LIT REVIEW

34

Exploratory Leadership: Understanding Situational Variables On The Impact Of Leadership Holly Gruhlke, MBA Assistant Professor of Business Dickinson State University 291 Campus Drive Dickinson, North Dakota 58601 Holly.gruhlke@dickinsonstate.edu Abstract Exploration in to the hypothesis that individuals demonstrate greater success when utilizing a balanced approach to leadership, including relationships, qualities and skills, was conducted by observing and interviewing effective leaders with diverse backgrounds. Relevant contextual and professional information was presented in order to establish a clear indication as to the distinction of the interviewees’ levels of leadership success. The information gathered was compared utilizing an adapted horizontal analysis format in which ideal responses, according to literature, were compared to the responses of the leaders. The findings were used in providing implications of this research to the study of leadership. Keywords: leadership, situational leadership, leadership style, development Overview Understanding the basic leadership approach that yields the best results is the fundamental problem that behavioral theorists have been trying to solve. As noted by Victor Vroom and Arthur Yago (2007), “One of the problems stems from the fact that the term leadership, despite its popularity, is not a scientific term with a formal, standardized definition” (pg. 17). Therefore, how do we attempt to govern our true leadership path without the help of a standard and proven compass to guide us? The standard theories range from the perspective of the leader, to the needs of the follower, as the argument goes back and forth. However, despite the many theories and definitions of leadership, only one truly stands out above the rest, having great success in meta-analysis and follow-up training. This exemplary theory is situational leadership. Situational leadership takes in to account the needs of the leader and the follower in a given situation in order to recommend an appropriate approach that will potentially result in the best possible outcome. This theory, proposed and researched by House, Yago, Vroom, Yetto, Hersey and Blanchard, has addressed the most fundamental areas of importance from a managerial standpoint while discussing improvements to

35

organizational efficiency and effectiveness. With these factors, it is the most appealing to examine and study further. Utilizing the definition presented in “The Role of the Situation in Leadership” (2007), I will examine leadership as “it deals with the form in and degree to which the leader involves his or her subordinates in the decision-making process” (Vroom & Jago, pg. 20). In addition to Vroom and Jago’s research, this analysis will also explore the works of House, Yetto, Hersey and Blanchard. Choosing two unique and well-respected leaders with differing characteristics, I will explore the impact of personality and perception in their decision-making processes. Primary research will conducted in the form of interviews, where the questions will be formulated based off the criteria utilized in several of the situational theorists’ studies. The goal of this study is to prove that despite have contrasting personality styles, two leaders can utilize similar approaches. Furthermore, because the two individuals interviewed have received numerous awards and continuous recognition throughout their careers, I hope to solidify that the situational theory of leadership is the optimal theory to adopt and utilize to train future leaders. Literature Review According to O.M. Igrens, modern day management training has been developed utilizing the works of Hersey and Blanchard’s situational model, which has three distinct features (1995): There is no single all-purpose leadership style; what is appropriate in each case depends on the follower (or subordinate) and the task to be performed; the leader's behavior has two independent main components: directive behavior and supportive behavior. (pg. 36). The introduction of this theory throws out conventional rules stating that each leader has his or her own unique and individualistic style in which he or she must rely consistently upon in order to be effective (Neal, Yeo, Koy, & Xiao, 2012). Moreover, it shies away from the thought that leaders are born with a set of traits which makes them destined to be successful (Stogdill, 1974). Vroom and Jago build on Hersey and Blanchard’s theory, and Vroom’s previous research conducted with Yetton, when they introduced their definition of leadership as “it deals with the form in and degree to which the leader involves his or her subordinates in the decision-making process” (2000, pg. 20). The researchers have very similar principle foundations as Hersey and Blanchard with the addition of exclusionary elements. Vroom and Jago concluded that no matter how accepted and inclusive the decision-making model the leader used while making important choices, there are situations outside of his or her control that may still yield negative results. Therefore, they outlined the following important aspects to their study; “Organizational effectiveness (often taken to be an indication of its leadership) is affected by situational factors not under leader control; Situations shape how leaders behave; Situations influence the consequences of leader behavior” (2007, pg. 23). This approach is synonymous with the thought process that each situation is independent of the previous and therefore will require a unique approach. According to the Path-Goal Theory, considered the foundation of situational leadership research, the approach of leaders should adjust to the situation in which the manager and subordinate are faced,

