Leadership Theory

04CH_Weiss_Leadership_2e.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >Leadership Theory

4 Leadership Behavior and Situational Factors

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Describe the style and behavioral approaches to leadership using the Michigan and Ohio studies as well as the Leadership Grid.

2. Explain the situational approach to leadership, including the role that followers play in leadership efficacy.

3. Discuss the contingency approach to leadership, specifically Fielder’s Contingency Theory and Path–Goal Contingency Theory.

4. List and explain the stages of the Leader–Member Exchange (LMX).

iStock/Thinkstock

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 73 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Tony Hsieh, CEO at Amazon’s Zappos, the retail online shoe and clothing company with 1,500 employees, is again experimenting with a more radical extension of the current organiza- tion. The firm is now organized as a holacracy—“a management structure in which circles of equally privileged employees work autonomously in codependency with other circles, some- times overlapping” (Feloni, 2015).

Hsieh plans on being manager-free with an even newer organizational form of self- management and self-organization based on Frederic Laloux’s Reinventing Organizations, which argues for peer-pressure, self-organizing systems. Hsieh noted that “For certain types of job functions where there are easy metrics to measure performance, a public leaderboard ranking will nat- urally create peer pressure by showing which teams are performing and which aren’t. For other types of job functions where metrics are more difficult to come by, regular peer-based presentations have been shown to be really effective, where each team presents to the other teams (once a quarter) what they are working on and why it is adding value to the company, and that will create a natural peer pressure” (Feloni, 2015).

Employees who did not support the new structure were offered severance packages if they resigned by last April 30, 2015. First, they had to either read the management book Rein- venting Organizations or “just email a statement that they are not reading it.” Hsieh doesn’t want employees “Having one foot in one world while having the other foot in the other world” because that would slow down the transformation toward self-management and self- organization. The self-organizing, self-managing “business-centric groups” would eliminate the “legacy management hierarchy” and embed merchandising, finance, tech, marketing, and other functions in business-centric circles. Former managers in good standing keep their sal- aries through the end of 2015, but their old roles and responsibilities change. Hsieh informed

employees that a new circle called “Reinventing Yourself” would help fit former managers into new roles that might be a good match for “their pas- sions, skills, and experience.” Hsieh said in an email, “Self-management and self-organization is not for every- one, and not everyone will want to move forward,” thus he offered a 3-month severance package and up to 3 months of COBRA reimbursement for every employee in good stand- ing. Two hundred and ten Zappos employees—14% of the staff—took the buyout (Feloni, 2015).

Months before the employee buyout decision, several employees were dis- gruntled with the holacracy system (Groth, 2015). Some said it was too

rigid and dogmatic, others said they were overwhelmed with role changes, especially since they were also being bought by Amazon. Most agree that “Zappos is going through one of the most tumultuous years in the history of the company” (Groth, 2010). It is too early to tell how employee and peer work relations will evolve with the new self-managing system. Both Jeff

Ethan Miller/Getty Images News/Thinkstock

Tony Hsieh is an entrepreneurial innovating leader who is not afraid to take risks for large gains—and some losses.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 74 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

Bezos and Tony Hsieh are entrepreneurial innovating leaders not afraid to take risks for large gains—and some losses.

The Hsieh and Zappos story is an experiment in leadership and management theory and prac- tice that scholars and practitioners are watching with interest. The theories and approaches discussed so far have sought to answer the question “What makes an effective leader?”. (Remember, an effective leader is someone who works with, motivates, and helps followers to attain their common organizational goals.) Later approaches following trait theory shifted attention from who leaders are to what leaders do and how their styles, personalities, and traits fit with different situations and organizations, offering a far more complex answer to the question.

In this chapter we discuss the historical evolution and implementation of several such the- ories, including style and behavioral approaches (the Michigan and Ohio State Studies), contingency theory, followed by the individualized leadership approach, which focuses on leader–follower exchanges and relationships. It is important to note, as was indicated in ear- lier chapters, that leaders are not necessarily heroes. They work, relate to, influence, and are influenced by followers; and, as we will show, lead within the constraints and opportunities of specific organizational contexts, situations, and relationships.

As you read this chapter, notice how the simplicity and relevance of leadership theories (as conceptual frameworks but also as tools) advances to higher levels of complexity with regard to both leaders and followers. Parts of all these theories are still in use in one form or another. The evolution of the theories from leadership style and behavioral approaches, to situational and contingency approaches, and finishing with individualized leadership and dyad exchange theory tell not only a historical story of how leadership theory changed, but also offers insight into how some leaders, managers, and followers still view themselves and organizations today. Note, again, the holistic roadmap in Figure 1.1, Persons, Processes, and Systems, from Chapter 1 as you read the text, assessments, and methods moving from leadership as persons to include processes. Also keep in mind questions each theory raises about Hsieh’s bold lead- ership decisions with the organizational structure and changes at Zappos.

4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches Style and behavioral approaches focus on leaders’ behavior rather than their personality characteristics, just as trait and personality approaches do. Specifically, theorists look at how leaders approach tasks and deal with followers. We will examine two contributions to the style and behavioral approaches: (1) early studies conducted at the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University, and (2) Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid.

Michigan and Ohio State Studies

The research at the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University began in the late 1940s. The Michigan and Ohio leadership studies were critical in the development of style and behavioral leadership theory. The studies at these two institutions were actually

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 75 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

performed separately, but because the two groups reached very similar conclusions, we will discuss them together in this text.

Researchers eventually pinpointed two types of behavior in leaders: Leaders were either task oriented, focusing on achieving goals and organization, or people oriented, focusing on followers and interpersonal relationships (Stogdill, 1948). The Michigan and Ohio State researchers argued that different leadership styles were more effective in different situations.

Task-oriented leadership involves assigning tasks, specifying procedures, defining work schedules, and helping followers set goals—in other words, focusing more on getting work done than on showing consideration to people. Michigan researchers called this a production orientation, while Ohio State researchers termed it an initiating structure style. This style is needed when tasks call for a lot of structure but little need to show followers consideration. In these situations, one-way, top-down communication and decision making are necessary.

