help with disc (6) due in72 hours

combs

03CH_Warrick_Leadership.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >help with disc (6) due in72 hours

Part II Leadership Theories

CHAPTER 3 Foundational Leadership Theories 3.1 Leadership Theory Development

3.2 Trait Theories

3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

Chapter Summary

CHAPTER 4 Modern Leadership Theories and Transformational Leadership

4.1 Recent Views of Leadership: Servant, Positive, and Principle Centered

4.2 Charismatic Leadership

4.3 Defining Transformational Leadership

4.4 Developing Transformational Leaders

Chapter Summary

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 65 3/3/16 11:31 AM

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 66 3/3/16 11:31 AM

3 Foundational Leadership Theories

Wavebreak Media/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Note the impact of history and research methods on leadership theory development. • Apply the concepts from the trait theories that improve leadership practices. • Acknowledge the use of differing leadership styles. • Adjust or adapt a leadership style to fit a situation or contingency.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 67 3/3/16 11:31 AM

Introduction

Indra Nooyi, CEO and board chairman of PepsiCo, serves as a prime example of strong leadership.

A person of many gifts, Nooyi played cricket as a college student. Later, she played lead guitar in an all-women rock band in her hometown of Madras, India, and now, presiding over 185,000 employees in nearly 200 countries as the chief executive of PepsiCo., she sings karaoke at corporate gatherings and company functions.

Former Pepsi employee Steven Reinemund, now the dean of business schools at Wake Forest University, states that Nooyi is “a deeply caring person” who “can relate to people from the boardroom to the front line” (U.S. News & World Report, 2008). Her five Cs of leadership are competency, cour- age, confidence, communication skills, and compass (Namin-Hedayati, 2015). Of these, communication has been extremely valuable to Nooyi. She maintains a blog at Pepsi where she talks to her employees via posts every other week. She writes letters to their parents to thank them for their children.

Namin-Hedayati (2015, para. 3) notes that “[r]elationship-building may not be part of Indra’s five C’s of leadership, but it is certainly one of her strengths.” Nooyi her- self notes, “Leadership is hard to define and good leadership even harder. But if you can get people to follow you to the ends of the earth, you are a great leader.” Others suggest that she is demanding, but realistic: “I wouldn’t ask anyone to do any- thing I wouldn’t do myself ” (Snyder, 2015, para. 7).

CEO Nooyi goes beyond communication and relationship building. Over the years she has been able to imprint her values on the company. “People these days are bringing their prin- ciples to their purchasing,” she once said. “We, in return, are bringing a purpose to our per- formance.” Nooyi has been vocal about the importance of health. She said that it’s up to Pepsi to help solve “one of the world’s biggest public health challenges, a challenge fundamentally linked to our industry: obesity” (Snyder, 2015, para. 4). For many years, Nooyi has been in tune with consumers’ needs for healthier snack and drink options, which has led to transfor- mation in Pepsi’s product line. Her vision was to produce both wholesome foods and depend- able profits.

Graham Crouch/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Indra Nooyi, chief executive officer of PepsiCo Inc. in 2011.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 68 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.1 Leadership Theory Development

Indra Nooyi leads with distinct principles. Her key slogan is “Performance with purpose.” “We ought to keep pushing the boundaries to get to flawless execution. Flawless is the ulti- mate goal,” she notes (Snyder, 2015, para. 2). The example she provides sets the stage for this chapter: an examination of the earliest theories of leadership. These in turn have built the foundation for modern leadership theory. In this chapter, we will examine leadership theory development first, and then we will look in depth at the trait approach to leadership, style or behavioral theories, and finally the situational/contingency theories.

3.1 Leadership Theory Development

We all have theories that direct the way we think and act. A theory is a set of ideas, principles, propositions, or assumptions we use to understand and explain something. We form theories to make sense of things and guide our behavior. Theories are important in understanding and practicing leadership as they provide insight into what leadership scholars and practitio- ners think about leadership. Leaders who are not familiar with the major theories on leader- ship are left to formulate their own thinking without the benefit of knowing what leadership scholars have devoted many years to discovering. Some leaders may be naturally gifted with the right instincts about leadership. However, without sound theories, most will be incon- sistent in their practices or will have flawed theories that lead to ineffective and sometimes harmful practices.

The exploits and achievements of great leaders have been documented in writings dating far back into history. Exceptional military leaders, governmental officials, and business manag- ers have been noted in the books such as the Bible, The Art of War, and in other ancient docu- ments for centuries. Managerial leadership theory, however, does not have quite as lengthy a history. Two primary forces explain the relatively recent emergence of leadership theories: the role of history in management literature and the development of more sophisticated research techniques.

Historical Influences

To study history involves more than simply reciting past dates and the names of notable fig- ures and major events. Instead, an historical analysis should be designed to understand the impact of events at any given time on the culture and activities of those in that era as well as how those events influence the world today. In the case of management theory, a review of the nature of the economic, political, social, and technological factors present at any given time help explain the development and evolution of various approaches to our understanding of leadership.

In that context, the first theories we will examine in this chapter focus on the traits and char- acteristics of successful leaders. During the era of these theories, which was primarily the late 1800s, the dominant force in business was the Industrial Revolution. New manufacturing techniques emerged, and for the first time workers reported to a factory in order to do their jobs, rather than working at home. The business world was relatively unregulated; conse- quently, many captains of industry emerged as giants who were able to build large empires,

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 69 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.1 Leadership Theory Development

such as Henry Ford, the Rockefellers, and Andrew Carnegie. Legends and stories dominated the study of leadership.

World War II introduced many new elements. Governmental regulations of commerce had grown; workers and consumers enjoyed greater rights and protections, and the economy had experienced the Great Depression. Due to the influence of the war, a greater emphasis on understanding quality leadership evolved. At the same time, a changing workforce was grow- ing: one that included an increasing number of women. Not surprisingly, a shift away from the study of traits and characteristics took place as researchers and theorists noticed differences in leader style and focus.

By 1960, the environment surrounding the study of leadership had once again changed. Pre- vious ideas about leadership evolved. The civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the emergence of a greater degree of international competition altered the business world along with other elements of society. An increasingly educated populous encountered a new working environment in which positions in service industries increasingly replaced manufac- turing jobs. A more diverse workforce created demands for greater insight into the nature of leadership and how it connects to both personal and organizational outcomes.

In this chapter and the next, we will explore the theories that were developed and presented over time. It helps to remember the time period in which each of these models was developed. The theories did not evolve in a vacuum. They were part of the historical era in which they were conceived.

Impact of Research

The growth in quality of research techniques has also strongly influenced leadership theory. The early traits and characteristics studies took place when our understanding of statistical analysis was relatively limited. Consequently, research techniques at the time were rudimen- tary, often involving case studies and colloquial evidence.

As the World War II era unfolded, the ability to study leadership using innovative techniques had blossomed. Many of these studies utilized correlations and descriptive statistics (per- centages, quartiles, deciles). Observational studies, interviews, and basic questionnaires played major roles in the manner in which researchers studied leadership.

In the 1960s, the entry of the United States into the space race, accompanied by the devel- opment of computer technology, allowed for an entirely new and more sophisticated set of statistical techniques. Going beyond phrases such as “correlation does not indicate causa- tion,” researchers became able to use more advanced methods including both parametric and nonparametric statistical techniques. These allow for the study of multiple independent vari- ables combined together to predict various personal and organizational outcomes, along with greater confidence regarding the concept of “causation.”

As a result, these increasingly eloquent methods of research design have assisted the study of leadership. Again, it helps to note the time period in which every theory you see in this book was created. Then, consider the level of statistical sophistication available to the author who developed that theory.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 70 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.2 Trait Theories

3.2 Trait Theories

The trait theories are among the earliest systematic efforts to study leadership. Trait theo- ries of leadership include the search for the distinguishing qualities and characteristics that successful leaders display. These might include mental characteristics such as intelligence, integrity, confidence, and other personality characteristics; physical characteristics such as strength or stamina, social characteristics including the ability to influence others and socia- bility, and communication skills such as empathy plus talent in the area of public speaking.

Great Man or Trait Theory

The earliest trait studies took place in the late 1800s and early 1900s and continue today. The first approach was to study great leaders such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Joan of Arc, and Abra- ham Lincoln in the attempt to identify common traits among them. To this day, many people assume that individuals become effective leaders due to personal characteristics such as cha- risma or communication skills. Recent examples of this type of thinking include reflections on the leadership abilities of President Ronald Reagan and President Barack Obama, both of whom exhibited exceptional public speaking skills.

We can find two common underlying themes in the trait theory approach. First, the ability to lead applies across situations. An effective leader in one organization would also succeed if moved to a new and different situation. Second, if leadership is transferable across situations, then all effective leaders would have or demonstrate some “universal” traits or characteris- tics, or the common elements among all “great men” (leaders). The original goal of great man or trait theory was to identify such universal personality features. Later, other studies sought to identify differences between leaders and followers as well as the actual results associated with various traits present in successful leaders.