36

furthering the necessity of well-rounded motivational techniques. R.J. House (1996) found the following to be true in his updated work: The essential notion underlying the path-goal theory is that individuals in positions of authority, superiors, will be effective to the extent that they complement the environment in which their subordinates work by providing the necessary cognitive clarifications to ensure that subordinates expect that they can attain work goals and that they will experience intrinsic satisfaction and receive valent rewards as a result of work goal attainment. (pg. 323). Additionally, this work discusses the necessity of examining the needs in regard to the types of motivation that employees require, taking in to consideration what House deemed as directive, supportive, participative and achievement oriented behavior (1996, pg. 323). Essentially, leaders must understand their followers’ needs in order to understand their intrinsic and extrinsic motivational cues. The ability to dissect the values that employees consider critical requires a leader who has invested in an important grouping of skills and characteristics. For example, according to Bernard M. Bass (1985), “Charisma is one of the elements separating the ordinary manager from the true leader in organizational setting” (pg. 34). This characteristic is important, but does not stand alone, as followers have identified many others that are instrumental as well. Where character and skill ends, the enforcement of power begins. Jeffrey Pfeffer (2010) elaborates in his article “Power Play” that without the ability to reward or punish, leadership is more difficult; “People who electively wield influence make it clear that you will get rewards if you help them and problems if you don’t” (pg. 89). Therefore, we are directed that not only should we examine the situation, the people, and the outcomes, but the strategy of attempting to reach a collective goal or objective. Despite the vast information from experts Vroom, Jago, Yetten, House, Hersey and Blanchard, there is yet to remain a theory that brings leadership full-circle, throughout each phase of what can be considered a leader’s process. Going further, there is little agreement as to which theory is considered the most accurate. The argument continues as new methods of research are launched and new discoveries in the field are made. However, although divide exists, there are clear overlaps in argument and theory. Consequently, situational theories are the most inclusive and most appealing to implement to improve leadership effectiveness. These theories, as suggested earlier, will yield the best result because they cover the greatest amount of criteria leaders should consider in their goals towards the process of leadership: situation, people, outcome, strategy and rewards. Method To examine the implications of the situational variables involved in approach and collaboration, we will be utilizing the definitions presented by Vroom and Jago (2007) which states “leadership as a process of motivating people to work together collaboratively to accomplish great things” (pg. 18) and Hersey and Blanchard that states, “There is no single all-purpose leadership style. What is appropriate in each case depends on the follower (or subordinate) and the task to be performed” (pg. 36). The idea that leadership is a process will be adopted throughout the investigation of this topic. Two leaders were selected that, according to their peers, subordinates and employers, exemplified this very definition.

37

Leader A is a tenured professor of business at small regional university in the mid-west. She is a national award-winning author, former Distinguished Faculty of the Year, regional educator of the year and esteemed speaker (Newgeography, 2015). In addition to her work as professor, she recently accepted the role as director of her school’s honors scholarship program. As former CEO of a local non-profit agency devoted to the care of mentally challenged adults, in addition to years of leadership research experience, she is considered a living example of how the study of the field can positively affect a career (“Bio”, 2015). She dedicates her time to understanding the generational differences of employees in the workforce and providing training to local and national companies on the impacts of demographic and social elements on organizational culture, especially concerning motivation and reward (“Bio”, 2015). Leader B, more commonly referred to as “Coach” rather than his name, is a nationally recognized National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) football coach. He has influenced the lives of more than 2,000 student athletes throughout his nearly 40-year career at a small regional college in the mid-west. For his impressive career, which included 32 winning seasons of the 36 total he was head coach as well as 15 playoff appearances and 17 conference titles, he was inducted in to the NAIA Hall-of- Fame (“Henry Biesiot Activities Center”, 2012). Leader B is often sought out to discuss his motivational processes he utilized while generating such huge successes on the football field. As part of a handbook regarding leadership and business, he was interviewed regarding his aspects as to the critical elements of motivation. He was quoted as saying, “No matter what scenario, whether business or athletics, you want leaders that have a passion for what they are doing” (2012, pg. 5). Leader B does not simply discuss leadership; he lives it. According to other head coaches, he exemplifies the character of success, “He would be the first guy to deflate anything that has to do with him” (Kolpack, 2013). Instead, he relays the focus on to his players or his school. Leader B’s deep understanding of motivation and natural leadership ability were consistently praised when he decided to resign as head coach, drawing national attention. His character, achievements and prestige were highlighted in the local and national publications. The university’s athletic director highlighted leader B’s career in his statement to ESPN (2013), “His leadership equipped students with the skills needed for success on the field. His teaching focus on determination and hard work prepared them for success in life” (Associated Press). He is an example of true selfless leadership and a prime candidate to examine the topic. He has been introduced to nearly every situational variable discussed in leadership and therefore, has real-world insight in this field. In an attempt to understand the degree to which the situation influenced the decision making of the two accomplished leaders, an interview was conducted individually. The interviews included questions that highlighted personality differences, perceptual differences while allowing an in-depth look into their individual leadership processes and approaches. The questions asked were primarily opened-ended, however, some multiple choice, multiple answer questions posed in generic terminology were implemented in order to grasp a better understanding of the leaders’ positions. Utilizing an adapted horizontal analysis, the results of the interview questions were organized and compared. The analysis was conducted in an attempt to discover whether situational leadership would be the best definition of the process both leaders utilized throughout their careers. Other model elements