Consider this example: In 2005, Hewlett-Packard (HP) was at a crossroads. The company could either continue to give ground to the competition or regain its former glory as a leading computer manufacturer. The company needed a leader who would drive hard, give direction, expect high performance, set high standards, and ask tough questions. Mark Hurd took the job. Some questioned his tough, numbers-driven, task-oriented style, but by the end of 2009 he had succeeded in turning HP around. He was the right leader at the right time for HP: more task oriented rather than people oriented. More recently Meg Whitman, former CEO at eBay, has served as HP’s top-level leader. She seems to balance the people-to-task orientation effectively:

Blunt, folksy, and persistent, Meg Whitman is the leader that Hewlett-Packard desperately needs. She’s decisive without being abrasive, persuasive without being slick. She’s a team builder who knows that turnarounds call for repair- ing hundreds of small failings rather than betting everything on a miracle cure that might be a mirage. In the words of HP director Marc Andreessen, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capitalists, ‘She’s the best CEO the company has had since its founders.’” (Anders, 2013)

A people-oriented leadership style creates a supportive, friendly, and trusting environment for followers, working to satisfy needs and develop relationships. Michigan researchers said these leaders possessed an employee orientation, while Ohio State researchers called this style a con- sideration style. A people-oriented leadership style is often most effective when less structure but more consideration is needed. In these situations, two-way, participative communication and decision making are needed (Likert, 1961). Take, for example, a university that recently com- pleted a physical building project in which 15% of the campus was either rebuilt or restored. The new president recruited at the start of the project was a retired corporate executive known for his command and control. He had successfully managed the building transformation but alienated many faculty and staff members who felt he did not understand their work or needs. Although the president’s task-oriented style was appropriate at the start of the project— everything was on time, almost within budget, and according to specifications—at the end of the project the board of trustees decided it was time for a different leadership style. They hired a former aca- demic with 15 years of successful university administration and fund-raising experience who was able to inspire, motivate, and align faculty; rejuvenate and rebuild a collaborative commu- nity; provide emotional as well as academic leadership support; and promote the principles and

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 76 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

values of scholarship. The more people- oriented approach fit the organization at the right time in its life cycle.

The timeliness of the people-oriented focus is noteworthy. A recent survey found that 66% of employees reported appreciation as a factor that motivated them most at work (Akst, 2007). A recent review of 160 studies showed that followers of leaders who were high in consideration were more moti- vated and satisfied with their job and had more respect for their leaders (Robbins & Judge, 2011).

Some scholars argue that leaders are either more concerned with people or more concerned with tasks; they can- not be both. Other scholars consider the two styles to be complementary rather than opposed, as shown in Figure 4.1. The figure illustrates that leaders can possess varying quantities of

Cultura Limited/Superstock

Leaders of the consideration style use a people-oriented leadership style that often is most effective when less structure but more consideration is needed.

High

Low

C o

n si

d er

at io

Low Structure

High Consideration

High Structure

High Consideration

Low Structure

Low Consideration

High Structure

Low Consideration

HighLow Initiating Structure

High

Low

C o

n si

d er

at io

Low Structure

High Consideration

High Structure

High Consideration

Low Structure

Low Consideration

High Structure

Low Consideration

HighLow Initiating Structure

Figure 4.1: Four leadership styles

Source: Based on Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 77 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

both styles. The people-oriented leader’s style is reflected in the upper left quadrant; the task-oriented leader’s style is shown in the bottom right quadrant. However, according to this visualization, leaders can also be both task oriented and people oriented; arguably, the new university president in the earlier example actually fits into the upper right quadrant because he or she was able to engage the community while maintaining the structured environment that was needed. A leader may also be neither task oriented nor people oriented, as seen in the bottom left quadrant. As we will discuss later, a “country club” leadership style has and shows little concern for people and and for skill in getting work done. This has also been referred to as an impoverished leadership style. How do such leaders keep their jobs? We dis- cuss this and other related styles later in this chapter.

We should note that even though a leader may prefer or tend to use one of these four leader- ship styles, that does not mean he or she cannot change or adapt. (We will discuss this further in the context of contingency theory.) For example, some observers said Jack Welch was more of a task-oriented leader when he joined General Electric (GE): He fired unproductive work- ers and focused on streamlining GE to compete in only the top two businesses they entered. However, as he matured in his leadership role and as GE excelled, he adopted a people orien- tation as well.

Take Assessment 4.1 to identify your leadership style based on this model. If you score high on a task focus (structure and production) and low on a people focus (consideration and employee orientation), you tend to make more decisions yourself rather than delegating tasks, and you might communicate using one-way communication with followers instead of asking for their feedback. If you score high on a people focus (consideration) and low on a task (structure) focus, you tend to be a more open communicator and share decision making to solve problems. Do you agree with your results? As you continue to read this book, you will gain awareness and knowledge about how to become more effective in different leadership skills (e.g., communicating, influencing others, using power effectively). You will also become more aware of different types of organizational cultures and situations that best suit your interests and skills.

Assessment 4.1: Initiating Structure Versus Consideration

Instructions

The items below relate to your personal leadership orientation. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or understandable.

1. Read each item carefully. 2. Think about how frequently you engage in the behavior described by the item. 3. Draw a circle around one of the five numerical response codes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) following

each question that reflects the frequency of this behavior.

(continued)

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 78 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

Assessment 4.1: Initiating Structure Versus Consideration (continued)

1. Pit suggestions made by people in the work-group operation. Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never

1 2 3 4 5 2. Treat all people in the work group as equal.

Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 5

3. Back up what people under you do. Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never

1 2 3 4 5 4. Reject suggestions for change.

Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 5

5. Talk about how much should be done.

A Great Deal Fairly Much To Some Degree Comparatively

Little Not at All 1 2 3 4 5

6. Assign people in the work group to particular tasks.

A Great Deal Fairly Much To Some Degree Comparatively

Little Not at All 1 2 3 4 5

7. Offer new approaches to problems.

A Great Deal Fairly Much To Some Degree Comparatively

Little Not at All 1 2 3 4 5

8. Emphasize meeting deadlines.

A Great Deal Fairly Much To Some Degree Comparatively

Little Not at All 1 2 3 4 5

Scoring

Consideration behavior: Subtract your scores to questions 1, 2, and 3 from 6. Next, sum these adjusted scores and your score to question 4 and divide by 4.

Enter your consideration score here: .

Initiating structure behavior: Subtract your scores to questions 5, 6, 7, and 8 from 6. Next, sum these adjusted scores and divide by 4.

Enter your initiating structure score here: .

Interpretation

A high consideration score (4 or greater) suggests a relatively strong orientation toward consideration-oriented behavior. A low score (2 or less) suggests a relatively weak consideration orientation.

A high initiating structure score (4 or greater) suggests a relatively strong orientation toward initiating structure behavior. A low score (2 or less) suggests a relatively weak initiating structure orientation. Source: Fleishman, E.A. The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(3), June 1953, 153-158. Published by American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 79 9/2/15 3:31 PM

High

Low

C o

n ce

rn fo

r P

eo p

Country Club Management

Thoughtful attention to the

needs of people for satisfying

relationships leads to a

comfortable, friendly organization

atmosphere and work tempo.

Middle-of-the-Road Management

Adequate organization

performance is possible

through balancing the

necessity to get out work with

maintaining morale of people

at a satisfactory level.

Team Management

Work accomplishment is

from committed people:

interdependence through

a “common stake” in

organization purpose leads

to relationships of trust and

respect.

High 987654321

Low Concern for Results

9,9

5,5

1,9

Impoverished Management

Exertion of minimum effort

to get required work done

is appropriate to sustain

organization membership

1,1

Authority-Compliance

Management

Efficiency in operations

results from arranging

conditions of work in

such a way that human

elements interfere to a

minimum degree.

