The three behavioral approaches weve just reviewed were essentially developed between the late 1940s and early 1960s. These approaches evolved during a time when the works was a far more stable and predictable place. In the belief that these studies fail to capture the more dynamic realities of today, researchers in Finland and Sweden have been reassessing whether there are only two dimensions that capture the essence of leadership behavior. Their basic premise is that in a changing world, effective leaders would exhibit development-oriented behavior. These are leaders who value experimentation, seek new ideas, and generate and implement change.

Managerial Grid
Robert Blake and Jane Mouton believe that management exists to encourage efficiency and performance, creativity, experimentation and innovation, and learning from colleagues. This needs teaching and learning. It combines an approach for people and an approach for production and was formulated into a grid applied around the world and in many business departments, as well as organisations which have a production of some sort but may not usually be counted as businesses. Indeed different organisations can ask themselves where about in the grid they should be aiming their own management approaches. The grid itself suggests that management is best at a 9,9 coordinates, where both people and production concerns are fully addressed, but a question is whether this is always appropriate, either all the time or at different times.

The Managerial Grid

High 9

1,9 Country club management

8 Thoughtful attention to needs of people for satisfying relationships leads to a comfortable, friendly organization atmosphere and work tempo.

9,9 Team management

Work accomplishment is from committed people who have a "common stake" in organization's purpose.This leads to relationships of trust and respect.

Con cern for peop le

5,5 Middle-of-the-road management

Adequate organization performance is possible through balancing the necessity to get out work with maintaining morale of people at a satisfactory level.

1,1 Impoverished management

Exertion of minimum effort to get required work done is appropriate to sustain organization membership.

9,1 Authority-obedience

Efficiency in operations results from arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a minimum degree.

Low 1 1 Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High

Concern for production

A 9 by 9 grid is suggested, with degrees of variation, but five positions are given as a matter of simplicity. Production means what ever the organisation is supposed to be doing. Each department has its own task to which it should be dedicated. People mean all the human relations goals set out by an organisation, including commitment to equal

opportunities, personal commitment, respect and proper procedures. The grid relates to organisations as a whole and to managements within them both as teams and individuals. Management may vary for a variety of reasons, such as individual personalities, but an organisation should properly attempt to guide appropriate management. This is itself a production and people matter. Another simplified way to look at this is see which tendency managers gravitate towards, perhaps via a questionnaire process as part of training (see below): 1, 9: Country Club 1, 1: Impoverished 9, 9: Team Leader 9, 1: Authoritarian

1, 9 management has been called country club management in that it concerns itself with positive encouragement but the avoidance of conflict. Work (or the task) is something people do, but they do it in work time. Everyone (or the person) jollies and jokes along with one other and cannot criticise, in the hope that things get done as a result. Economic protectionism or cost-plus accountability leads to this relaxed, inefficient approach. Many religious organisations may be like this because a production concern is fellowship itself, but at times of decline more instrumental needs for recovery may come into play. 9, 1 Task management is all about the rigour associated with high efficient output. There are orders to be given, received and obeyed, and schedules should not be missed. Mistakes lead to blame and correction, and if the employee is not up to the task under this regime then another job is the only medium term outcome. There is a high degree of supervision and control, and creativity is only placed high within the hierarchy. Lower down people do not need to be creative and indeed to say anything different is insubordination. Whilst high output is achievable in the short term, much will be lost through an inevitable high labour turnover. Only the money paid will matter, as the rest of the work involvement is likely to be apathetic with no input. The question is whether this management suits any business. It does in that there are repetitive work tasks requiring low innovation and low education/ training. There are also short term economic tasks which, once complete, end the producing unit. In these two cases, such management may be appropriate. 1,1 must be inept management because it neither shows much concern for production nor people. The fact is that there are such people around and many of them who have perhaps been overlooked by the organisation in terms of career progression. People reciprocate. So these managers go in, do their jobs with a minimum of effort, wait for home time to come, and then leave. If responsibility is required, then it is avoided; if people need to be motivated, nothing much happens beyond the minimum of instructing. In terms of accountability, the workforce had its instructions and that was that. A whole organisation run like this, perhaps after considerable and repeated infighting, is simply going to drift. Sometimes drift is needed as a gap that takes place after infighting so that slowly (but not too slowly) the pieces can be picked up. 5,5 management is a kind of realistic medium without ambition. It is deemed as practical. It is also an outcome when production and people issues are seen as in conflict (as indeed