38

were examined, for example transactional and transformational leadership, because portions of these theories may have best described a certain technique used during a specific occasion. These occurrences are expected, as it is the entire premise behind situational leadership. Hersey and Blanchard (1982) described it best when they stated that “although high concern for both production and people are basic ingredients for effective leaders, it may be appropriate for leaders to engage in a variety of behaviors as they face different problems in their environment” (pg. 50). Therefore, despite differing personalities, two leaders can implement a situational approach with great success. This hypothesis is what this exploration seeks to investigate. Results Following a detailed analysis of the interviews conducted with Leaders A and B, commonalities were identified despite the two leaders having very distinct and differing personalities. For example, both leaders used the terminology character, consistency, modeling, variation, perception, decision-making and motivation to describe situations unique to their personal experiences. The discussions related heavily to Hersey and Blanchard position that states, “There is no single all-purpose leadership style. What is appropriate in each case depends on the follower (or subordinate) and the task to be performed” (pg. 36). Leader A and B both describe their leadership as having a consistent approach; however, that approach took in to consideration several important factors, the person or people with whom they were working with, the importance of the situation at hand and the decision-making methodology that took in to consideration ethical implications, most often utilizing utilitarian ideology. Probing in to the perception of the leaders was the first step to beginning to assess their leadership approaches. Byron Finman’s work titled “An Investigation of the Relationships Among Supervisory Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outputs: An Examination of Theory Y” was a useful resource. In his work, Finman (1973) concludes that “if one accepts the assumptions about human behavior known as Theory Y, then effective performance becomes a function of utilizing appropriate methods of control and organization to allow for an integration of the goals of the worker and the goals of the organization” (pg. 95). Leader A and B hold the same perception regarding subordinate behavior; both believe that people try their best each day. However, Leader A noted that, to some degree, employees lose focus and require additional motivation. This is where leadership steps in, serving as a reminder of the collective goal of the organization and appealing to the needs of the employee. Leaders A and B had very similar responses to what motivates people, citing intrinsic and extrinsic factors. William Kahn (1990) would describe the discrepancies in motivational factors as personal engagement and personal disengagement, which references “the behaviors by which people bring in or leave out their personal selves during work role performances” (pg. 694). Kahn’s view of the varying factors that affects motivation was shared in the anecdotes presented by Leaders A and B. The leaders presented a resoundingly similar response stating that lack of consistency and indecisiveness were demotivating factors from their perspectives. Going further, to some degree, the discussion hovered around John P. Kotter’s (1995) principles presented in his work regarding change, in which a leader, in order to maintain motivation, creates a “sense of urgency” to propel subordinates towards a desired opportunity or goal (pg. 60-62). Leader B noted that “the embarrassment of doing a bad job” could be, at