9,1

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

The Leadership Grid

The most well-known of the behavioral approaches is the leadership grid, which builds on the Michigan and Ohio State studies and also depicts leadership style as a blend of two dif- ferent approaches. Originally published by Blake and Mouton as the Managerial Grid in 1964, the grid identifies five leadership styles plotted on two axes. As shown in Figure 4.2, the hori- zontal axis represents concern for production or results, and the vertical axis represents con- cern for people. Each axis is on a 9-point scale; a score of 1 represents least or lowest concern and 9 represents the most concern. Individual leaders’ scores can be plotted anywhere on the graph. As you read the descriptions of the following five leadership styles in this model,

High

Low

C o

n ce

rn fo

r P

eo p

Country Club Management

Thoughtful attention to the

needs of people for satisfying

relationships leads to a

comfortable, friendly organization

atmosphere and work tempo.

Middle-of-the-Road Management

Adequate organization

performance is possible

through balancing the

necessity to get out work with

maintaining morale of people

at a satisfactory level.

Team Management

Work accomplishment is

from committed people:

interdependence through

a “common stake” in

organization purpose leads

to relationships of trust and

respect.

High 987654321

Low Concern for Results

9,9

5,5

1,9

Impoverished Management

Exertion of minimum effort

to get required work done

is appropriate to sustain

organization membership

1,1

Authority-Compliance

Management

Efficiency in operations

results from arranging

conditions of work in

such a way that human

elements interfere to a

minimum degree.

9,1

Figure 4.2: The leadership grid(r)

Source: The Leadership Grid® figure from Leadership Dilemmas—Grid Solutions, by Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse (Formerly the Managerial Grid by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton). Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, (Grid Figure: P. 29). Copyright 1991 by Scientific Methods, Inc. Reproduced by permission of the owners.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 80 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

consider this: Is there a leader that fits a 9,9 (most optimum classification on this model)? Think about which of the following profiles might best describe your style.

The team leader (9,9) has high concern for tasks, followers, and peer relationships. This leader is highly results driven while being very engaged and concerned with followers and peers. Some might say that Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson is an example of a 9.9 team leader. The business tycoon began his entrepreneurial career at 15 years old selling discount records. This business turned into Virgin Records, which he sold for $973 million before starting Virgin Atlantic Airways. Branson is also an environmentalist, an explorer, a philanthropist, and the fifth richest person in the United Kingdom. He said in an interview, “Business is giving people in their lifetime what they need and what they want” (Byrnes & Kiley, 2000).

The authority-compliance leader (9,1) focuses on getting the job done with no concern for followers or perhaps peers. The emphasis of this style is more on operational efficiency than on meeting the social and personal needs of followers. Some leaders who are closer to the 9,1 scale on this style may be characterized as bulldozers: over controlling, results driven, and insensitive to others’ needs. The 9,1 leader may be productive in the short term, but at the cost of getting the necessary help and support from teammates and followers. Again, not every leader with this, or the other styles, may act in the same or expected ways.

The middle-of-the-road leader (5,5) is partly concerned about task accomplishment and somewhat concerned about followers and peers. This “average” leader produces enough to get by and shows enough concern to be acceptable to followers and peers. This leader may have to compromise and find a balance between work requirements and follower concerns. The middle-of-the-road leader performs at “good enough” levels; he or she is neither a star nor a laggard. This leader may avoid conflict.

The country club leader (1,9) shows high concern for people and task accomplishment and is involved in interpersonal relationships with followers and peers. This leader focuses on fol- lowers’ social and individual needs, with a low task orientation. This leader may create a com- fortable working environment, but may find productivity, work-related problem solving, and the handling of difficult conflicts problematic. It is important to note that on the Leadership Grid, this type of leadership may deemphasize production while emphasizing the attitudes, personal and social needs of followers.

The impoverished leader (1,1) is uninvolved and disconnected from followers, peers, and work tasks, putting forth minimal effort. This leader may appear alienated, distant, indiffer- ent, and uncommitted to the organization and to others. A word of caution about offering examples of this type of leadership: The question arises “From whose point of view?”. There seems to be consensus on the failed leadership of the Enron Corporation under Ken Lay (now deceased) and Jeff Skilling (serving a prison term).

The leadership grid has been widely used by corporate and organizational training programs. It was updated and changed in 1978, 1985, and 1991. Blake and McCanse (1991) added opportunist to the leadership grid. An opportunist is a leader who uses any of the styles combined to promote his or her own advancement. The opportunist is not located in any one style on the grid; he or she is able to move across styles according to his or her needs and

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 81 9/2/15 2:00 PM

http://abc.com.au/foreign/interv/branson.htm

Section 4.2 Situational Approaches

interests. Many politicians are skillful opportunists. They read the polls, check out the chang- ing situation with their competition, and act accordingly. It is debatable whether or not the opportunist leaders are adaptable and strategic or, as some have argued, ruthless, cunning, and self-motivated (Northouse, 2016, in press).

Like trait theory, the behavioral and style approaches are based on decades of empirical research. They are straightforward, simple, and appealing to practitioners and researchers. However, they are not without their issues. First, no optimal leadership style can be applied to all situations. The 9,9 score in the leadership grid model, or the “high–high” in the Michigan and Ohio State approaches, seems optimal and desirable, but these styles may not be the most effective in all or in particular situations. Goleman (2000) concluded, after studying 3,000 executives, that leaders who get the best results in their organizations use several different styles in any given week. More research is needed to investigate this question.

Second, it may not be possible for some leaders to be a 9,9 or a high–high. Not all leaders and managers can be all things to all people and organizations. For example, a leader may be highly effective in his or her particular organization but not have the capacity to master both production-oriented and people skills.

Third, leadership styles in these approaches were studied like traits, that is, stable properties of the individual leader that were unaffected by organizational or work influences. Complex interactions and forces in organizations affect leadership styles, and styles affect people and tasks. The situational theory attempted to address this by examining a leader’s situational context.

4.2 Situational Approaches The Hersey and Blanchard original situational approach added another important dimen- sion to the leadership grid by taking into account follower and task characteristics. In this theory (Situational Leadership Theory, or SLT) originally developed in 1969, leaders observe, change, and adapt to the situation at hand, and leadership effectiveness is determined by the extent to which leaders can match their styles to their followers’ styles to meet organizational goals. The understanding that one leadership size does not fit all organizational requirements is central to this approach. Those being lead, for the first time in leadership studies, became the most important element of the organizational context (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). See “Take the Lead: Managing Volunteers.” The model has evolved and several versions have developed from it. One important situational model developed by Blanchard and colleagues is called the Situational Leadership II® Model (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985).

Development Level

The Situational Leadership II® Model is based on the premise that leaders will match their directive and supportive styles—how they give instruction and meet needs—to meet indi- vidual subordinates’ level of development relative to a specific task. The individuals’ needs and styles are determined by their level of development, or their readiness to take on various tasks. Development is understood from the degree of competence and commitment they show or how able and motivated they are to take on a specific task or tasks. An individual may

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 82 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.2 Situational Approaches

be highly skilled—very competent—but unmotivated or unwilling to perform assigned tasks; that person is not committed. In the same way, someone may not have the necessary skills and may require much training, but may show enthusiasm about the work. For a leader to be effective, she or he must first determine—by listening, observing, and asking questions— where subordinates are on the development continuum.