are 9, 1 and 1, 9, but such an organisation values both people and production matters and settles for 5, 5: it is always a 10 sum game). There is never too much jollying and humour but some and never too much criticism - but some if really needed. Such an approach may follow times of lack of success in a previous period of ambition, or when a 1,9 or 9,1 approach did not work due to perceived deficiencies which created problems in the organisation. This position is called pendulum dampening because so often a pendulum swings between 1, 9 and 9, 1. Managers change approach: perhaps new work comes in or there is a perceived need to increase performance and the firm must get busy; or perhaps there has been a dispute and the organisation needs to repair relationships. Perhaps though in certain voluntary organisations 5,5 is a good position to hold, as volunteers need the social aspect to crowd out some of the work aspects. Life is both bread and circuses. 9, 9 management then is when there is no zero sum game or crowding out, and when systems are in place, and management teams working, to get the best out of an organisation in terms of commitment and human relations. Information must flow up and down the system, and everyone must feel valued. That value must be highly purposive, and directed into the objectives of the organisation, and indeed where the valuing is gained. Managers must feel able to consult with each other without mini-empires developing in a spirit of co-operation to achieve the overall objectives. Of course conflict does arise, but it has systems that allow it to work through without avoidance, so that people can continue their work and work together. It may be that conflict cannot be completely ended, but the organisation faces it and seeks the best outcome. Blake and Mouton themselves looked at inter-group conflict with nine (they seem to like this number) approaches - win-lose power struggle, third party decision, stalemate until a so called fate arbitration (something happens unplanned), one gives up, parties isolate, a facade of indifference, stressing common interests, compromise through bargaining towards accommodation, and positive resolution of difference through genuine effort. The last is the most promising and would be part of 9, 9 management. To get to 9, 9 management requires a phased program, according to Blake and Mouton (of this time only 6 phases). Before it a good idea is to place individual managers within the grid. Many placing themselves on the grid over estimate themselves towards the 9,9 position and some 60% deceive themselves. They revise this after training when correction can take place. Phase 1 Off site training in the managerial grid that does not allow conflict in a company to carry forward. There might be groups of up to nine that can critique the testing of oneself according to the grid carried out again with colleagues. For example, a person who is seen to alter behaviour from own claims made can be reclassified according to the grid. Phase 2 On site training in problem solving team management. Working out tasks according to the grid in these circumstances is more testing because real work issues are present. Conflict solving strategies for each person's skills are worked on because these are

essential for getting to a 9,9 position and both 9,1 and 1,9 people are not skilled conflict solvers. Phase 3 Inter group training where co-operation and coordination is required. This looks at idealactual comparisons and how the actual might get towards the idea that groups identify. Phase 4 Group goals are set for the whole organisation's optimal performance. This might be through a study of some considerable time which brings into exposure for changing the first three phases and sets up the ideal models. Phase 5 What is learnt is implemented. The ideal model is activated perhaps by task forces. Phase 6 Changes are measured for consolidation and stabilisation under the new regime and creating new goals. However it is done, it should be obvious that a combination of stable maximum production and maximum people performance takes training and processes of information exchange and methods of handling conflicts with all goals in mind. For instance, these Scandinavian researchers reviewed the original Ohio state date. They found that the Ohio State people included development items such as pushes new ways of doing things, originates new approaches to problems, and encourages members to start new activities. But these items, at the time, didnt explain much toward effective leadership. It could be, the Scandinavian researchers proposed, that this was because developing new ideas and implementing change were not critical in those days. In todays dynamic environment, this may no longer be true. So the Scandinavian researchers have been conducting new studies to see if there is a third dimension development orientation that is related to leader effectiveness. The early evidence is positive. Using samples of leaders in Finland and Sweden, the researchers have found strong support for development-oriented leader behavior as a separate and independent dimension. That is, the previous behavioral approaches that focused in on only two behaviors may not appropriately capture leadership in the twentyfirst century. Moreover, while initial conclusions need to be guarded without more confirming evidence, it also appears that leaders who demonstrate development-oriented behavior have more satisfied employees and are seen as more competent by those employees.

Summary of Behavioral Theories

The behavioral theories have had modest success in identifying consistent relationships between leadership behavior and group performance. What seems to be missing is consideration of the situational factors that influence success of failure. For example, it

seems unlikely that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been a great civil rights leader during the early 1900s yet he was in the 1950s and 1960s. Would Ralph Nader have risen to lead a consumer activist group had he been born in 1834 rather than 1934, or in Costa Rica rather than Connecticut? It seems quite unlikely, yet the behavioral approaches we have described could not clarify these situational factors.