39

times, a motivating factor in itself. Again, this is situational as Leaders A and B believed that not all employees are motivated by results. In order to clarify the interpretation of what consistency meant to the leaders, I asked each of them to provide their own definition of the word. Leader B stated, “consistency is knowing everyone is a little different and that each approach can adapt.” This position correlates with that posed by R.J. House when he stated that a leader’s effectiveness increases when “they complement the environment in which their subordinates work by providing the necessary cognitive clarifications to ensure that subordinates expect that they can attain work goals” (pg. 323). Leader A also shares this definition stating, “Good leaders accept that there is not one way to motivate” and instead, focus their time on modeling behaviors and communicating goals. During the interview, the leaders identified with the definition that leadership is motivating people towards a goal while taking in to consideration their unique personalities and situations; however, both agreed that modeling behavior is an important factor of leadership, especially as it reflects consistency in character. Each situational theory, whether posed by Vroom, Jago, Hersey, Blanchard or House, describes leadership as a process. Process implies that adaptation should occur as leaders encounter variances. Gary Yukl (1999) elaborates on this point stating: Adaptation is increased by gathering and interpreting information about the environment, identifying core competencies that provide a competitive advantage, developing effective strategies, promoting a favorable image of the organization and its products, gaining cooperation and support from outsiders, and using political tactics to implement change. (pg. 285). This is the common thread between the two interviews. The leaders, on the surface, have differing personalities that traditional theories, for example trait, transactional and transformational, would imply impacts their leadership approach; however, what was discovered contradicts this assumption. Both leaders utilize resoundingly similar processes when it comes to their leadership, which takes in to consideration situation, people, outcome, strategy and rewards as well as factors such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Implications Situational leaders are defined by their decision-making processes. As Vroom (2000) indicates in his article, this involves two issues, determining potential solutions and who to include in the process (pg. 83). Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1986) elaborates on this by stating, “Successful leaders understand themselves, the people they are dealing with, and the company and broader social environment in which they operate” (pg. 129). From this stems the argument regarding style. According to Vroom this is where “theories of decision making intersect with theories of leadership style” (2000, pg. 83). Conventional theories categorize leadership based off leader traits or personality, implying that those who do not have those specific traits or certain personality types are unlikely to become effective leaders (Stogdill, 1950, pg. 2). Leaders A and B have contrasting traits and personalities; however, both leaders have successfully lead their respective teams towards achievements of shared goals. These goals often stretched the perceived limitations of their subordinates as well as affiliated organizations. The conclusion from observing their successes and investigating their processes is that they were able to

40

achieve such great success was because they were consistently able to adapt according to the situation at hand, meeting challenge head-on and utilizing a decision-making process that was proven because of fundamental foundations, such as education and experience. Although other leadership styles and approaches have had short-term success, the longevity of leadership effectiveness requires that the leader be able to adapt when confronting the various situations they will encounter. As John P. Kotter (1988) states in his book The Leadership Factor, The word ‘leadership’ is used in two basic ways in everyday conversation: (1) to refer to the process of moving a group (or groups) of people in some direction through (mostly) non-coercive means, and (2) to refer to people who are in roles where leadership (the first definition) is expected. (pg. 16). This is an important distinction because “Without clarity on the meaning of leadership, people fail to develop the right skill” (Kotter, 1999, pg. 18). Therefore, this process should be encouraged and developed to create an effective situational leader. Further implications of this investigation proves that this process involves three parts: relationships, qualities and skills. According to James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2012), “Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow” (pg. 30). In order to foster this relationship, leaders should focus on the qualities that follower’s desire. After surveying residents over six continents, Kouzes and Posner indicate that followers heavily favor leaders who are “honest, forward- looking, competent, [and] inspiring” (pg. 35). Therefore, these qualities must become the core values of the leader. The skills that a leader must possess must be well rounded so that he or she can adequately address a variety of situations. Situational leaders must polish their skills at each level of leadership they encounter. A survey of “332,860 bosses, peers, and subordinates” initiated by Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman investigated this topic (2014). According to their findings, the top ten skills leaders need most are: • inspires and motivates others; • displays high integrity and honesty; • solves problems and analyzes issues; • drives for results; • communicates powerfully and prolifically; • collaborates and promotes teamwork; • builds relationships; displays technical or professional expertise; • displays a strategic perspective; • develops others. To foster effective situational leaders, organizations should invest in their people, allowing them to seek out education and empowering them to participate in a variety of experiences. This is how the leaders interviewed in this paper are able to have such great successes in their careers. Both leaders have education, experience and have invested themselves in the qualities that made them effective, no matter what situation they encountered. This exemplifies what Steven Covey suggests in his working titled The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, “To focus on technique is like cramming your way through school. You sometimes get