New employees who are inexperienced, lack some confidence, and are unwilling to step up and take on difficult assignments are at the directing level. After working a few months, some of the new employees may be more willing and more confident but still unable to fully com- plete a complex task without instruction; they are at the coaching level. With coaching and mentoring, employees may move from directing level to supporting or even delegating (able and willing or confident); others may remain at a level in need of more coaching. Employees can move in either direction in their development, and in a matter of days, weeks, or months. Before you read about the various leadership styles described in this model, ask yourself which level of development best describes you relative to the tasks that you are confronted with now in either your current job or a job you would like to take. Why would you say you

Take the Lead Managing Volunteers

Leslie is nervous to begin her first position after college. As a manager at a nonprofit organization that builds houses for underprivileged families, she will be managing multiple types of people. These people include:

• Builders: Individuals who are highly skilled as builders, and volunteer their time as part of their retirement. This group needs little direction, and sees their work as personally gratifying.

• Weekend warriors: Entire groups come from churches, sororities, and high schools on weekends to help build. Although well-intentioned and enthusiastic, the members of this group seldom have experience with building.

• Required volunteers: When people have minor traffic violations, the local judge often requires community service. These individuals are never excited to volunteer, and even when skilled, cannot usually be trusted to work independently.

• Part-time administrative staff: Several individuals consistently work part-time for the organization, completing routine administrative tasks. They do not need much instruction, but periodically this group feels underappreciated or expresses that they are asked to do too much.

1. Based on situational leadership model, describe the readiness level of the builders. What leadership style should Leslie use to manage them?

2. Based on situational leadership model, describe the readiness level of the weekend warriors. What leadership style should Leslie use to manage them?

3. Based on situational leadership model, describe the readiness level of the part-time administrators. What leadership style should Leslie use to manage them?

4. Based on situational leadership model, describe the readiness level of the required volunteers. What leadership style should Leslie use to manage them?

5. What could be added to Leslie’s understanding based on Fiedler’s contingency theory? Path–goal theory?

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 83 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.2 Situational Approaches

are at that level? Have you changed levels? Do you want to change levels? What would you need from a supervisor, mentor, coach, or other leadership figure to advance or maintain your level? As you read about the leadership styles, try and identify what leadership style would be most appropriate in various situations in your life, whether you are on the receiving end of leadership or trying to lead others.

Leader Styles

The style a leader chooses to adopt is based on the subordinate development levels. In this model, styles are—in varying degrees—either directive (task-oriented) or supportive, Low- to-high directive, or task, refers to how much direction the leader gives the follower: Does the leader levy clear orders (high) or give the follower room to take initiative (low)? Low-to-high supportive refers to how much support the leader gives the follower: Does the leader foster a warm mentorlike relationship (high) or remain aloof and official (low)? The varying quanti- ties and combinations of directive and supportive leadership result in four different styles: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating.

• Directing, is a high-task/low-supportive style that meets the very basic develop- mental needs of subordinates at the S1 level (where employees show low commit- ment and low competence. This style provides basic, explicit instructions, clear and direct communication regarding goal attainment, and close supervision of follow- ers. At this level, followers’ competence and commitment are very basic. Direct instruction is what is needed, more than being coached, or supported by a man- ager or leader. This is not to say that subordinates should be ill-treated, avoided, or neglected—not at all. Employees who are new; are returning to the workforce; or are moving to a different company, industry, or field may welcome this style in the beginning of their employment.

• Coaching, is a high-task/high-supportive style that meets the developmental needs of followers at the S2 level (where employees demonstrate low competence but more commitment). This style is direct and provides open communication— sharing, asking questions, receiving information—on goal attainment. The style also provides social and emotional support by encouraging subordinates in their efforts. This leadership style is effective with those who may not yet have the experience or expertise for the task but want to contribute and are confident they can.

• Supporting, is a high-supportive/low-task style that meets the developmental needs of followers at the S3 level (where employees are competent but unmotivated or not confident). This style does not overemphasize goal attainment. It offers sup- port by praising, encouraging, and giving and receiving feedback as needed. This style can be effective with those who are experienced and skilled but not confident in their capability to get the job done.

Leaders who can offer challenging goals while participating when necessary can satisfy more highly skilled and creative followers.

• Delegating, is a style of low concern for task and supportive behavior in relation- ships with subordinates who are at the S4 development level (where employees are highly competent and highly committed). Little direction or support may be needed, because these individuals take charge of the work and execution; they are able, willing, and confident. The leader empowers these employees and teams to

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 84 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.3 Contingency Approach

take responsibility for tasks depending on their judgment and initiative. This style is necessary when subordinates have as much experience as the leader—if not more—in specialized areas. Senior professionals in the workforce who respond to this style are ready, willing, and able to carry out assignments and may also have more relevant experience than their supervisors. This is an interesting style, because the leader must be both a coach and a supervisor.

The situational approach attributes more control to both leaders and followers, empowering them to respond to different situations rather than locking them into specific roles or styles.

However, unlike prior approaches, there is a lack of a research history to verify the situ- ational approaches. That is, a researched basis is lacking on which to gauge and interpret the results. There are also no demographic characteristics that suggest how education, age, experience, or gender would influence the effectiveness of the exchange between leader and follower. Neither does the theory explain differences between individual and group leadership. Should a leader of a group match her or his style to the average of the group development level or to each individual’s development level in the group? (Vecchio & Bra- zil, 2002; Northouse, 2016, in press). In the following sections, the theories take a different approach, an approach in which the leader’s style does not change but is still matched to the followers and to the organization.

4.3 Contingency Approach Contingency theorists continue to study leadership styles, but they are interested in find- ing an effective fit between a leader’s style, followers’ characteristics, and the organiza- tional setting. These approaches look at leaders whose effectiveness is contingent on how well the two match—hence the name of the theory. We will examine two contingency theo- ries: Fiedler’s theory, which seeks to prescribe a leader–situation match, and path–goal theory, which focuses on the leader–follower relationship itself and how leaders motivate followers.

Fiedler’s Leader–Situation Theory

In Fiedler’s theory, leaders exam- ine their own style through a questionnaire, diagnose the specific organizational situation—also through a questionnaire—and then match the two. In this theory, the leader’s style does not change.

Please take Assessment 4.2, the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) question- naire, before continuing; otherwise your results will be biased.

iStock/Thinkstock

In Fiedler’s theory, leaders examine their own style through a questionnaire that diagnoses their specific organizational situation then matches the two.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 85 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.3 Contingency Approach

Assessment 4.2: Least Preferred Coworker (LPC)

Instructions

Think of the person with whom you can work least well. This may be someone you work with now or someone you knew in the past. It does not have to be the person you like least well, but it should be the person with whom you had the most difficulty in getting a job done. Describe this person, as he or she appears to you, by circling a number for each scale.