Ralph Stogdill conducted some of the best-known early studies of leadership traits (Stogdill, 1948, 1974). The first, published in 1948, includes an analysis of synthesis of more than 124 trait studies that took place between 1904 and 1947. He identified eight traits that charac- terized those in a leadership role that differed from those in non-leadership roles. The traits were intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, and sociability. Stogdill concluded that a leader’s traits must fit the situation for the leader to be successful. His second study was published twenty-six years later in 1974. In that analysis, 163 new studies were compared with the results of his first study. The second study validated

Self-Reflection Questions

1. Which element—economic, political, or social/cultural—do you think has had the most profound impact on the development of leadership theory? Explain your response.

2. Is it possible that the moment in history (war versus peace; depression versus boom economy) will influence the type of leader who will be successful? Why or why not?

3. Do you believe that more sophisticated statistical methods should result in entirely new theories of leadership, or rather that there should be some fundamental “truths” regarding the activity? Defend your answer.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 71 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.2 Trait Theories

the importance of a leader’s characteristics in achieving success and added items such as the need for achievement, persistence, cooperativeness, tolerance, and influence.

Based on an evaluation of more than 1,400 studies, Mann (1959) concluded that six traits or characteristics were most often present in successful leaders: intelligence, masculinity, adjust- ment, dominance, extraversion, and conservatism. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) published a study that identified six common leadership traits: drive, motivation, integrity, confidence, cognitive ability, and task knowledge.

It became evident as the studies became more sophisticated that a potential link exists between the traits present and the situation in which they were being applied. In other words, the traits that work in one situation may not be suited for another. More recent theories com- pared leadership traits to personality factors, and others focused on traits such as emotional intelligence and social intelligence as well as traits present in successful business leaders combined with propositions about what it takes to succeed.

Critics of the basic trait approaches to leadership note that, while leaders may in some way be “different” from followers, the specific characteristics identified by individual researchers vary widely. Of the nearly 80 traits identified in various studies, only five can be found in more than four or more research efforts (Geier, 1967; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Zacarro, Foti, & Kennny, 1991). Further, many personal traits are relatively fixed and not subject to a great deal of change, which eliminates the possibility of training someone to become a more effec- tive leader. Also, the trait approaches may explain why a person is selected for promotion but may not be as effective in predicting whether the individual will subsequently become a suc- cessful leader. These objections cast some doubt on the viability of the trait theory approach, especially as it applies to the training and development of future leaders.

Those who value the trait approach suggest that it provides effective guidelines for the selec- tion of leaders. Any person can, on his or her own, work to develop and enhance the traits he or she believes the organization seeks that lead to advancement. Also, the trait approach estab- lished the basis for some of the modern approaches to leader theory described in Chapter 4.

The Big Five Personality Factors

Over the last 25 or so years, a general consensus emerged among researchers that five factors are key features of an individual’s personality (Goldberg, 1990). These elements are known as the Big Five Personality Factors. The factors are displayed in Table 3.1.

In evaluating 78 leadership and personality studies published between 1967 and 1998, Judge and his colleagues (2002) found that extraversion was the most strongly associated with leadership in the sense that the factor was associated with becoming a leader; however, it was less useful as a predictor of leader effectiveness. Conscientiousness and openness were more likely to be associated with actual leader success. Agreeableness had only a weak association with leadership and neuroticism had a low association. The authors concluded that a combi- nation of these factors might increase the likelihood that an individual will become a quality leader.

Table 3.1: The Big Five Personality Factors

Neuroticism: The tendency to have frequent negative emotions; overly sensitive, anxious, insecure, easily depressed, or vulnerable.

Extroversion: Extroverts tend to be outgoing, sociable, energetic, enthusiastic, assertive, and confident. Introverts tend to be timid and reserved.

Openness: The level of openness to new ideas and experiences, curiosity, innovation, thoughtfulness, insight, and creativity.

Agreeableness: The degree of empathy, warmth, compassion, cooperativeness, approachability, acceptance of others, and diplomacy.

Conscientiousness: The level of thoroughness, organization, dependability, self-discipline, and decisiveness.

Source: Based on Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216 – 1229.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 72 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.2 Trait Theories

the importance of a leader’s characteristics in achieving success and added items such as the need for achievement, persistence, cooperativeness, tolerance, and influence.

The Big Five Personality Factors

Table 3.1: The Big Five Personality Factors

Neuroticism: The tendency to have frequent negative emotions; overly sensitive, anxious, insecure, easily depressed, or vulnerable.

Extroversion: Extroverts tend to be outgoing, sociable, energetic, enthusiastic, assertive, and confident. Introverts tend to be timid and reserved.

Openness: The level of openness to new ideas and experiences, curiosity, innovation, thoughtfulness, insight, and creativity.

Agreeableness: The degree of empathy, warmth, compassion, cooperativeness, approachability, acceptance of others, and diplomacy.

Conscientiousness: The level of thoroughness, organization, dependability, self-discipline, and decisiveness.

Source: Based on Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216 – 1229.

Emotional Intelligence

Some of the early trait studies suggest that cognitive intelligence, or IQ, is important to suc- cessful leadership (Judge, Colbert, Amy, & Ilies, 2004). In the 1990s, another kind of intelli- gence, emotional intelligence, or EQ, was introduced as a leader trait that could be linked to eventual success. The term “emotional intelligence” was introduced by Peter Salovey and John Mayer (1990) and popularized by Daniel Goleman (1995).

Emotional intelligence (EQ) refers to a person’s personal and interpersonal awareness, percep- tiveness, and abilities. The two words, emotional and intelligence, suggest that the heart (emo- tions) and the mind (intellect) need to work effectively together for a person to be skilled at self- management and interpersonal relations. In other words, to be emotionally intelligent, a person should be aware of his or her emotions and thought processes while remaining sensitive to the dynamics taking place in interper- sonal relations. This awareness and sensitivity combine to allow the individual to effectively manage his or her behaviors along with interactions with others.

Richard Daft states that being emotionally intelligent means having the ability to effectively manage yourself and your relationships. Morgan Smith, former manager and owner of Bone- heads Restaurant in Lake Forest, California, provides an example. Smith was able to positively influence employees through empathy and respect, which led to a highly successful experi- ence in directing the company. Conversely, a person exhibiting a low EQ would be ineffective at handling personal emotions and would be insensitive to the emotions of others and the dynamics taking place in interpersonal relations.

Moodboard/Thinkstock

Emotional intelligence is linked to success in leadership.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 73 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.2 Trait Theories

Numerous leadership studies indicate that emotional intelligence constitutes a major factor in predicting a leader’s success. For example, one finding suggests that two-thirds of the dif- ference between top-performing and average leaders was due to emotional intelligence (Boy- atzis & Goleman, 2001). Table 3.2 identifies four components of emotional intelligence.

Table 3.2: Components of emotional intelligence

Self-awareness: A self-aware person is cognizant of his or her behaviors and their consequences. Self- awareness makes it possible to manage and improve one’s behavior and skills. Emotional awareness is particularly important, as people who are in touch with their emotions have the choice of managing their emotions and expressing them effectively or letting their emotions manage them and control their behavior and contaminate their thinking.

Self-management: A person who is skilled at self-management is basically a person who operates with a high level of self-control. Such an individual can express emotions of joy, enthusiasm, and affirmations of others appropriately and can restrain themselves from expressing emotions without thinking or from expressing emotions inappropriately. Society sometimes values people who do and say what they feel and tell it like it is without concern for the consequences. Unfortunately, these behaviors often come from people who simply lack self-control and act in rude and disrespectful ways.

Social awareness: A socially aware person is a person who is concerned about and perceptive about the emotions of others and who is also perceptive about the emotional dynamics taking place in groups and organizations. Socially aware people are able to empathize with others, which means that they are sensitive to the feelings, thoughts, and situations of others. These individuals use both their emotional and cognitive skills; this means they are able to remain objective while showing empathy.

Relationship management: A person skilled at relationship management is a person who is able to build positive relationships with others. He or she treats people with respect, compassion, sensitivity, and kind- ness. People who are self-centered, self-focused, need to constantly draw attention to themselves, or who are excessively private and reclusive will have difficulty building positive relationships.

Source: Based on Boyatzis, R. E. and Goleman, D. (2001). The emotional competence inventory. Boston, MA: The Hay Group.

Another stream of research that began in the 1990s studied leadership traits using a different metric. Social intelligence is having capabilities in being socially aware and adept and being aware of one’s own feelings and the feelings of others. An example of the social intelligence studies is one published by Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004) that included traits such as extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, agreeableness, self-monitoring, and problem solving. A number of these traits parallel the traits described in the Big Five Per- sonality studies.