41

by, perhaps even get good grades, but if you don’t pay the price day in and day out, you never achieve true mastery of the subjects you study or develop an educated mind” (1990, pg. 20). Leaders must make leading their habit, learning the knowledge, skills and required abilities to create an efficient process. References Associated Press (2013). “Hank Biesiot to hang up whistle.” Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/espn/print?id=10011895&type=story. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40. “Bio” (2015). Retrieved from http://deboradragseth.blogspot.com/p/dr.html Covey, S. (1990). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful lessons in personal change. New York: Simon and Schuster. Dragseth, D. and Cordery S. (2012). “Hank Biesiot.” Rough Rider Leadership: Theodore Roosevelt and Winning in the Big Game of Business. Dickinson, North Dakota. Dickinson State University. “Dr. Debora Dragseth” (2015). Retrieved from http://newgeography.com/users/debora- dragseth. Finman, B. G. (1973). An Investigation of the Relationships Among Supervisory Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outputes: An Examination of Theory Y. Personal Psychology, 26(1), 95- 105. “Henry Biesiot Activities Center” (2012). Retrieved from http://www.dickinsonstate.edu /divisions/finance-and-administration/bac/inside_the_bac/henrybiesiot. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1982). Leadership Style: Attitudes and Behaviors. Training and Development Journal, 36(5), 50-52. House, R. J. (1996, Fall96). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly. p. 323. Irgens, O. M. (1995, February). Situational leadership: a modification of Hersey and Blanchard's model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16(2), 36+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA16939909&v=2.1&u=ndacad_58601zndi&it=r&p=PRO F&sw=w&asid=afac916927685feee7618dad3d52c232 Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. Kolpack, J. (2013). “DSU’s Biesiot resigns after 38 years.” Retrieved from http”//bismarcktribune.com/sports/local/dsu-s-biesiot-resigns-sfter- years/article_80c97302. Kotter, J.P. (1999). John Kotter on What Leaders Really Do. New York: Free Press. Kotter, J.P. (1988). The Leadership Factor. New York: Free Press.

42

Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (2012). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint. Neal, A., Yeo, G., Koy, A., & Xiao, T. (2012). Predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 175-192. doi:10.1002/job.742 Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power play: Acquiring real clout - the kind that helps you get stuff done - requires bare-knuckle strategies.(Spotlight on the Effective Organization). Harvard Business Review, 88(7 8), 84. Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47(1), 1-14. doi:10.1037/h0053857 Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W.H. (1986). How to choose a leadership pattern. (excerpts from previous article). Harvard Business Review, 64, 129. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The Role of the Situation in Leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24. Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the Decision-Making Process. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82-94. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285. Zenger, J. and Folkman, J. (2014). The Skills Leaders Need at Every Level. Harvard Business Review.

43

Appendix A List 1.0: Exploratory Leadership Interview Paper: leadership questionnaire 1. What made you choose your profession? 2. What was/is the most fulfilling part of your career? 3. If you were/did not choose this field, what do you think you would have done? 4. What motivates you to achieve your goals? 5. What is the best piece of advice you were ever given? 6. Who were the mentors that positively impacted your career and why were you drawn to them? 7. What are the core values that you believe have been helpful in your role as a leader? 8. What process do you utilize when you need to make a difficult decision? 9. Does your leadership approach stay consistent or does it vary given the situation? 10. What do you believe would be the one word people would use to describe your leadership style? 11. What do you think motivates people to achieve their goals? 12. What do you think demotivates people towards the achievement of their goals? 13. What was your biggest challenge in your career? How did you overcome it? Looking back now, would you change anything about how you handled it? 14. Describe a situation in your career where your plans worked out almost as you had planned them. What was your role? How did this make you feel? 15. In your opinion, do you find one or both of the following statements to be a representation of the people you have lead: • People try their best each day • People often cut corners and need constant supervision 16. In your opinion, do you find one or both of the following statements to be a representation of the people you have lead: • Respect is earned • Respect is given until proven otherwise 17. In your opinion, which do you find more appealing: • Many people liking you • Many people respecting you 18. In your opinion, do you find one or both of the following statements to be true: • There are situations in which we need to rely on one another to contribute in order to make an informed decision • There are situations in which someone needs to make a decision based off of their education and experience so we can move forward 19. In your opinion, are one or more of the following statements a good fit to the leadership definition you relate to: • Leadership is telling people what to do and how to achieve a goal • Leadership is teaching others how to lead in order to achieve a goal

44

• Leadership is motivating people towards a goal while taking in to consideration their unique personalities and situations • Leadership is inspiring people to work together by modeling effective behaviors that results in goal achievement 20. I feel I will have succeeded in life if _________________________.

Copyright of Leadership & Organizational Management Journal is the property of Franklin Publishing Company and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.