Leadership Theories: Behavioral Approach

As discussed earlier, the behavioral approach focuses on the observable behavior that makes a leader effective. For example, the Managerial Grid was developed to examine different types of leadership behavior on two dimensions: Dimension 1. Concern for Production: A manager who has high concern for production is taskoriented and focuses on getting results or accomplishing the mission. Dimension2. Concern for People: A manager who has a high concern for people avoids conflicts and strives for friendly relations with subordinates. The Managerial Grid has its advantages and disadvantages. It focuses on observable actions of the leader in order to determine if the leaders main concern is for production or for people. This provides a more reliable method for studying leadership than the trait approach. The Managerial Grid, however, adopted the universal approach. It aims at identifying the most effective leadership style for all situations, which is not supported by evidence in real organizations. The two dimensions used in this model concern for production and concern for people are two important dimensions used to examine leadership behavior and characteristics. We will see them again, often with different names, in many other leadership theories.

Contingency Theories
Al Dunlap earned his nickname of Chainsaw AI. A West Point graduate and former paratrooper, he built his executive reputation on being tough, arrogant, and insensitive toward employees. At Lily Tulip he fired 50 percent of the corporate office; at CrownZellerbach, he cut 20 percent of the workforce; at Scott Paper, he axed 11,000 employees. And this style worked. For instance, his actions at Scott turned the company around and made him and his stockholders a ton of money. But when Dunlap tried these tactics at Sunbeam, they blew up in his face. Employee motivation tanked, key managers left, profits disappeared, and the companys stock collapsed. Recognizing they had made a huge mistake in hiring Dunlap, the board fired Al Dunlaps rise and fall illustrates what became increasingly clear to those studying the leadership phenomenon decades earlier: Predicting leadership success is more complex than isolating a few traits of preferable behaviors. What works at Scott Paper in 1996 doesnt necessarily work at Sunbeam in 1998. The failure by researchers to obtain consistent results led to a focus on situational influences. The relationship between leadership style and effectiveness suggested that under condition a, style x would be appropriate, while style y would be more suitable for condition b, and style z for condition c. But what were the conditions a,b,c and so forth? It was one thing to say that

leadership effectiveness depends on the situation and another to be able to isolate those situational conditions. Several approaches to isolating key situational variables have proven more successful than others and, as a result, have gained wider recognition. We shall consider five of these: the Fiedler model, Heresy and Blanchards situational theory, leader member exchange theory, and the path-goal and leader-participation models.

Fiedler Model
The first comprehensive contingency model for leadership was developed by Fred Fielder. The Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group performance depends upon the proper match between the leaders style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader.

Fiedler FiedlerModel Model

Identifying Leadership Style Fiedler believes a key factor in leadership success is the individuals basic leadership style. So he was trying to find out what that basic style is. Fiedler created the least preferred co-worker (LPC) questionnaire for this purpose. It purports to measure whether a person is task of relationship oriented. The LPC questionnaire contains 16 contrasting adjectives (such as pleasant-unpleasant, efficientinefficient, open-guarded, supportive-hostile). It ask respondents to think of all the coworkers they have ever had and to descript the one person they least enjoyed working with by rating him of her on a scale of 1 to 8 for each of the 16 sets of contrasting adjectives. Fiedler believes that based on the respondents answers to this LPC

questionnaire, he can determine their basic leadership style. If the least preferred coworker is described in relatively positive terms (a high LPC score), then the respondent is you essentially describe the person you are least able to work with in favorable terms, Fiedler would liable you relationship oriented. In contrast, if the least preferred co-worker is seen in relatively unfavorable terms (a low LPC score), the respondent is primarily interested in productivity and, thus, would be labeled task oriented. About 16 percent of respondents score in the middle range. Such individuals cannot be classified as relationship oriented and, thus, fall outside the theorys predictions. The rest of our discussion, therefore, relates to the 84 percent who score in wither the high or low range of the LPC. Fiedler assumes that individuals leadership style is fixed. As well show in a moment, this is important because it means that if a situation requires a task oriented leader and the person in that leadership position is relationship oriented, either the situation has to be modified or the leader removed and replaced if optimum effectiveness is to be achieved. Defining the Situation After an individuals basic leadership style has been assessed through the LPC, it is necessary to match the leader with the situation. Fiedler has identified three contingency dimensions that, he argues, define the key situational factor that determine leadership effectiveness. These are leader-members relations, task structure, and position power. They are defined as follows: 1. Leader-member relations: The degrees of confidence, trust, and respect members have in their leader 2. Task structure: The degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases 3. Position power: The degree of influence a leader has overpower variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases The next step in the Fiedler model is to evaluate the situation in terms of these three contingency variables. Leader-member relations are either good or poor, task structure is wither high or low, and position power is either strong or weak. Fiedler states the better the leader-member relations, the more highly structured the job, and the stronger the position power, and the more control the leader has. For example, a very favorable situation (where the leader would have a great deal of control) might involve a payroll manager who is well respected and whose employees have confidence in her (good leader member relations), where the activities to be done such as wage computation, check writing, report filing are specific and clear (high task structure), and the job provides considerable freedom for her to reward and punish her employees (strong position power). On the other hand, and unfavorable situation might be the disliked chairperson of a voluntary United Way fund-raising team. In this job, the leader has very little control. Altogether, by mixing the three contingency variables, there are potentially eight different situations or categories in which leaders could find them.