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory is an umbrella term that covers a series of theories. It is based on the con- cept that people differ in how they view the “real world.” Consequently, perceptions hold the key to what people believe they have observed. These observations lead to attributions, or beliefs about cause and effect. A simple attribution is “If I eat right and exercise, I will lose weight.” Remember, however, that an equally plausible attribution is “No matter what I do, I can’t lose weight.” Both are valid attributions because these perceptions are based on an individual’s experience or view of reality.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 74 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Confirmed Attribution

Refuted Attribution

Success Failure

F a

il u

R E

A L

O U

T C

O M

PREDICTION

S u

c c

e s

Refuted Attribution

Confirmed Attribution

Section 3.2 Trait Theories

The attribution model of leadership seeks to discover the cause-effect relationships that apply to leaders or potential leaders. It can be summarized as follows:

1. Every individual has what is essentially an implicit theory of leadership, which represents his or her thoughts about the nature of, and traits displayed by, effective leaders.

2. Individuals constantly test their own theories and attributions. Figure 3.1 displays such a test.

3. If the test is confirmed, as shown in two of the boxes of Figure 3.1, two personal attributions are strengthened: • the individual’s belief about the specific person’s ability to lead or not lead and • the individual’s attribution about the nature of an effective leader.

4. If the test is refuted, as shown in two of the boxes of Figure 3.1, the individual will • modify his/her theory or • ignore the test.

Each individual’s theory of leadership evolves from the observation of behaviors. The behav- iors often reflect leader traits and characteristics. When someone gets promoted to the role of leadership, or elected to a role such as governor or president, or as a high-ranking manager in a company, each person decides if that individual “acts like a leader.” Over time, evidence will surface as to whether the individual was a success or failure. As shown in Figure 3.1, those who predicted success and observe success experience confirmed attributions. Those who predicted failure and observe failure also experience confirmed attributions. They then believe they were right about the person involved as well as their understanding of leadership.

When a test does not reveal accurate results, the attribu- tion is refuted. The person will then either modify his or her own personal theory to account for new circumstances or simply ignore the results of the test. As an example, think about the most recent presi- dential election. You probably studied the two candidates and concluded one was the bet- ter choice because that indi- vidual appeared to be the most “presidential,” based on the person’s traits and characteris- tics. If your choice was elected, 4 years would pass and then you would be able to pass judg- ment. If you predicted that your president would be successful and the country did well during his/her administration, then a

Figure 3.1: Test of an attribution

If the test is confirmed, two personal attributions are strengthened. If the test is refuted, the individual will modify his or her theory or ignore the test.

Confirmed Attribution

Refuted Attribution

Success Failure

F a

il u

R E

A L

O U

T C

O M

PREDICTION

S u

c c

e s

Refuted Attribution

Confirmed Attribution

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 75 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.2 Trait Theories

confirmed attribution would lead you to say, “I was right about the traits and characteristics a president needs, and I was right when I chose my candidate because he/she had those traits and characteristics.”

Conversely, if your candidate won but experienced failure over the next 4 years, then the test of your idea was refuted. In that instance, you would either modify your views about what is needed to become a successful president or ignore the case, possibly by saying, “It was Con- gress’s fault he/she couldn’t get anything done.”

On the other hand, if the other candidate won, you would predict failure because the can- didate did not display the traits and characteristics you thought were needed. If that candi- date did indeed fail, another confirmed attribution took place. If, however, the candidate suc- ceeded, you would be in the same situation: modify your views on what is needed to become a successful president or ignore the case, attributing the success to luck or some other variable.

The attribution model helps us understand who is most likely to be promoted or moved into a leadership role and who is perceived as having characteristics of a successful leader, espe- cially if that leader was the person being replaced. Unfortunately, many characteristics associ- ated with effective leadership have no basis in fact. Height, attractiveness, gender, race, and other traits have already been discounted as universal leadership qualities (Meyers, 1990).

Evaluating and Integrating the Trait Theories

The trait theories have had an interesting history. They were the earliest theories that leader- ship scholars formally investigated. At times some scholars have dismissed them as inconclu- sive because quality leaders do not always exhibit the same traits. As it became apparent that differing traits were required for specific situations and new approaches to studying leader- ship traits have emerged, the fact remains that trait research continues to this day.

Trait theories have proven valuable for the following reasons. First, some believe certain fun- damental traits provide a broad framework for selecting and training leaders. Second, the trait theories point out the importance of selecting and training leaders for particular jobs, as different jobs may require different traits. Third and finally, trait research has resulted in numerous psychological testing instruments used in selecting and developing leaders. In the final analysis, trait theories may provide some useful information regarding various aspects of personality and their relationships with subsequent success as a leader.

In contrast, others argue that these approaches tend to perpetuate stereotypes, such as the concept that physical size and attractiveness predict leader success. Further, some of the traits and characteristics associated with selection criteria used to choose leaders tend to favor males over females. As noted at the opening of this chapter, a second look at how indi- vidual traits are related to success (and the type of success a leader enjoys) may be in order.

It is unlikely that research on leadership traits will ever produce the ultimate, magical list of traits that describe the best leaders. It is encouraging in a sense that effective leaders come in all types and sizes and that there are no perfect leaders. As good as some leaders are, they all have weaknesses and opportunities to improve. While the multitude of trait studies have not produced an agreed-upon list of traits effective leaders must have, they have produced

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 76 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

enough research to suggest that some traits are advantageous to effective leadership. For example, it is helpful for leaders to rate well on IQ (cognitive intelligence), EQ (emotional intelligence), and SQ (social intelligence). It is important for leaders to have a passion for excellence and to be humble. It is also helpful for leaders to be industrious, dependable, ethi- cal, enthusiastic, and to have good self-control and a drive to succeed.

Self-Reflection Questions

1. What do you believe is the biggest contribution of trait theory? Defend your answer. 2. What is the biggest limitation to this approach? Explain your response. 3. Are there differences between the traits and characteristics required of leaders

at lower ranks in organizations, as opposed to top management and the CEO of a company? Explain your response.

3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

Leadership style theories, which are sometimes called “behavioral theories” due to the focus on leader behaviors rather than traits, have had a long and highly impactful influence on the study of leadership. Leadership style is a term used to describe the manner in which a leader interacts with people and gets things done, including the emphasis the leader places on peo- ple and performance.

Our leadership style is extremely important to our success in our personal and professional life, as our style can build relationships and pave the way for getting things done or it can strain relationships and create obstacles for getting things done. We can have, for example, a facilitative style that creates openness and a willingness to reason together, an abrasive style that shuts down two-way communications and reasoning, or an inconsistent style that con- fuses and keeps people off balance.

We can use the research on the consequences of various styles to predict the results leaders and organizations are likely to get based on the style they use. These theories imply that it is possible to train leaders to become more effective because a person or leader can change or alter his or her behaviors over time.

At the extreme, consider the experience of Paul Allen. When Harvard dropout Bill Gates teamed up with Allen, his high school buddy from Washington State, to start Microsoft, an interesting contrast in leader style emerged. As Allen observed in his memoir, Idea Man, work- ing with Gates was often very difficult. He often bluntly criticized the work of others, some- times using expletives. Allen wrote that the tough taskmaster Gates did not understand why all his employees were not as obsessed with work as he was. In one incident, after a program- mer put in four straight 20-hour days to finish a project, he asked for the day off. Gates was outraged. Eventually Allen stepped down from his role as a co-principal. In resigning, Gates’s friend of 15 years explained that he could “no longer tolerate the brow-beating or ‘tirades,’”

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 77 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

noting that “the verbal attacks you use have cost many hundreds of hours of lost productivity in my case” (Kendall, 2013, para. 12). “Unless the tantrums are balanced with something else, the CEO loses all moral authority,” says Kerry Sulkowicz, head of the workplace consulting firm Boswell Group. “Showing some vulnerability often helps” (Kendall, 2013, para. 17). These observations note the two extremes present in the style or behavioral theories: people- oriented versus production-oriented leadership.

Three original approaches to the study of leader style include the University of Iowa studies, the Ohio State studies, and the University of Michigan studies. Elements of these studies resulted in the develop- ment of Theory X and Theory Y as well as the Leadership Grid. These approaches exhibit a consistent pattern of two inde- pendent variables defining leadership styles. While different studies use differ- ent names, the two variables essentially translate to the emphasis a leader places on performance and people.

The University of Iowa Studies

The earliest studies on leadership styles were conducted at the University of Iowa under the direction of Kurt Lewin and his associates (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Lewin and colleagues based their stud- ies on the assumption that there were two basic leadership styles: autocratic and democratic. Autocratic style lead- ers closely supervise people, make most of the decisions, tell employees what to do, tightly control what is going on, and focus predominantly on performance. Democratic style leaders delegate authority to others, encourage involvement and participation in decision making, treat employees with respect, and work with employees to utilize their capabilities.

Lewin and his associates performed their studies using groups of children who were assigned adult leaders who portrayed either an autocratic or democratic style. Groups with autocratic leaders performed at a high level as long as the leader was present but performance dropped off when the leader was not there. Group members were frustrated with the close supervision and had hostile feelings toward the leader. The groups that had democratic leaders consis- tently performed at about the same high level even when the leader was not present. They also reported more positive feelings toward the leader.