Pleasant 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Unpleasant Friendly 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Unfriendly Rejecting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Accepting Helpful 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Frustrating Unenthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Enthusiastic Tense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Relaxed Distant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Close Cold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Warm Cooperative 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Uncooperative Supportive 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Hostile Boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Interesting Quarrelsome 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Harmonious Self-assured 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Hesitant Efficient 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Inefficient Gloomy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cheerful Open 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Guarded

Scoring

Your LPC score is the sum of the answers to these 16 questions. A high score (greater than 76) reflects a relationship orientation, while a low score (less than 62) signals a task orientation.

Interpretation

According to Fiedler’s work, a person with a high LPC score tends to be relationship oriented. These leaders generally tend to perform best under conditions of intermediate favorability. Leaders with a low LPC score are more task oriented, and they tend to function best under conditions of high and low favorability. Work by John K. Kennedy, Jr., indicated that “the performance of middle LPC leaders is generally superior to that of the high and low LPC leaders” (1982, p. 1).*

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 86 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.3 Contingency Approach

Leadership Style Determined Results of the LPC questionnaire, which asks you to recall your current and past coworkers and think of your least preferred coworker, indicate whether your style is task or relationship oriented—similar to the Michigan, Ohio State, and other models we discussed earlier.

The least preferred coworker is rated on a scale of 16 sets of contrasting adjectives, includ- ing supportive–hostile, pleasant–unpleasant, efficient–inefficient, and open–guarded. If the leader describes the least preferred coworker in positive terms, then the leader is considered relationship oriented—that is, the leader is caring, sensitive, and aware of other people’s feel- ings. However, if the leader describes the coworker in negative terms, then the leader is con- sidered task oriented—that is, the leader places more value on tasks than on people.

Situation Defined The organizational situation, or context, can be defined in terms of three dimensions: (1) the relationship between the leader and the organization members, (2) the ways tasks are struc- tured, and (3) the amount of influence the leader has on subordinates. Each of these elements can be seen as favorable, moderate or intermediate, or unfavorable to the leader.

1. Leader–member relations measure the group climate or atmosphere. If the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members have in their leader is low, then leader– member relations are poor or unfavorable. If confidence, trust, and respect for the leader are high, then leader–member relations are good or very favorable. This ele- ment can also be moderate or intermediate, between favorable and unfavorable for the leader. This is the most important factor in defining the organizational situation.

2. Task structure is the degree to which job assignments are structured or unstructured, routine or nonroutine, unambiguous or straightforward, and easily understood or complicated. This is the second most influential factor of situational favorableness in Fiedler’s theory. Structured situations offer leaders more influence, because the leader will have to spend less time with this element; therefore, structured tasks are more favorable to leaders. Unstructured, ill-defined tasks and jobs are more unfavorable for the leader, because she or he will have to spend more time with this element.

3. Position power is the degree of influence a leader has over subordinates—hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salaries. Position power is high when the leader has power to direct, evaluate, and reward or discipline subordinates. Position power is low when the leader lacks such power. The bottom half of Figure 4.4 combines these three situational elements to create eight different situations, ranging from most favorable to least favorable. In observing Figure 4.4, you can see that

• Situation I is the most favorable to the leader; leader–member relations are good, task structure is high, and leader position power is strong. Situation II is also favorable, but not as ideal as Situation I.

• Situation VIII is the most unfavorable for the leader; leader–member relations are poor, task structure is low, and position power is weak. Situation VII is also unfa- vorable, but not as unfavorable as situation VIII.

• Situations III, IV, V, and VI are intermediate or moderate, representing a range of favorableness to the leader.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 87 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Low

Leader-Member Relations Good

Strong

Good

Weak

Task Structure Structured

Poor

Strong

Poor

Weak

Structured

Poor

Strong

Poor

Weak

Unstructured

Good

Strong

Good

Weak

Unstructured

Leader Position Power

High Task-oriented leader

Relationship- oriented leader

P er

fo rm

an ce

Very Favorable

ISituations II III IV V VI VII VIII

Intermediate Very Unfavorable

Section 4.3 Contingency Approach

Determining the Leader–Situation Match The upper half of Figure 4.3 compares how task and relationship-oriented leaders would perform in the eight different situations, with high performance clearly being preferred. In Fiedler’s model, task-oriented leaders perform better in highly favorable and highly unfa- vorable situations (I, II, VII, and VIII). Task-oriented leaders excel in highly favorable situa- tions because everyone is cohesive, the tasks are understandable, and the leader has power. The leader steps in and leads. In unfavorable situations, the task-oriented leader also excels, because she or he defines the task and exerts authority over followers. Since leader–member relations are poor, a task-oriented leader’s popularity is not affected.

Relationship-oriented leaders perform better in moderately favorable situations (IV, V, and VI), because people skills are needed to achieve increased group performance. A relationship-oriented leader has the interpersonal skills to improve relationships, get tasks on track, and establish position power with members who moderately like the leader. These lead- ers also work more effectively in moderately favorable situations because, Fiedler theorized, in extreme situations they tend to overreact, and with less control provided, they may overfocus on relationships, thus failing to complete the tasks. Note that research to date has not answered why leaders with low LPC scores work effectively in extreme situations and those with high LPC scores do not. Contingency theory has been challenged based on the lack of verification of these assertions. Consider the organization where you are working or wish to work. Using your LPC questionnaire results, determine how the combined three dimensions in your specific work situation add up to be very favorable, intermediate, or very unfavorable for you as a leader. How well do you fit in that organizational setting?

Fiedler assumed that leaders’ styles are inflexible; therefore, there are only two ways to increase leader effectiveness: (1) change the leader to fit the organizational context, as stated earlier, or (2) change the organizational context to fit the leader. Unlike in situational theory, this model does not allow for an individual or organization to change. Another problem is that practitioners have difficulty in understanding the LPC questionnaire and interpreting the variables in the model.

Low

Leader-Member Relations Good

Strong

Good

Weak

Task Structure Structured

Poor

Strong

Poor

Weak

Structured

Poor

Strong

Poor

Weak

Unstructured

Good

Strong

Good

Weak

Unstructured

Leader Position Power

High Task-oriented leader

Relationship- oriented leader

P er

fo rm

an ce

Very Favorable

ISituations II III IV V VI VII VIII

Intermediate Very Unfavorable

Figure 4.3: Fiedler contingency theory

Source: Fiedler, F.E. The effects of leadership training and experience: A contingency model interpretation, (1972), Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, p. 455, Figure 1. Published by Sage Publications on behalf of Cornell University, Johnson Graduate School of Management. Reproduced with permission of Graduate School of Business and Public Administration.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 88 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.3 Contingency Approach

However, Fiedler’s work was based on years of studies, many of which support his theory. Another relevant aspect of this theory and model is that leaders are not expected to be all things to all people or all organizations. Some styles work more effectively than others in dif- ferent contexts. The model has also been useful to organizations that assess and identify pro- fessionals’ strengths and capabilities for certain positions and assignments. For example, the model may be used (1) to help explain why an individual is not effective in a given position, even though the person is hard-working, conscientious, and loyal; (2) to help predict whether a person who has effectively worked in one position in a company or organization can be as effective if moved into a different position in the same company; and (3) to help leaders and managers make changes in lower-level positions to ensure a good fit between a manager or employee and a particular work environment (Northouse, 2010).