Matching Leaders and Situations With knowledge of an individuals LPC and an assessment of the three contingency variables, the Fiedler model proposes matching them up to achieve maximum leadership effectiveness. Based on his research, Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders tend to perform better in situations that were very favorable to them and in situations that were very unfavorable (see Exhibit 11-2). So Fiedler would predict that when faces with a category I, II, III, VII. Or VIII situation, task-oriented leaders perform better. Relationship-oriented leaders, however, perform better in moderately favorable situations-categories IV through G. In recent years, Fiedler has condensed these eight situations down to three. He now says that task-oriented leaders perform best in situations of high and low control, while relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situations. Given Fiedlers findings, how would you apply them? You would seek to match leaders and situations. Individuals; LPC scores would determine the type of situations. That situation would be defined by evaluating the three contingency factors of leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. But remember that Fiedler Views an individuals leadership style as being fixed. Therefore, there are really only two ways in which to improve leader effectiveness. First, you can change the leader to fit the situation-as in a baseball game; a manager can reach into the bullpen and put in a right-handed pitcher or a lefthander pitcher, depending on the situational characteristics of the hitter. So, for example, if a group situation rates as highly unfavorable but is currently led by a relationship-oriented manager, the groups performance could be improved by replacing that manager with one who is task oriented. The second alternative would be to change the situation to fit the leader. That could be done by restructuring tasks or increasing or decreasing the power that the leader his to control factors such as salary increases, promotions, and disciplinary actions. Evaluation As a whole, reviews of the major studies that tested the overall validity of the Fiedler model lead to a generally positive conclusion. That is, there is considerable evidence to support at least substantial parts of the model. If predictions from the model use only three categories rather than the original eight, there is ample evidence to support Fiedlers conclusions. But there are problems with the LPC and the practical use of the model that need to be addressed. For instance, the logic underlying the LPC scores are not stable. Also, the contingency variables are compels and difficult for practitioners to assess. Its often difficult in practice to determine how good the leadermember relations are, how structured the task is, and how much positions power the leader has. Cognitive Resource Theory More recently, fielders and an associate, Joe Garcia, reconceptualized the original theory. Specifically, theyve focused on the role of stress as a form of situational unfavorable ness and how a leaders intelligence and experience influence his reaction stress. They call this reconceptualization cognitive resource theory. The essence of the new theory is that stress is the enemy of rationality. Its difficult for leaders (of anyone else, for that matter) to think logically and analytically when theyre

under stress. Moreover, the importance of a leaders intelligence and experience to his or her effectiveness differs under low-and high-stress situations. Basically, Fiedler and Garcia found that intelligence and experience interfere with each other. This ha led to three conclusions: (1) Directive behavior results in good performance only if linked with high intelligence in supportive, low-stress situations. (2) In high-stress situations, there is a positive relationship between job experience and performance. (3) The intellectual abilities of leaders correlate with group performance in situations that the leader perceives as low in stress. In spite of its newness, cognitive resource theory is developing a solid body research support. Most importantly, at this time, its major contributions seem to be to include stress as an important situational variable in the leadership equation.

Path-Goal Leadership Styles

Path-goal theory suggests that effective leaders motivate their followers by giving them outcomes they desire when they perform at a high level or achieve their work goals. Effective leaders also make sure their subordinates believe that they can obtain their work goals and perform at a high level, show subordinates the paths to goal attainment, remove obstacles that might come along the way, and express confidence in their subordinates capabilities. Leaders need to adjust the type of behavior they engage in (directive, supportive, participative, or achievement-oriented) to correspond to the nature of the subordinates they are dealing with and the type of work they are doing. Four types of leader behaviour: Directive Informs subordinates of expectations, gives guidance, shows how to do tasks Supportive Friendly and approachable, shows concern for status, well-being and needs of subordinates Participative Consults with subordinates, solicits suggestions, takes suggestions into consideration Achievement oriented Sets challenging goals, expects subordinates to perform at highest level, continuously seeks improvement in performance, has confidence in highest motivations of employees

CONTINGENCY FACTORS

Environmental Task Structure Formal Authority System Work Group Leader Behaviour Directive Achievement-oriented Participative Supportive Outcomes Performance Satisfaction Subordinate Locus of control Experience Perceived ability

Path -Goal Leadership Styles