Ramin Talaie/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft Corp., speaks in 2011.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 78 3/3/16 11:32 AM

High Low

L o

w H

ig h

C o

n s id

e ra

ti o

Structure

High Structure

& High

Consideration (Most desirable)

High Structure

& Low

Consideration

Low Structure

& High

Consideration

Low Structure

& Low

Consideration (Least desirable)

Section 3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

The Ohio State Studies

One of the leaders in the trait research, Ralph Stogdill, was also a pioneer in the leadership styles research. In 1945, Stogdill and a team of researchers at Ohio State began research that identified two independent variables that described a leader’s style (Stogdill, 1948). The researchers labeled the two variables initiating structure and consideration. Initiating struc- ture describes the degree to which a leader is task oriented and directs the work of employ- ees toward achieving goals. The leader does so by planning, scheduling activities, organizing work, defining member roles, assigning tasks, and pushing for performance through cri- tique and advice. Consideration measures the degree to which a leader is people oriented and establishes rapport, two-way communication, mutual respect, and understanding with employees. The leader does this by respecting the ideas and feelings of employees, showing appreciation, seeking input regarding important decisions, and establishing mutual trust.

Considering the degree to which a leader uses initiating structure and consideration forms a grid with four leadership styles, as displayed in Figure 3.2.

Studies on the effectiveness of the four styles have yielded varying results. The most consistent results indicate that leaders who rate high on both initiating structure and consideration tend to be the most effective leaders, and leaders who rate low on both are the least effec- tive (Halpin & Winer, 1957).

The University of Michigan Studies

During about the same time period as the Ohio State studies, a team of research- ers at the University of Michigan studied leadership effectiveness by comparing the behavior of effective and ineffective leaders as determined by the productiv- ity of a leader’s group (Cartwright & Zan- der, 1960; Bowers & Seashore, 1966). Their findings were similar to those pres- ent in the Ohio State studies. They sug- gest that a leader’s style could be defined by the terms “production-centered” and “employee- centered.” Production-centered describes the extent to which a leader is focused on getting the job done by closely directing the activities required to accomplish tasks, achieve efficiency, and reach goals. Employee-centered describes the degree to which a leader looks out for the welfare and human needs of employees and builds good relationships with employees and positive interactions among employees.

Figure 3.2: Relationship between initiating structure and consideration

High Low

L o

w H

ig h

C o

n s id

e ra

ti o

Structure

High Structure

& High

Consideration (Most desirable)

High Structure

& Low

Consideration

Low Structure

& High

Consideration

Low Structure

& Low

Consideration (Least desirable)

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 79 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

At first, a key difference between the Ohio State and Michigan studies involved the relation- ship between a production-oriented (initiating structure) and employee-centered (consid- eration) style. The Ohio State team concluded that a leader could exhibit both styles and in fact that doing so might result in the highest levels of effectiveness. In contrast, the Michigan researchers viewed the two styles as ends on a continuum. The more production oriented a leader becomes, the less that leader will focus on people, and vice versa. Later the Michigan team refined their conclusions to more closely align with Ohio State—that a leader could exhibit both behaviors in the same situation (Northhouse, 1997).

One of the significant findings from the University of Michigan studies was that employees could complete many of the tasks that leaders normally carry out. During this period of time, the University of Michigan studies along with many of the other studies led to a better under- standing of the value of employee involvement and utilizing more of the potential of employ- ees. This led to a greater emphasis on a more participative style of leadership.

Theory X and Theory Y

In 1960 Douglas McGregor published a widely acclaimed book, The Human Side of Enterprise. In the book, McGregor proposed two “companion” or contrasting theories regarding leader- ship. He based the two styles on the principle that a leader’s assumptions about people deter- mine his or her treatment and leadership of people (see Table 3.3).

Theory X leaders hold negative assumptions about their followers. They assume that people are basically lazy, dislike work, avoid responsibility, prefer direction, cannot be trusted, and are self-seeking. Based on these assumptions, Theory X leaders use an autocratic approach to leading people and rely on close supervision and tight controls to motivate people to perform at a high level. They plan, organize, direct, and control the efforts of those they lead and keep somewhat of a distance between themselves and those they lead.

Theory Y leaders hold positive assumptions about their subordinates or followers. They assume that people enjoy and desire meaningful work, will work hard to accomplish worth- while goals, and will seek responsibility when valued for doing so. They believe that most people are underutilized and desire to learn and grow. Based on these assumptions, Theory Y leaders use a participative approach to leading people by involving them in making decisions; delegating as much responsibility as people are capable of handling; and doing their best to motivate, develop, and unleash the potential that people have. They develop close personal relationships with their people and do whatever they can to help people succeed.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 80 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

Table 3.3: Theory X and Theory Y

Theory X Assumptions About People

Theory Y Assumptions About People

Dislike work and want as little as possible to do

Basically lazy and not self-motivated

Not naturally industrious

Avoid responsibility

Prefer being directed

Self-seeking

Primarily motivated by money and external factors

Enjoy and desire meaningful work

Will work hard to accomplish important tasks

Capable of being industrious and creative

Seek responsibility and opportunities to learn and grow

Prefer autonomy and being self-directing

Willing to make sacrifices to accomplish goals

Primarily intrinsically motivated by challenging work

Leadership Practices Leadership Practices

Make the important decisions and tell people what to do

Plan, organize, direct, and control the work of employees

Closely monitor and manage the work of employees to keep them productive

Use power, authority, disciplinary measures, and external methods such as pay to keep people motivated

Don’t get too close to employees so you can retain control

Involve employees in the decision-making process

Delegate as much responsibility as possible to employees

Provide meaningful and challenging work and most employees will be productive and perform at a high level

To keep employees motivated, treat them fairly and provide opportunities for them to learn, grow, and develop their potential

Know your employees and develop good relationships

Source: Based on McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Some evidence suggests that the assumptions that a leader makes tend to create a self- fulfilling prophecy. Research regarding the Pygmalion effect proposes that the leader’s attitudes toward and expectations of followers, and his or her treatment of them, explain and predict follower behaviors and performance (Livingston (1979). In other words, if you assume the worst about people, you will see the worst and bring out the worst in people and conclude that you were right about your assumptions. The Pygmalion effect further reinforces the importance of hav- ing a sound fundamental theory about leadership, as the theory often creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that a leader may not have the awareness to correct.

Joshua Kendall’s recent analysis has resurrected discussion of Theory X and Theory Y in a new light. Kendall argues, “The temper tantrum has not only become a fixture in corporate America, but it has been central to the management style of many of technology’s most successful CEOs— namely Steve Jobs [Apple], Bill Gates [Microsoft] and Larry Ellison [Oracle]” (2013, para. 14). He suggests that when handled appropriately a rough edge can even be beneficial to employees and the overall company. Kendall writes that “[t]he most successful tech titans, past and pres- ent, including Henry Heinz, have had a temper—and it isn’t always a bad thing” (para. 1).

This stands in contrast to what had been prevailing wisdom. W. Edwards Deming, the man who brought quality management practices to the United States, consulting with major com- panies such as Ford and AT&T, expressed the belief that to increase efficiency, companies needed to “drive out fear” in workers. The most acclaimed leaders, sometimes referred to as “caretaker CEOs,” created congenial and pleasant workplaces.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 81 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Only people oriented

(Country Club Management)

(1,9)

Effective leader (Team Management)

(9,9)

Poor leader (Impoverished Management)

(1,1)

Only production oriented

(Authority-Compliance) (9,1)

Production Oriented

P e o

p le

O ri

e n

te d

Compromise (Middle-Of-The-Road

Management) (5,5)

Section 3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

Once again, the role of the situation may create a powerful circumstance in which some lead- ers will succeed and others will fail, utilizing exactly the same style. As noted in Chapter 1, the outcome appears to be the result of the interactions among the leader, the followers, and the situation. Those employees who can withstand the pressure and stress of a highly autocratic and production-oriented leader may be able to achieve at their highest levels as a result (Ken- dall, 2013).

Leadership Grid

In 1964, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton of the University of Texas offered a leadership training technique that they labeled the Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964). The original model was updated in 1978 and 1985, and then in 1991 was renamed the Leadership Grid. The approach builds on the Ohio State and Michigan State studies and includes a model shown in Figure 3.3. The Leadership Grid begins with two dimensions titled “Concern for Production” and “Concern for People.” The two variables once again create a grid with four leadership styles except that a fifth style that falls in the middle of the grid is added. Figure 3.3 displays the five leadership styles and their relationships to the managerial grid.

Poor leader (Impoverished Management) (1,1) A 1,1 style leader has a low concern for performance and people. These are leaders who do enough to get by and provide minimal, if any, leadership.

Only production oriented (Authority-Compliance) (9,1) A 9,1 style means that a leader has a high concern for performance and a low concern for peo- ple. These individuals are results-oriented leaders who are preoccupied with

Figure 3.3: The leadership grid

Effective leaders have both concern for people and concern for production.

Adapted from Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1964). The management grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing and Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1985). The managerial grid III: The key to leadership excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.

