W3A1

CH3.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >W3A1

Chapter 3: Contingency Approaches to Leadership

NOT FOR SALE

YOUR LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Understand how leadership is often contingent on people and situations. • Apply Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory of leader style to the level of follower readiness. • Apply Fiedler’s contingency model to key relationships among leader style, situational favorability,

and group task performance.

• Explain the path–goal theory of leadership. • Use the Vroom–Jago model to identify the correct amount of follower participation in specific

decision situations.

• Know how to use the power of situational variables to substitute for or neutralize the need for leadership.

CHAPTER OUTLINE 66 The Contingency Approach

69 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory

73 Fiedler’s Contingency Model

77 Path–Goal Theory

81 The Vroom–Jago Contingency Model

88 Substitutes for Leadership

In The Lead

72 Laura Smith, Yola

75 Sergio Marchionne, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

79 Alan Robbins, Plastic Lumber Company

87 Art Weinstein, Whitlock Manufacturing

88 Daniel Snyder, Washington Redskins

Leader’s Self-Insight

69 T–P Leadership Questionnaire: An Assessment of Style

73 Are You Ready?

90 Measuring Substitutes for Leadership

Leader’s Bookshelf

67 Shackleton’s Way: Leadership Lessons from the Great Antarctic Explorer

Leadership at Work

92 Task versus Relationship Role Play

Leadership Development: Cases for Analysis

93 Alvis Corporation

94 An Impossible Dream?

A few hours after being named only the third CEO in Microsoft’s history,Satya Nadella held a short impromptu town hall Webcast, near the end ofwhich he said, ‘‘If you have to get back to [something] because it’s more interesting or important, please . . .’’ The gesture reflects the style of Nadella, who previously led the company’s cloud and enterprise businesses, as a quiet, humble leader who emphasizes listening, helpfulness, and collaboration. Previous CEO Steve Ballmer, in contrast, had a forceful, driven approach to leadership and was known for his competitiveness and exuberant displays of emotion.1 Yet both leaders have been successful within the same organization.

This example points to what researchers of leader traits and behaviors eventually discovered: Many different leadership styles can be effective. What, then, determines the success of a leadership style?

One factor that affects what leadership approach will be most effective is the situation in which leadership activities occur. Over the years, researchers have

65NOT FOR SALE

observed that leaders frequently behave situationally—that is, they adjust their leadership style depending on a variety of factors in the situations they face. In this chapter, we discuss the elements of leader, followers, and the situation, and the impact each has upon the others. We examine several theories that define how leadership styles, follower attributes, and organizational characteristics fit together to enable successful leadership. The important point of this chapter is that the most effective leadership approach depends on many factors. Understanding the contin- gency approaches can help a leader adapt his or her approach, although it is impor- tant to recognize that leaders also develop their ability to adapt through experience and practice.

3-1 THE CONTINGENCY APPROACH The failure to find universal leader traits or behaviors that would always determine effective leadership led researchers in a new direction. Although leader behavior was still examined, the central focus of the new research was the situation in which leadership occurred. The basic tenet of this focus was that behavior effective in some circumstances might be ineffective under different conditions. Thus, the effectiveness of leader behavior is contingent upon organizational situations. Aptly called contin- gency approaches, these theories explain the relationship between leadership styles and effectiveness in specific situations.

In Exhibit 3.1, the universalistic approach as described in Chapter 2 is compared to the contingency approach described in this chapter. In Chapter 2, researchers were investigating traits or behaviors that could improve performance and satisfaction in any or all situations. They sought universal leadership traits and behaviors. Contingency means that one thing depends on other things, and for a leader to be effective there must be an appropriate fit between the leader’s behavior

EXHIBIT 3.1 Comparing the Universalistic and Contingency Approaches to Leadership

Universalistic Approach

Contingency Approach

Followers Situation

Leader

Outcomes (Performance, satisfaction, etc.)

Leadership Traits/Behaviors

Style Traits

Behavior Position

Outcomes (Performance, satisfaction, etc.)

Needs Maturity Training

Cohesion

Task Structure Systems

Environment

Contingency a theory meaning one thing depends on other things

66 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

and style and the conditions in the situation. A leadership style that works in one sit- uation might not work in another situation. There is no one best way of leadership. Contingency means ‘‘it depends.’’ Many leaders today look to an early twentieth- century explorer for inspiration on how to lead through an extreme situation, as described in this chapter’s Leader’s Bookshelf.