Path–Goal Contingency Theory

Path–goal theory focuses on the leader—rather than the follower—and his or her responsi- bility to motivate followers to reach both personal and organizational objectives (Daft, 2015). Path–goal theory explains how individual employee performance fits with and is impacted by leaders’ styles, tasks, and employee characteristics.

Developed by Robert House (1971), path–goal theory is the only leadership approach that focuses directly on the role of followers’ motivation in accomplishing organizational goals. Although the theory is at first complex, it is appealing as a practical method that leaders can use to empower followers.

As the name of the theory suggests, leaders motivate followers by clarifying the path or emphasizing the goal. More specifically, the leader (1) defines the goals, (2) points to and clears the path to available rewards (possibly increasing them), and (3) supports the fol- lower in achieving those rewards. The underlying logic of path–goal theory is that follow- ers are motivated when they believe that (1) they are able to perform their work tasks, (2) their efforts will lead to certain outcomes, and (3) the payoffs from their work are worthwhile.

In this model, a leader’s effectiveness also depends on matching his or her style with the followers’ characteristics and demands of the task situation, and then taking steps to influ- ence performance and satisfaction (House & Mitchell, 1974)—three contingencies that we will explore in more detail. Like in Hersey and Blanchard’s situational approach, the leader is concerned with followers’ developmental levels and an organization’s characteristics, but here a leader is also expected to address a subordinate’s specific motivational needs. Table 4.1 depicts the interaction of the three contingencies that are necessary for leadership effectiveness.

Leader Styles Path–goal theory identifies four styles of leadership: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented. As in situational theory, leaders in this model adapt their styles to fol- lowers’ needs and work conditions. Leaders can show any or all of these styles and behaviors with different followers, depending on the circumstances and needs.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 89 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.3 Contingency Approach

• The directive leader tells followers what is expected of them and how to plan, con- trol, and monitor tasks, make schedules, and follow procedures. This leadership style and behavior is related to the task-oriented styles discussed earlier, and is effective when the followers’ roles and tasks are ambiguous and complex.

• The supportive leader is cordial and helpful and shows concern for followers’ socio- emotional needs and well-being. Supportive leadership is needed when followers’ tasks are difficult and relationships are emotionally distressing.

• The participative leader consults with followers, solicits their input, asks for opin- ions and suggestions, meets with employees in their work spaces, and encourages dialogue and communication. This type of behavior and style is helpful when follow- ers are personally involved in their work.

• The achievement-oriented leader sets clear and challenging goals for followers and expects high-quality performance. This leader also shows confidence in followers

and helps them learn how to obtain higher goals.

If you are a follower, which style do you respond to best? Why? If you are a leader, which style do you espouse?

Follower Characteristics Imagine that you have just joined an organization, and your supervisor has been trained in path–goal theory. Depending on what tasks you are assigned, how would you want and need a supervisor to assist you? What style and leadership role would work best to motivate you to achieve your

Table 4.1: Path–goal model

Leadership Behavior Subordinate Characteristics Task Characteristics

Directive Provides guidance and psychological structure

Dogmatic Authoritarian

Ambiguous Unclear as to rules Complex

Supportive Provides nurturance

Unsatisfied Needs affiliation Needs human touch

Repetitive Unchallenging Mundane

Participative Provides involvement

Autonomous Needs control Needs clarity

Ambiguous Unclear Unstructured

Achievement Oriented Provides challenges

Has high expectations Needs to excel

Ambiguous Challenging Complex

Source: Adapted from Northouse, P. Leadership (2010), Theory and Practice (5th ed.) p. 131. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Erik Snyder/Photodisc/Thinkstock

The supportive leader is cordial and helpful and shows concern for followers’ socio-emotional needs and well-being.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 90 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.3 Contingency Approach

work goals? As you read this section, think of your current or a previous work situation and what your motivational needs are or were with regard to carrying out your assignments. If you are in a leadership position, try to characterize your current subordinates based on these criteria.

Motivational needs—and thus a leader’s approach—differ based on three factors: the fol- lower’s ability to perform tasks; the follower’s locus of control; and the follower’s tendency to defer to others (authoritarianism).

The idea of ability discussed here directly mirrors the developmental level discussed in Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory. A follower who does not think he or she can do the work would require a directive leader who provides specific instruction and training. A sup- portive leadership style would complement such a style for an insecure follower but would not be effective on its own. In contrast, a competent and confident follower would require less monitoring and would respond well to participative, achievement-oriented, or support- ive leadership styles.

As discussed in personality theory, a follower with a high external locus of control believes outside forces determine the ability to achieve goals. This type of follower would need a directive leader. Likewise, a follower with a high internal locus of control believes one con- trols one’s own life and takes responsibility for one’s own goals. This type of follower would benefit from a participative leader who would invite the follower into decision making. Achievement-oriented and supportive leadership styles are less relevant here.

Finally, authoritarianism refers to a follower’s need for an authority figure. An authoritarian or dogmatic follower prefers to defer to others and be told what to do and how. In environ- ments that are high in uncertainty, this type of follower may need a directive leader to create a psychological structure and a comfort zone to help the follower clarify goals and attain a greater sense of certainty. An achievement-oriented style may also be helpful here, but the primary need is for direction. For a follower who has a need for affiliation, or a relationship and emotional connection, a supportive leadership that is friendly and caring may be a help- ful resource that enables a follower to achieve his or her goals. The collaborative nature of a participative leadership style may also appeal to this type of follower.

Task-Environment Characteristics Path–goal theory characterizes a task environment in terms of task structure, formal authority, and the follower’s primary work group. Task structure refers to the characteristics of a task (or several tasks): Tasks may be complex and ambiguous with unclear rules, repetitive and unchallenging, or a mix of these two descriptions. Formal authority refers to the leader: The team leader may be too authoritarian or too lax and vague in giving instructions. A work group is self-explanatory; it encompasses those who work with a follower. Work group members may be insensitive to an individual’s motivational needs, or they may be caring and responsive.

Think of your task environment in your present job. What is the nature of your tasks? How much authority does the leader possess? What is your work group like? What leadership style would work best for you?

Taken together, the effects of these task-environment characteristics can be motivating or demotivating for followers. For example, when there are unstructured tasks with unclear

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 91 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.4 Individualized Leadership, Leader–Member Exchange (LMX), and Followership

goals, and the group is unsupportive, then a new employee with low confidence who has a need for affiliation will probably need a leader whose style combines supportive and directive characteristics. On the other hand, a highly skilled, competent, and overachieving follower may experience problems in a work environment that has clearly defined, routine tasks with a highly formal—even rigid—authority system and a work group whose norms include “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” In this situation, a leader whose style combines supportive and achievement-oriented behaviors may be helpful to the follower. The leader might suggest a change of work groups and work contexts after further exploring the employee’s needs and motivation. Can you think of other task-environment scenarios and the styles—or combina- tion of styles—that would be most effective in them?