Only people oriented

(Country Club Management)

(1,9)

Effective leader (Team Management)

(9,9)

Poor leader (Impoverished Management)

(1,1)

Only production oriented

(Authority-Compliance) (9,1)

Production Oriented

P e o

p le

O ri

e n

te d

Compromise (Middle-Of-The-Road

Management) (5,5)

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 82 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

high productivity, efficiency, and bottom-line results but show little concern for the welfare of their people. People, like machines, are production tools to be used and moved around to get the job done.

Only people oriented (Country Club Management) (1,9) A 1,9 style indi- cates a leader with a low concern for performance and a high concern for peo- ple. Country club leaders take excellent care of their people and are very warm and friendly. They treat employees with respect and involve them in what is going on. In their efforts to produce harmony and a happy work environment, they are reluctant to push for performance or hold people accountable.

Compromise (Middle-of-the-Road Management) (5,5) A 5,5 style leader has an average concern for performance and people. The person will do enough to get acceptable performance and have a decent relationship with employees but will avoid pushing too hard or getting too involved. This type of leader also tends to rely on manipulation and playing politics.

Effective leader (Team Management) (9,9) A 9,9 style means that a leader has a high concern for performance and people. These leaders are very results- oriented individuals who also treat employees with respect. They believe that the best results come from committed people working together with relation- ships of trust and respect to achieve common goals. The goal of team manage- ment is to create conditions that promote creativity, high productivity, high morale, and teamwork.

Blake and Mouton argue that the 9,9 team management leadership style is the most effective in most situations and that behavioral science research consistently concludes that this style achieves the best results (Blake & Mouton, 1978). They developed training protocols designed to enhance the abilities of the less effective styles. An authority-compliance (9,1) style leader would receive training in “people” skills. A country club manager should learn the importance of productivity. Middle-of-the-road managers require assertiveness and decisiveness train- ing. The impoverished manager may be better off being reassigned or even demoted.

Evaluating and Integrating the Leader Style/Behavioral Theories

The leadership style theories have played an integral role in the development of leadership theory. The consistent finding that a leader’s style is a function of the emphasis the leader places on performance and people, that the combination of the two variables leads to four major leadership styles, that each style has reasonably predictable consequences, and that a leader can be both performance and people oriented is very important to understanding leadership. A leader’s style facilitates or creates obstacles to working with people and getting things done. How a leader does things can be as important as what a leader does. It is very important for leaders to understand their dominant leadership style and the strengths and weaknesses of their style.

Sorting through the different terms and how they are defined and developing a clear under- standing of the leadership styles approach can pose challenges. Figure 3.4 integrates the best lessons from the styles theories into one model that provides an understanding of the four

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 83 3/3/16 11:32 AM

High

Human Relations Style Places a low emphasis on performance and a high emphasis on people. Very warm, caring, and attentive to people’s needs but reluctant to hold people accountable and push for results. Tends to create permissive environment that relies on involvement, teamwork, and inputs from people but avoids confronting problems and conflict. The goal is to maintain harmony at any cost.

High Performance Style Places a high emphasis on both performance and people. Very results oriented but also excels at valuing, motivating, developing, and fully utilizing people. Strives to create a well-organized and challenging work environment with clear goals and responsibilities and a culture that values openness, innovation, involvement, teamwork, continuous improvements, and commitment to excellence. Treats people as equals and creates a sense of ownership by all for achieving the desired results.

Autocratic Style Places a high emphasis on performance and a low emphasis on people. Very task oriented but not very people oriented. Tends to dominate most situations and relies on power, control, manipulation, and hard work to achieve the desired results with minimal apparent concern for the needs or ideas of others. Has difficulty giving up control and involving or empowering others. Rarely gives compliments but is quick to point out weakness. While well intended, gives the impression of “my way or the highway”.

Laissez-Faire Style Places a low emphasis on performance and people. Provides minimal direction, attention to people’s needs, and accountability. Abdicates responsibility for leading, developing and caring for his or her people, and leaves people to make their own choices with inadequate information and guidance. Tends to be noncommittal and avoids making tough decisions or addressing problems or conflicts.

Low

Low Emphasis on Performance

E m

p h

a s

is o

n P

e o

p le

Section 3.3 Style or Behavioral Theories

basic leadership styles and their likely consequences. It should be noted that in Figure 3.4 the term “high performance” rather than “democratic” is used to describe a leader that places a strong emphasis on both performance and people.

A person’s leadership style may be the most fundamental criterion for being an effective leader. There are many things that a leader needs to do to be effective. How a leader does things could be as important as what a leader does, and a leader’s style either facilitates or inhibits getting things done.

The behavioral stream of research regarding leadership styles has consistently validated the conclusion that the emphasis a leader places on performance and people determines that leader’s style. While the research on the impact of each style on performance and morale has been somewhat mixed, overall, leaders who place a strong emphasis on both performance and people produce the highest morale and most of the time achieve the best results. Auto- cratic leaders may temporarily push people to higher levels of performance, but they create dissatisfaction and low morale. As a consequence, productivity is likely to eventually drop off.

Laissez-faire leaders may be enjoyable to work for at first because employees have consid- erable freedom and little accountability, but over the long run, employees lose respect for them. Laissez-faire leaders fail to provide direction, which results in lower productivity and decreased morale. Human relations leaders are effective at creating a warm and friendly, supportive, and country-club-like work environment, but their lack of focus on performance is likely to cause the groups they lead to underutilize their potential and to result in some employees taking advantage of the leader’s need to be a people pleaser and avoid conflict.

Figure 3.4: Leadership styles and their consequences

There are four leadership styles that vary based on their emphasis on performance and people.

High

Low

Low Emphasis on Performance

E m

p h

a s

is o

n P

e o

p le

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 84 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

In summary, a person’s leadership style may determine subsequent outcomes related to a leader’s personal and professional life. An effective leader may demonstrate a style designed to build relationships and pave the way for getting things done or may strain relationships and create obstacles for getting things done. A leader can emphasize, for example, a facilita- tive style that creates openness and the willingness to reason together, an abrasive style that shuts down two-way communications and reasoning, or an inconsistent style that confuses and keeps people off balance. We can use the research on the consequences of various styles to predict the results leaders and organizations are likely to get based on the style they use.

Self-Reflection Questions

1. Of the leaders you have worked with in your life, choose the one you feel was most effective. What kind of leadership style did that person exhibit? Why do you think it was successful?

2. Are people-oriented/production-oriented leadership styles at odds with one another? Why or why not?

3. Which theory—X or Y—do you feel most aligns with your outlook on workers? Provide examples to support your view.

3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

As research regarding leader style and behavior unfolded, one continuing question seemed to persist: Should a leader’s style change according to the situation? The Blake and Mouton grid system asserts that a leader exhibiting a 9,9 team management style (in which the person is highly production and people oriented) is best regardless of the situation, with only rare exceptions to this notion. In contrast, other authors appear to suggest that one style (people or production oriented) will be more effective, regardless of the situation. Others still main- tain that effective leadership is the result of matching a style with the situation at hand.

Consequently, the situational and contingency theories that evolved beginning in the 1950s add a new dimension to leadership thinking by combining theories on leadership style with theories on the importance of a leader’s fit with different situations and a leader’s ability to size up and adapt to different situations. The situational and contingency theories focus on adapting one’s leadership style to different situations and activities, such as the development level of followers and/or the organization’s context. The word “contingent” is derived from the premise that a leader’s effectiveness is dependent on the fit between a leader’s style and the organizational context in which the leader operates. In this section, we discuss the two approaches (situational and contingency) together because of their similarities in purpose and theory.

Situational Leadership Models

Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt (1958) were among the first leadership research- ers to verbalize the need for flexible leadership. They developed guidelines designed to assist leaders in knowing how much to emphasize a particular leadership style. As Figure 3.5

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 85 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Boss-centered leadership

Subordinate-centered leadership

Use of authority by manager

Area of freedom for subordinates

Manager makes decision and announces it

Manager “sells” decision

Manager presents ideas and invites questions

Manager presents tentative decision, subject to change

Manager presents problem, gets suggestions, makes decision

Manager defines limits, asks group to make decision

Manager permits subordinates to function within limits defined by supervisor

Section 3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

shows, they viewed leadership on a continuum from boss-centered leadership (autocratic) to subordinate-centered leadership (participative). The continuum offers seven styles that can be used based on the degree of authority used by the boss; the amount of freedom available to the subordinates; and three forces or situational factors a leader should consider: (1) forces in the leader, (2) forces in subordinates, and (3) forces in the situation.

In this system, the forces affecting the leader include the person’s value system, confidence in subordinates, leadership inclinations, and feelings of security in an uncertain situation. In terms of subordinates, leaders can give them greater freedom dependent upon the their need for independence, readiness to assume responsibility for decision making, tolerance for ambi- guity, interest in the problem, understanding and identification with the goals of the organi- zation, knowledge and experience to deal with the problem, and expectation to share in deci- sion making. Situational factors that leaders should consider are organizational goals, values, size, structure, geographical location, group effectiveness, teamwork, productivity, the nature of the problem, and time pressures.

