The 'substitutes for leadership' theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) proposes that, under some

circumstances, situational factors may substitute for leadership. In addition, there are situational
factors that may 'neutralise' leadership, i.e., prevent the leader from taking action. Leader substitutes
may be situational or organisational factors (such as job design, or a cohesive work group) or follower
characteristics (such as ability, training and previous experience). Well-designed jobs that provide
clarity, meaning and intrinsic motivation should require little guidance and inspiration from a leader.
For example, the vitamin model includes the need for environmental clarity and externally generated
goals, whilst the job characteristics model refers to feedback on progress towards goals (see Unit 2). A
highly cohesive group will also be capable of working without close supervision (as discussed in
relation to self-managing teams; see Unit 5). Of course, some things can obstruct good leadership;
these factors are called 'leadership neutralisers'. Examples might include: a leader who has insufficient
formal power to make changes or provide resources. A strength of this theory is its emphasis on
understanding the context within which leadership occurs (rather than discounting the value of
leadership). Previous research has often failed to adequately assess the importance of leadership
because it fails to consider the organisational context. This may explain some of the mixed findings
concerning the value of leadership that have been found previously (Vecchio, 2003).
The model's theoretical propositions predict that leadership substitutes will act as moderators in the
relationship between leadership and effectivness. Although main effects of leader substitutes on
outcome measures have been found, moderating relationships are often difficult to demonstrate
empirically. Indeed, empirical support for the substitutes-for-leadership model has been mixed
(Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater & James, 2002; Howell, Bowen, Dorfman, Kerr & Podsakoff, 2007;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996). However, more sophisticated testing of the model is required,
including the use of longitudinal designs to understand how processes evolve over time (Avolio,
Walumbwa & Weber, 2009).

A strength of the substitutes-for-leadership model is its recognition of the role of followers in the
leadership process, rather than just the characteristics and behaviour of the leader. As noted earlier,
the latter is often over-emphasised, leading to the 'romance of leadership' (Meindl et al., 1985). As
discussed in Unit 5, as teams develop over time, emergent states arise, such as group cohesion. A
further emergent state is 'shared leadership'; this is a process in which team leadership is shared
across team members (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Therefore, unlike other forms of leadership, much of
the influence processes are lateral (between team members), rather than hierarchical (leadersubordinate). This is a relatively new area of research and, hence, there is little empirical evidence
specifically related to supporting this idea. However, given the importance of teams for organisational
functioning, this is likely to be an area of growth. It is important to understand that leadership goes
beyond a focus on the leader him or herself.