Path–goal theory has continued to develop over the years. House added four additional styles in 1996 that are not discussed here, but they are an example of how leadership theory often evolves alongside a changing work environment. Research results are mixed regarding this theory. Some studies support the relationship between directive leadership style and worker satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous, but other studies do not. Because of the complexity of the theory, critics argue that it is difficult to know which leadership style to use, and when, with any certainty. It is argued that the relationship between leader behavior and follower motivation has not been established.

There are other questions regarding the usefulness of the model. Practitioners cannot know if a particular leadership style affects followers’ work motivation. Moreover, could follower dependency on leaders be created by this model? That is, could certain followers whose needs are not satisfied by a work context come to rely on a leader whose support and advice motivated them? Does this theory promote a one-way type of leader–follower exchange and relationship? More research is needed. However, even with these questions, the model con- tributes a practical and helpful method for followers and leadership by expanding on the dimensions of both task and consideration aspects of employer–employee relationships.

4.4 Individualized Leadership, Leader–Member Exchange (LMX), and Followership

As leadership theory evolved, workplace relationships and exchanges between leaders and indi- vidual organizational members were examined not only in terms of performance exclusively, but also in terms of job satisfaction, commitment, and trust—factors that were also related to performance (Rockstuhl, Soon, Dulebohn, & Shore, 2012). The theory of leader as hero or person gifted with important traits was giving way to leaders who were able to build relationships with different followers, and vice versa. The theory of individualized leadership, dyadic and Leader– Member Exchange (LMX) was born.1 Leader–follower relationships are now recognized as rel- evant and vital throughout organizations (Smith & Kirkland, 2012). Research indicates other reasons why leader– follower relationships are important:

1. The value of the social dimensions of these relationships predicts follower outcomes more than behaviors or traits of leaders (Kang & Stewart, 2007; Manzoni & Barsoux, 2002; Perumalu, Kandan, & Ali, 2010).

2. Strong LMX relationships increase follower commitment to organizations while lowering their prospects of quitting or leaving (Biron & Boon, 2013; Volmer, Spurk, &

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 92 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.4 Individualized Leadership, Leader–Member Exchange (LMX), and Followership

Niessen, 2012; Zhang, Tsingan, & Zhang, 2013).

3. New employees benefit from the LMX when this relationship serves a mediating role in help- ing newcomers understand their connection with their job and organization (Sluss & Thompson, 2012).

Next we explain dyadic vertical rela- tionships, team-member exchange, and team-member exchange theory.

Stage 1. The Average Leadership Style (ALS) View (1972–1977) Individualized leadership evolved over three stages. The earliest stage of indi- vidualized leadership was character- ized by Danereau (1995) as predating dyadic relationships between leaders and followers. During this stage leaders did not nec- essarily treat all followers equally, but neither were leaders observed to have had a more unique, individualized relationship with followers as stage 2 showed. Leaders had their own styles and differences and related to followers accordingly.

Stage 2. Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Approach (1978–1989) During this stage, vertical dyad linkages evolved into more individualized leader–member exchanges. A dyad is an individualized relationship between two people, so dyadic models are examining just that: the relationship between two individuals. Dyadic theory views lead- ership as exchanges between follower and leader over time; the leader forms different rela- tionships with separate followers. During this stage, Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) illustrates that leader and follower exchanges were formed through exchanges characterized by vertical dyads since there was a power distance within the relationships in work units. Both task and consideration dimensions were still important, and although trust, respect, and responsibili- ties existed between leader and follower in these relationships, relationships based on more formal exchanges also occurred.

Over time, “in-groups” and “out-groups” formed between leaders and followers. Out- groups consist of individuals not considered part of a core group, or those who comprise an in-group. The out-group member exchanges are therefore more formal, rule and compli- ance based. In-group members on the other hand, shared in more supportive feedback and consideration-based exchanges with the leader, who gave attention and perks to those in these groups. In-groups and out-groups continue to exist today.

Stockbyte/Digital Vision/Thinkstock

Job satisfaction, commitment, and trust are also fac- tors that are related to performance.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 93 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Section 4.4 Individualized Leadership, Leader–Member Exchange (LMX), and Followership

Also, during this stage of individualized leadership the leader–member exchange theory was developed, which characterized leader–member exchanges as more individualized, higher quality relationships between leaders and different followers. Researchers argued that such relationships could predict performance of subordinates more than traits and even behav- iors of leaders (Kang & Stewart, 2007; Perumalu et al., 2010; Raymond, Yina, & Hang-yue, 2009). LMX exchanges, however, were not all characterized as equal. As in stage 2, leaders interacted with different members in selective ways because resources were limited. Con- sequently, members of in-groups enjoyed more frequent communication exchanges, greater value congruence, and consequently more job satisfaction and even better performance than those in out-groups.

Stage 3. Individual Leader, Team–Member Exchanges (TMX), and Networks Approach (1990–) As teams flourished in organizations, team leadership evolved and such exchanges between leader and followers were termed Team–Member Exchanges (TMX). The verticality in stages 1 and 2 gave way to more peer-related relationships characterized by camaraderie, feedback, idea sharing, and closer working relationships. In-group and out-group dynamics still existed, but were less emphasized in this team structured stage, which also characterized leaders as interacting and forming relationships not only within their own work units but in and across different functions and even divisions of the organization.

During this stage and stage 2 as well, partnership building relationships between leaders and followers occur. Positive relationships are emphasized. Although teams and leader– follower exchanges in these types of relationships broadened the scope of leader– member relationships, issues still surfaced. Ethical issues of (procedural) fairness among team members involved who was being paid (distributive fairness), rewarded, and treated in just ways (Gaen, Hui, & Taylor, 2006; Lussier & Achua, 2016). Still, leader-team and follower relationships during this stage encouraged both people and production or work-related demands and requirements of leaders and followers.

Benefits and Limitations of Individualized Leadership-Followership Exchange Theory

Studies on leader–member exchange theory confirm the findings that high-quality relationships between leaders and followers facilitate a range of outcomes: more citizenship behavior; greater trust, commitment, and liking; higher performance and job satisfaction (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Rockstuhl et al., 2012; Wallis, Francis, Yammarino, & Feyerherm, 2011). Leaders and followers, from this theoretical perspective, must adapt and change behaviors to accommodate relationships and work requirements; the influence relationship goes both ways. Obstacles and factors in work environments and situations must also be considered, negoti- ated, and dealt with to maintain healthy interpersonal and professional leader–follower per- ceptions, behaviors, and attitudes. Self-identities that are dyad centered must be broadened into a collective self-identity considering the larger group members (Knippenberg, D. Van et al., 2004). Leaders who can create work environments, climates, and cultures based on trust, openness, responsibility, and respect create productive relationships among followers as well

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 94 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Summary & Resources

as between leader and follower. Followers who take responsibility to actively ask for and accept feedback and advice to enhance their role and work are more likely to form value-added rela- tionships with their leaders.

One limitation of the LMX theory is the difficulty in measuring the relationships, especially because the standard LMX-7 questionnaire concentrates on followers’ experiences and per- spective of the relationships (Gerstner & D. Day, 1997; Lussier & Achua, 2016). Also, there is a bias toward in-group members. Care must be taken by researchers when selecting and study- ing relationships from this theoretical view. In sum, the LMX theory, building on past theories, opened the field and practice of leadership to include a more three-dimensional view of both leaders and followers in real-time relationships.