This line of thinking led to the development of additional situational approaches to leader- ship. Among the most complete is the situational leadership model.

Figure 3.5: The leadership continuum

Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt viewed leadership on a continuum from boss-centered leadership to subordinate-centered leadership. The continuum offers seven styles based on the degree of authority used by the boss and the amount of freedom available to the subordinates.

Adapted from Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958, March–April). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard business review, pp. 95–101.

Boss-centered leadership

Subordinate-centered leadership

Use of authority by manager

Area of freedom for subordinates

Manager makes decision and announces it

Manager “sells” decision

Manager presents ideas and invites questions

Manager presents tentative decision, subject to change

Manager presents problem, gets suggestions, makes decision

Manager defines limits, asks group to make decision

Manager permits subordinates to function within limits defined by supervisor

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 86 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

Situational Leadership Model Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard created a visual and intuitively appealing model that is prob- ably the most extensively used in training and developing leaders. The original model was published in 1969 (Hershey & Blanchard, 1969; Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985). Their approach appears to suggest that leaders must be flexible in order to adjust or select a style that fits the situation (Hersey & Blanchard, 1974; Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2001). The situational leadership model directs leaders to adjust their styles according to the readiness of followers, where readiness is the extent to which followers possess the ability and prepara- tion to perform specific tasks. Consequently, followers with low levels of readiness require a different leader style than those with high levels. Table 3.4 displays various levels of employee readiness along with the appropriate leader style that matches.

Table 3.4: Employee readiness and leader responses

Employee Readiness Leader Response

Unable and unwilling Provide clear, specific instructions and details

Unable but willing Explain tasks but build relationships with workers to obtain their trust and increase their levels of effort

Able and unwilling Supportive leadership that incorporates participation to increase willingness

Able and willing Little response required

Source: Based on Hersey & Blanchard, 1974; Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2001.

Next, the authors expanded the model to incorporate the element of leader-member relation- ships. Table 3.5 indicates possible leadership styles that mesh with the various combinations of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors.

Table 3.5: Matching situations to leader styles

Situation Characteristics Leadership Style

High task behavior/low relationship Telling and directive

High task behavior/high relationship Selling and coaching

Low task behavior/high relationship Facilitating and counseling

Low task behavior/low relationship Delegating

Source: Based on Hersey & Blanchard, 1974; Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2001.

The telling and directing style results in one-way communication. The leader tells followers what, how, and when to perform various tasks. The style is recommended when the tasks are simple and easy to explain and the leader does not worry about bonding or relationships. It would appear that such a situation is not likely to result in a very favorable work atmosphere.

We can characterize the selling and coaching style as a leader who gives most of the direction but who also does engage in two-way communication. This leader seeks to have followers who

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 87 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

will “buy in” to his or her decisions and directions. In this instance, the work itself is straight- forward but, at the same time, the leader does wish to have good relations with followers.

The facilitating and counseling style allows the leader to share decision making with follow- ers. The emphasis shifts to building relationships. The facilitation aspect becomes possible when the leader believes his or her followers have the knowledge and ability to complete their tasks without a directive approach.

Finally, the delegating style means that the leader basically asks the followers to direct activities. There is less emphasis on relationship building in this style because the follow- ers can function autonomously. This style appears to match with a professional, service-type organization.

The situational leadership model has been successful in the marketplace, as it is appealing and intuitive. It makes sense that a leader needs to be sensitive to the needs of employees and what motivates them. Further, the correct style, when the leader utilizes it, can in some circumstances result in higher levels of maturing and task-related abilities in followers, based in part on increasing follower confidence and the willingness to improve.

The difficulty with the model is that the complexity makes it difficult to research and validate the assumptions and potential results. It can also be difficult to apply, as keeping track of all of the options with different employees at different stages of development can challenge and confuse both the leader and followers as followers experience a leader who is constantly changing to find the right match for each situation. Another challenge is that the focus is on followers and may not take into account many other situational factors that are important to a leader’s effectiveness.

Contingency Theories

As we’ve suggested at several points thus far in this textbook, the three primary elements we can link to success are the leader, the followers, and the situation. The contingency the- ory approaches are the most complex and integrate the three elements in order to facilitate leader success. Two contingency theories have drawn the most attention: Fiedler’s theory and Path-Goal theory.

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leader Effectiveness Fred E. Fiedler (1967) suggested that leader success results from a match between the leader’s style and the demands of the situation. Rather than train leaders to adapt to a new style to match with followers, Fiedler argued that leaders should match with the situation. This could be accomplished by changing the situation to fit the leader rather than the other way around.

The two dimensions that define a leader’s style are essentially the same as other researchers have used. They include a performance dimension (task oriented) and a people dimension (relationship oriented). To identify the type of leadership style a person prefers, the individ- ual responds to items on the least preferred coworker (LPC) test. The LPC consists of 16 con- trasting sets of words that are used to describe the individual on the job that the leader “likes”

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 88 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

the least (or dislikes the most). Potential adjective sets include “friendly” versus “unfriendly,” “supportive” or “hostile,” “accepting” or “rejecting,” and similar dichotomies. People-oriented leaders score higher on the test because they choose the more favorable adjective to describe their least preferred coworker most of the time. A leader who is willing to take the time to see the best side of that person appears more likely to be people oriented. Conversely, a low LPC score indicates greater interest in production, or a task-oriented leader, because this individ- ual does not bother to find another person’s more positive features. Fiedler assumed a person displays a fixed perspective and style over time.

Next, Fiedler suggested that a leader’s style will only fit the situation part of the time. In order to identify the potential situations a leader might encounter, he identified three dimensions.

Leader-member relations: measure the extent to which the leader has, or does not have, the support and loyalty of the group. The better the present or potential relationship, the more favorable the situation will be for the leader.

Task structure: a term used to describe whether worker tasks are routine, unambiguous, and easily understood. The more structured the task, the more influence the leader holds.

Position power: the degree of power the leader has to assign work, reward and punish, hire and fire, and give raises and promotions.

Fiedler used these three dimensions to construct the dimension of favorability. Positive leader-member relations, high task structure, and strong position power comprise the most favorable situation on the continuum. Poor relations, low structure, and weak power indicate the least favorable situation. Later, Fiedler collapsed the eight dimensions down to three. The two extremes indicate the highly favorable and highly unfavorable ends, or low- and high- control situations. The mixed favorability sector was renamed the “moderate control situa- tion” (Ayman, Chemers, & Fiedler, 1995).

Fiedler’s and other academics’ years of research led to the construction of the dimension of effectiveness displayed in Figure 3.6. As shown, at the two extremes, effectiveness is higher for production-oriented leaders (low LPC scores) in the low- and high-control situations. In mixed or moderate situations, people-oriented leaders (high LPC scores) were more likely to achieve success.

Two recommendations emerged from these investigations. First, when we can identify a leader’s style, we should place that person in the appropriate situation. Thus low-LPC leaders fit with the two extremes while high-LPC leaders mesh with the mixed or moderate situa- tions. Second, at times the best approach is to modify the situation to better fit the leader—an approach which would be much more difficult to carry out.

One of the strengths of Fiedler’s contingency theory is in the empirical support present (Schriesheim, Tepper, & Tetrault, 1994). The model more fully explains the potential rela- tionships among the three elements noted in Chapter 1—the leader, the followers, and the situation.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 89 3/3/16 11:32 AM

High

Most Favorable

Mixed Most Unfavorable

Low

Low LPC

High LPC

D IM

E N

S IO

N O

F E

F F

E C

T IV

E N

E S

SITUATIONAL FAVORABILITY

Situational Favorability Based on:

(Where: High = Most Favorable)

Low vs. High

Leader-Member Relations

Task Structure

Position Power {

Section 3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

At the same time, several criticisms regarding the theory and the research designed to sup- port it remain. First, the LPC scale has been challenged as a true measure of task or relation- ship orientation, primarily because it does not correlate with other instruments designed to assess the same construct. Further, a person’s LPC score tends to change as his or her situa- tion evolves in the same organization or when the individual joins a different organization. Therefore, some dispute its validity as a measure of leader orientation.

Other critiques of Fiedler’s research note that leader-member relations, position power, and task structure are not clear-cut variables. Some level of interpretation appears to be part of the assessment of these ideas. Further, trying to adjust them to fit the leader would be highly problematic in many companies. These and other issues have led some to conclude that the theory has too many practical problems to be applicable in many companies.

In contrast, contingency theory has challenged those studying leadership to collect and ana- lyze data designed to support competing ideas and theories. The concepts of leader-member relations, task structure, and position power do add to our understanding of the nature of the workplace and how it might relate to a leader’s style.

Path-Goal Theory Robert House and several colleagues developed the Path-Goal theory (1971). Path-Goal the- ory is based on the assumption that leader effectiveness comes from motivating employees to

Figure 3.6: Fielder’s contingency theory results

Adapted from Fielder, F. E. (1974, Autumn). The Contingency Model—new directions for leadership utilization. Journal of Contemporary Business.

High

Most Favorable

Mixed Most Unfavorable

Low

Low LPC

High LPC

D IM

E N

S IO

N O

F E

F F

E C

T IV

E N

E S

SITUATIONAL FAVORABILITY

Situational Favorability Based on:

(Where: High = Most Favorable)

Low vs. High

Leader-Member Relations

Task Structure

Position Power {

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 90 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

accomplish personal and organizational goals. In the model a leader: (1) evaluates situational factors that can affect employee motivation; (2) uses one of four leadership styles to work with each employee and increase their motivation by clarifying the path the follower will need to take for success and by increasing the rewards the follower values and desires; and (3) achieves the desired personal and organizational goals.

The two situational factors the leader evaluates include subordinate situational factors and environmental situation factors. Subordinate situational factors include: (1) authoritarianism (the degree to which subordinates desire an authority figure to tell them what to do); (2) locus of control (the degree to which employees believe that control over their destiny is internal or external); and (3) ability (the degree to which an employee has the ability to per- form tasks and achieve goals).

Environmental situational factors include: (1) task structure (the characteristics and repeti- tiveness of the job); (2) formal authority (the position power of the leader); and (3) work group (the impact that coworkers have on a person).

Once a leader has sized up a situation with regard to subordinates, the leader uses one of four leadership styles in working with employees to motivate them to achieve personal and orga- nizational goals. Table 3.6 displays the four styles.

Table 3.6: Leader styles featured in Path-Goal theory

Directive: The leader uses a structured approach to directing the activities of a follower. This style is appropriate when followers want authoritarian leadership, have an external locus of control, and have low ability, or when a task is complex or difficult to understand, support from coworkers is strong, or the leader has considerable formal authority.

Supportive: The leader is warm and friendly and shows genuine concern for a follower’s needs. This style is appropriate when followers desire supportive rather than directive leadership, have an internal locus of control, have a high level of ability, tasks are simple, the work group does not meet the needs of a follower, and formal authority is weak.

Participative: The leader involves and consults with followers, seeks their input, and encourages open dialogue and communication. A participative style is appropriate when followers desire to be involved, have an internal locus of control, have high ability, the task is complex, support from coworkers is strong or weak, and formal authority is strong or weak.

Achievement oriented: The leader sets clear and challenging goals, expects followers to perform at a high level, shows confidence in followers and assists followers in achieving their goals, and rewards followers for their efforts. This style is appropriate when followers have high expectations and needs to excel, have high abilities, and tasks are ambiguous, challenging, and complex.

Source: Based on House, Robert (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 2, 321-329.

House further refined this approach by suggesting that intrinsic (internally generated) motivation plays a key role in leader effectiveness, most notably when the leader works to empower followers. When followers share in leadership responsibilities, empowerment and confidence grow (House, 1996).

Research regarding Path-Goal theory has been mixed, with support for parts of the theory and a lack of support for other parts, and disagreements about the conclusions regarding the specifics of when each style is appropriate. Part of the difficulty in researching the model is that it is complex and can therefore be challenging for a leader to apply.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 91 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Section 3.4 Situational and Contingency Theories

Evaluating and Integrating the Situational and Contingency Theories

Should you change your leadership style with different situations? As thinking and research about leadership developed, it became clear that different people and different situations required different approaches. Many studies began to evolve that combined thinking about leadership styles with thinking about different contingencies or situations a leader needed to take into account as a leader. These studies and the theories that followed made another valuable contribution to leadership thinking as the theories pointed out the importance of matching leaders to jobs, changing the jobs to improve the match, and training leaders to size up situations and adapt to them. Depending on the particular theory, leaders were encour- aged to evaluate situational variables such as the characteristics of the leader, the leader’s boss, and the leader’s followers; the type of task involved; position power and authority; the importance of teamwork, interaction, and collaboration; scheduling and time constraints; and organizational realities. Based on the analysis of each person and task, leaders were to use the appropriate style or behavior for the situation.

The difficulty in applying most of the theories is in the complexity involved in analyzing each follower and task and in the issue presented in the styles theories of whether to adapt a leader’s style or skills to the situation. A leader who frequently changes styles based on his or her analysis of followers and situations can confuse both the leader and the followers. In deciding how to lead others, it is important to decide whether to change style with different situations or have a consistent and predictable style. A leader can have a consistent style, expect results, treat people with respect, and be the same person with people while also varying the skills used based on what is required. For example, while maintaining a consistent style, a leader can be specific in giving directions to a new employee or give considerable autonomy to a proven employee, take charge of a situation that requires immediate attention, or use a more partici- pative approach for one that is best addressed with the involvement of a number of people.

Training leaders to develop and practice a consistent and effective leadership style and to learn to consider situational variables to size up situations and match the appropriate skills with the situation can be a good way to integrate and simplify the situational and contingency theories. A way of evaluating the appropriate skills to use is to think in terms of using directive skills (close supervision and an emphasis on performance), laissez-faire skills (allowing proven employees to be predominantly self-directing), human relations skills (showing compassion and understanding and placing a strong emphasis on people skills), and high- performance skills (using good people skills while focusing on getting the best results). In other words, a leader can use the skills associated with each style without having to change styles.

Self-Reflection Questions

1. If you were asked to describe a workplace situation, what terms would apply (toxic? inspirational? so-so?)? Explain your answer.

2. Some research suggests that a consistent and decisive leader draws the most positive responses from followers. How would such findings impact the situational and contingency approaches?

3. What personality characteristics would best align with a leader who is able to adjust his or her style to mesh with followers and the situation? Which personality characteristics would make such an adjustment difficult?

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 92 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Chapter Summary

Leadership Theory Development Two primary forces explain the relatively recent emergence of leadership theories: the role of history in management literature and the development of more sophisticated research techniques. Therefore, a review of the nature of the political, social, and technological factors present at any given time helps explain the development and evolution of various approaches to our understanding of leadership. Also, these increasingly eloquent methods of research design have assisted the study of leadership.

Trait Theories Trait theories of leadership include the search for the distinguishing qualities and character- istics that successful leaders display. Many people assume that individuals become effective leaders due to personal characteristics such as charisma or communications skills. The trait theory approach suggests that the ability to lead would apply across situations. Conse- quently, if leadership is transferable across situations, then all effective leaders would have or demonstrate some “universal” traits or characteristics, or the common elements among all “great men” (leaders).

The trait approaches may explain why a person is selected for promotion but may not be as effective in predicting whether the individual will subsequently become a successful leader. The Big Five Personality Characteristics have shown some promise in explaining leadership. These characteristics include:

• neuroticism;

• extroversion;

• openness;

• agreeableness; and

• conscientiousness.

Further, emotional intelligence (EQ) is based on

• self-awareness;

• self-management;

• social awareness; and

• relationship management.

Each may play a role in subsequent leader success. Attributional models of leader- ship explain the assumptions people make about leaders based on various traits and characteristics.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 93 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Chapter Summary

Style and Behavioral Theories Leadership style is a term used to describe the manner in which a leader interacts with people and gets things done and the emphasis the leader places on people and performance. These theories imply that it would be possible to train leaders to become more effective because a person or leader can change or alter his or her behaviors over time. The Univer- sity of Iowa studies revealed the autocratic and democratic styles of leadership. The Ohio State studies named leader styles as initiating structure and consideration. The University of Michigan studies suggest leaders are either production centered or employee centered. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y formalized the differences between people-oriented and production-oriented leadership. The Leadership Grid suggests that leaders who seek to account for both aspects (people and production) will be the most likely to succeed and offers recommendations for helping individuals improve at both aspects of leadership style.

Situational and Contingency Theories Situational and contingency theories of leadership integrate three variables. The leader, the followers, and the situation all combine to enhance leader effectiveness. Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model identifies four styles:

• telling and directing;

• selling and coaching;

• facilitating and counseling; and

• delegating.

These styles can be adapted to the followers’ level of readiness combined with the leader’s desire for positive relationships with them.

Fred E. Fiedler’s contingency theory of leader effectiveness describes the leader using the least-preferred coworker (LPC) scale, where a high score indicates a leader who says favor- able things about a key individual and is assumed to be people oriented. A low LPC score suggests a production-oriented leader. The followers and the situation consist of:

• leader-member relations;

• task structure; and

• position power of the leader.

Fiedler concludes that the leader should be matched to the situation or that the situation should be adapted to fit the leader.

The Path-Goal approach to leadership identifies four leader styles:

• directive;

• supportive;

• achievement oriented; and

• participative.