NOTE 1. This section is also based on the works of Green, G, & Day, D. (1997). Meta-Analytic

review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844; Yammarino, F., & Dansereau, F. (2002). Individu- alized leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 90–99; Gaen, G, & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247; Danereau, F. (1995). A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this approach under fire. Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 479–490; Manzoni, J-F., & Barsoux, J-L. (1998, March- April). The set-up-to-fail syndrome. Harvard Business Review, 76, 101–113; Lussier, R., & Acua, C. (2016). Leadership (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Summary & Resources

Chapter Summary Leadership studies evolve in this chapter beyond trait theory to define and include leaders’ styles to “fit” with followers and tasks in different work situations. We follow the progression of under- standing how leaders can understand behaviors, contingency factors, and finally individualized leadership relationships with followers to be effective and efficient. Leadership and followership evolved from a task- versus people-oriented continuum where the Michigan and Ohio studies matched production-oriented approaches with employee- oriented approaches to theories that explained how particular leadership styles would “fit” with follower and task environment.

The contingency-based leadership theories led by Fiedler progressed to the path–goal theory that helped identify the readiness and willingness of followers to perform tasks. The correct leadership style could then adapt to the follower, who could be coached, educated, and trained for different tasks.

Finally, individualized leadership and LMX (leader–member exchange) theory also evolved through stages until both leader and follower could be seen and studied from a more com- plex relationship in which both had influence and responsibilities for managing productively, in ethically fair and emotionally gratifying interpersonal relationships. The next chapter moves leadership further ahead to yet another level of richness and complexity. You may be

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 95 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Summary & Resources

observing insights and changes about your own evolving leader and follower style as you reflect on your assessments and exercises.

Web Resources

The Food Channel and Personal Vision

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxFFR9pzVyE The Food Channel emphasizes the importance of having personal vision.

Jerry McGuire’s Mission Statement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSi4HHNOnd0 The moment that kicks off the 1996 movie about believing in personal vision and mission.

How to Write a Mission Statement That Doesn’t Suck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhG3HZ7b4o Author Dan Heath gives some concrete advice. Mission statements aren’t just for businesses. Jon and Kate Gosselin, parents of eight chil- dren, drafted a mission statement in the early days of their TV show.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Apply the Michigan and Ohio studies leadership/employee models to the opening chapter scenario summarizing Tony Hsieh’s proposed peer and self-managed teams approach. Argue how these models would and would not fit that situation.

2. Show and provide evidence where Tony Hsieh and Jeff Bezos fit on the leadership grid? Explain. Compare where your style is on that grid and why, as compared with Hsieh and Bezos.

3. Apply the Hersey and Blanchard model to yourself and explain your reasoning. What do you need to move or advance to a different dimension on that model? Explain.

4. Apply the Path–Goal approach to yourself and then with a friend. Discuss similarities and differences of your experience.

5. Explain to Hsieh at Zappos how the Individualized Leadership and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory and applications might be helpful with his employees at Zappos with their type of company and structure.

6. Assume you are a leadership consultant. Of all the theories and models in this chapter which ones do you find most helpful to use with leaders and employees who hired you to help with their professional development? Explain.

Key Terms

authority-compliance leader Focuses on getting the job done with no concern for followers or perhaps peers. The emphasis of this style is more on operational efficiency than on meeting the social and personal needs of followers.

commitment A follower capacity that is part of situational approach, indicat- ing how willing followers are to take on various tasks. Also when a follower will- ingly embraces a directive and executes it,

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 96 9/2/15 2:00 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxFFR9pzVyE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSi4HHNOnd0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhG3HZ7b4o

Summary & Resources

usually with a high degree of diligence and attention.

competence A follower capacity that is part of situational approach, indicating how able followers are to take on various tasks.

country club leader Shows high concern for people and task accomplishment and is involved in interpersonal relationships with followers and peers. This leader focuses on followers’ social and individual needs, with a low task orientation.

directive style A part of situational approach that refers to how much direction the leader gives the follower.

formal authority The degree of authori- tarianism or laxity with which a leader gives instructions.

Situational Approach An approach that considers follower and task characteris- tics. In this model, leaders observe, change, and adapt to the situation at hand, and leadership effectiveness is determined by the extent to which leaders can match their styles to the follower readiness to meet organizational goals. The four lead- ership styles based on follower readiness are directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating.

impoverished leader Uninvolved and dis- connected from followers, peers, and work tasks, putting forth minimal effort. This leader may appear alienated, distant, indif- ferent, and uncommitted to the organization and to others.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Focuses on individual leader–follower relation- ships and LMX (leader–member exchanges) starting with dyadic relationships and extending to groups and partnerships. Leader-member relationships are exam- ined not only in terms of performance exclusively, but also job satisfaction,

commitment, and trust—factors also related to performance.

leadership grid A behavioral approach that plots five leadership styles along two axes: concern for people and concern for production. The five styles are team leader, authority-compliance leader, middle-of-the- road leader, country club leader, and impov- erished leader.

least preferred coworker rated on a scale of 16 sets of contrasting adjectives, includ- ing supportive–hostile, pleasant–unpleasant, efficient–inefficient, and open–guarded.

Michigan and Ohio leadership studies Leadership studies, beginning in the 1940s, that were critical to the development of style and behavioral leadership theory. They defined leaders as either task oriented or people oriented.

middle-of-the-road leader Partly concerned about task accomplishment and somewhat concerned about followers and peers. This “average” leader produces enough to get by and shows enough concern to be acceptable to followers and peers.

opportunist A leader who uses any of the styles combined to promote his or her own advancement.

path–goal theory The only leadership approach that focuses directly on the role of followers’ motivation in accomplishing organizational goals. Leaders motivate fol- lowers by clarifying the path or emphasizing the goal. More specifically, the leader (1) defines the goals, (2) points to and clears the path to available rewards (possibly increasing them), and (3) supports the follower in achieving those rewards.

people oriented Style of leadership focusing on followers and interpersonal relationships.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 97 9/2/15 2:00 PM

Summary & Resources

supportive style This style of leader- ship mentors and assists employees whose readiness and willingness to perform tasks require leadership attention. See directive style.

task oriented A leadership style that involve assigning tasks, specifying proce- dures, defining work schedules, and help- ing followers set goals and focuses more on getting work done than on showing consid- eration to people. Also called pro- duction orientation and initiating structure.

task structure In Fiedler’s contingency theory, the degree to which job assignments are structured or unstructured, routine or

nonroutine, unambiguous or straightfor- ward, and easily understood or complicated. In path–goal theory, the characteristics of a task (or several tasks): Tasks may be complex and ambiguous with unclear rules, repetitive and unchallenging, or a mix of these two descriptions.

team leader Has high concern for tasks, fol- lowers, and peer relationships. This leader is highly results driven while being very engaged and concerned with followers and peers.

work group Those assigned to work together to achieve a common goal.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 98 9/2/15 2:00 PM