These styles may be adapted to the situation the leader encounters.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 94 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Leadership Applications and Tools

Key Terms attribution Belief about cause and effect; attribution theory is based on the concept that people differ in how they view the “real world.”

autocratic style Leadership style in which leaders closely supervise people, make most of the decisions, tell employees what to do, tightly control what is going on, and focus predominantly on performance.

consideration One of Stogdill’s two vari- ables that describe a leader’s style; mea- sures the degree to which a leader is people oriented and establishes rapport, two-way communication, mutual respect, and under- standing with employees.

democratic style Leadership style in which leaders delegate authority to others, encour- age involvement and participation in deci- sion making, treat employees with respect, and work with employees to utilize their capabilities.

emotional intelligence Type of intelli- gence that refers to a person’s personal and interpersonal awareness, perceptiveness, and abilities.

initiating structure One of Stogdill’s two variables that describe a leader’s style; describes the degree to which a leader is task oriented and directs the work of employees toward achieving goals.

leadership style A term used to describe the manner in which a leader interacts with people and gets things done and the emphasis the leader places on people and performance.

social intelligence Type of intelligence that consists of having capabilities in being socially aware and adept and being aware of one’s own feelings and the feelings of others.

theory A set of ideas, principles, proposi- tions, or assumptions used to understand and explain something.

trait theories Theories of leadership that include the search for the distinguishing qualities and characteristics that successful leaders display.

Leadership Applications and Tools

Leadership Exercises

1. Many people consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt as one of the most effective presidents in U.S. history. President Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair for some of his tenure and received a great deal of assistance from his wife, Eleanor, in propos- ing and carrying out various policies. At the same time, his powerful speech following the attack on Pearl Harbor still receives a great deal of attention from historians as an important moment in the country’s history.

Using the trait and characteristics approaches to leadership, explain how President Roosevelt was able to succeed given his personal limitations.

2. Using the concepts derived from Stogdill and Mann’s initial trait studies that we describe and detail in this chapter, explain the apparent success of Indra Nooyi in the PepsiCo situation. What would attribution theory suggest in relation to your personal

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 95 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Leadership Applications and Tools

theory or concepts of effective leadership and the results she was able to achieve? Were your beliefs confirmed or refuted? What is your response to either situation?

3. Using the traits and characteristics Stogdill and Mann identified combined with the people- and production-oriented leadership styles found in the situational leadership approaches, make a case for the “best” or “most likely to succeed” leadership style in the following situations. Make your argument for each of the three levels of manage- ment: CEO, middle manager, supervisor.

• a company experiencing major financial problems on the verge of bankruptcy and closing

• a large highly successful service provider in the insurance industry • a manufacturing company in which the production process is highly routine and

the market demand for the product is stable • an established restaurant operation with five locations in a major city in which

four of the units are thriving but one is experiencing low revenues and com- plaints about poor service

4. Which of the four leader styles (telling and directing, selling and coaching, facilitat- ing and counseling, or delegating) would be most likely to succeed in the following situations?

• a department manager in a big-box retail store (such as Walmart or Target) where high turnover and low skill levels are common

• a middle-level manager in an advertising agency in which most of the profes- sionals are highly skilled with past records of success

• a foreman in a manufacturing plant that utilizes high levels of technology, which means employees are skilled with educational levels beyond high school

5. As we noted in this chapter, Joshua Kendall (2013) has resurrected discussion of The- ory X and Theory Y in a new light. Kendall argues, “The temper tantrum has not only become a fixture in corporate America, but it has been central to the management style of many of technology’s most successful CEOs—namely Steve Jobs [Apple], Bill Gates [Microsoft] and Larry Ellison [Oracle].” He suggests that when handled appropriately, a rough edge can even be beneficial to employees and the overall company. Kendall writes, “The most successful tech titans, past and present, including Henry Heinz, have had a temper—and it isn’t always a bad thing.”

Analyze these comments using the variables in Hersey and Blanchard’s model of lead- ership. Can you make a case that a temper tantrum fits in their design? Explain your answer.

Analyze the comments using the elements of the situation that Fiedler described. Once again, can you make a case that a temper tantrum will be effective using Fielder’s con- tingency theory model? Defend your answer.

6. Using all of the theories presented in this chapter, assess the odds of success for the following types of individuals at the three levels of management: CEO, middle manager, supervisor.

• a meek and mild “geek” with highly sophisticated technical skills (male) • a bombastic and outgoing male with highly honed interpersonal skills • a bombastic and outgoing female with highly honed interpersonal skills

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 96 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Leadership Applications and Tools

• a caring but reserved female with great interpersonal skills but less effective public speaking skills

• a production-oriented, “take-no-prisoners” female

7. One simple adaptation of Path-Goal theory suggests that effective leaders engage in three activities:

• They take the time to understand what workers deem to be important. • They clarify tasks, which means employees know how to achieve personal and

organizational goals. • They reward successful employee performance.

Note that all three activities must occur in order for a leader to succeed.

Analyze this approach using the concepts presented in this chapter. What are the strengths and weaknesses of such an application of the theory? Defend your answer.

8. An adaptable leader is someone with an effective leadership style, who has the ability to lead others by evaluating and adapting to different situations with the appropriate skills. An adaptable leader follows two basic principles:

(1) Understanding leadership styles and their consequences and using a consistent leadership style that facilitates rather than inhibits working with people and getting things done. Developing a consistent style that emphasizes both performance and people and that clearly communicates a passion for excellence and a genuine concern for people will, in most cases, achieve the best results. Consistency makes it possible for followers to know what to expect and to work with and around leaders.

(2) Effective leaders are skilled at leading others, sizing up situations, and using the appropriate skills for the situation while maintaining a consistent leadership style. For example, while maintaining an emphasis on performance and people, a leader can be more directive with a follower or group that works best with clear directions and close supervision, more laissez-faire with a follower or group that is highly motivated and self-directing, more supportive with a follower or group that operates best with a lot of encouragement, and more balanced with most followers and groups by being both goal oriented and supportive.

Adaptable leaders need to have a set of general criteria they should consider in sizing up situations and should have dialogue with people about situations before assuming that they have analyzed situations correctly. Some of the key adaptability clues leaders should consider are:

Characteristics of the leader: Knowing one’s self and being self-aware are always key to successful leadership. Leaders need to understand their leadership style and its consequences, their strengths and weaknesses, what they are good at doing and what they need help in doing.

Organizational vision, mission, core values, goals, and culture: Leaders need to have a thorough understanding of the organizations in which they are serving as leaders. What they do as leaders needs to be a fit with the vision, mission, core values, goals, and culture of the organizations.

Characteristics of the leader’s boss: The style and skills of a leader’s boss deter- mine the boundaries within which a leader may express his or her leadership

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 97 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Leadership Applications and Tools

style and skills. For example, working for an autocratic boss may limit what a leader can do to be effective.

Characteristics of followers: Taking the time to know and understand those they lead and what motivates them is another key to effective leadership. This requires that leaders have a genuine interest in the welfare, development, and utilization of their people.

Characteristics of the task: Different tasks require different skills. It is important for leaders to be well versed on the tasks they are leading and what is required to be successful in leading the tasks.

Level of position and authority: The level and requirements of a position and the level of authority of a position may change as a person advances in an organiza- tion. It is important for leaders to know what is expected and how much author- ity they have at each position to do what they need to do to be successful.

Importance of teamwork, interaction, and cooperation: Another important situ- ational variable to consider is the amount of teamwork, interaction, and coop- eration that is required to successfully accomplish the job and effectively involve and engage the followers.

Scheduling and time constraints: The need for greater leadership control and direction is likely to increase as scheduling and time constraints tighten.

Infrastructure realities: In getting things done, leaders have to consider the realities they are given to deal with such as budgets, regulations, personnel and financial resources, organization structures, systems, and processes, and work- ing conditions.

Explain how these concepts would apply to a work situation in the following companies:

• a fast food restaurant; • an advertising agency; • a military unit; and • a manufacturing plant.

9. Assume that you are the CEO of a consulting firm that specializes in leadership devel- opment. A large energy company has retained to develop a leadership development program for their middle-level managers. The company has never had a leadership development program, but the new CEO is a strong advocate of the importance of hav- ing skilled leaders throughout the organization.

The CEO and executive team have agreed to a pilot program for a group of 25 middle managers. Each of the managers heads a department of about five supervisors and 30 total people including the supervisors. If the program is successful, your consulting firm will receive a large contract for ongoing leadership development programs at the supervisory level, middle-management level, and the executive level. It has also been agreed that the program will consist of:

3 consecutive days with participants meeting from 8:30 to 4:30 each day at a luxury hotel;

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 98 3/3/16 11:32 AM

Leadership Applications and Tools

a period of 1 month where participants will have assignments to practice what they have learned while performing their regular jobs; and

a half day follow-up session at the end of the month that will again be held at the luxury hotel.

10. The company has asked you to make a presentation of your recommended program to the executive team and to have a cover sheet with the name of the program and no more than a two- to three-page outline of the program that is easy to follow. Based on everything you have learned about leadership in the first three chapters of this book and your own experience, what would you include in the program, and what assignments would you give to the participants to do in the month following the 3-day program?

Applications and Tools

1. List the 10 insights that you think are most important from the leadership theories. Then discuss three things that will be most important to you in being an effective leader.

2. Develop your own leadership theory by describing the two variables you would use to determine leadership styles, what you would call the four styles and what you would include in each, the situational variables you would pay most attention to, and anything else you would include in your theory.

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 99 3/3/16 11:32 AM

war82476_03_c03_065-100.indd 100 3/3/16 11:32 AM