The contingencies most important to leadership as shown in Exhibit 3.1 are the sit- uation and followers. Research implies that situational variables such as task, structure, context, and environment are important to leadership style. The nature of followers

LEADER’S BOOKSHELF Shackleton’s Way: Leadership Lessons from the Great Antarctic Explorer

by Margot Morrell and Stephanie Capparell

‘‘Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages. Bitter cold. Long months of complete darkness. Constant danger. Safe return doubtful. Honour and rec- ognition in case of success.’’

Would you sign up for this job? When Sir Ernest Shackleton set out with a crew of 27 in 1914 with the goal of crossing the continent of Antarctica on foot, he probably didn’t understand how utterly true the wording of his ad would turn out to be. His boat, the Endurance, never even touched land but became stuck in ice in the Weddell Sea for months and eventually sank. The men were left drifting on ice floes 1,200 miles from civilization, in danger- ous cold, with only three lifeboats and limited provisions. They must have been terrified, and things didn’t get much better for almost two long, brutal years. But, amazingly, every member of Shackleton’s crew survived.

Margot Morrell and Stephanie Cap- parell analyzed the diaries of Shackleton and crew members to understand what brand of leadership enabled their survival through severe cold, isolation, near starvation, life-threatening storms, and all manner of other hardships. Their book tells a fascinating and inspiring adventure story but also offers lessons for today’s leaders about how to lead in a situation of great stress and hardship.

LESSONS FOR LEADING IN TOUGH TIMES Shackleton’s team eventually made it to a small island and waited while

Shackleton and a few members took a small boat 800 miles over treacherous seas to a whaling station, and then Shackleton took a ship back to rescue the others. Here are some tips from Shackleton’s handling of the crew that apply to leading through any tough situation.

• Step up immediately. After they abandoned the sinking ship, Shackle- ton encouraged people with a sim- ple speech that acknowledged the dangers but expressed optimism and made clear that he was in charge and he would lead them through this. ‘‘Optimism is true moral courage,’’ Shackleton is quoted as saying. By expressing optimism, Shackleton reminded crew members of the faith he had in each of them.

• Keep fairness in mind always. Shackleton placed great value on every member of the crew, and he gained their admiration and respect by his fair, consistent, and egalitarian treatment of them. Each member was expected to do any job on the ship. One high-ranking crew mem- ber wrote: ‘‘[S]crubbing the floors . . . humbles one and knocks out of one any last remnants of false pride that one may have left in one and for this reason I do it voluntarily.’’

• Let everyone contribute to success. When disaster struck, Shackleton knew the various tasks that had to be performed if the group were to survive, and he made sure everyone

had assignments that let them contribute to the solution to their dire predicament. To keep spirits high, he used humor and other diversions (one of the few items he rescued from the sinking ship was a banjo). He took the most difficult people into his own tent to win their support and prevent them from infecting the rest of the crew with discouragement.

ADAPTABILITY MAKES IT POSSIBLE Shackleton always looked ahead and kept his eye on the big picture, which enabled him to quickly change course in the face of the unexpected. Commu- nication, especially by listening, helped him see when a new course of action might be needed. Just before the Endur- ance sailed, he fired the cook and three crew members because he learned through listening and observation that they could damage the morale and effectiveness of the crew. ‘‘Shackleton’s optimism was never foolhardy,’’ the book points out. He had confidence in his own abilities and in the abilities of his crew, and he was able to stay flexible enough to abandon what wasn’t work- ing and try something new. It’s a big part of the reason the group survived— and why eight of the crew members came forward to join Shackleton on his final expedition some years later.

Source: Shackleton’s Way, by Margot Morrell and Stephanie Capparell, is published by Viking Penguin.

67NOT FOR SALE

has also been identified as a key contingency. Thus, the needs, maturity, and cohesive- ness of followers make a significant difference to the best style of leadership.

Several models of situational leadership have been developed. The situational theory of Hersey and Blanchard, the contingency model developed by Fiedler and his associates, path–goal theory, the Vroom–Jago model of decision participation, and the substitutes-for-leadership concept will all be described in this chapter. These contingency approaches seek to delineate the characteristics of situations and fol- lowers and examine the leadership styles that can be used effectively. Assuming that a leader can properly diagnose a situation and muster the flexibility to behave according to the appropriate style, successful outcomes are highly likely.

Two basic leadership behaviors that can be adjusted to address various contin- gencies are task behavior and relationship behavior, introduced in Chapter 2. Research has identified these two meta-categories, or broadly defined behavior categories, as applicable to leadership in a variety of situations and time periods.2

A leader can adapt his or her style to be high or low on both task and relationship behavior. Exhibit 3.2 illustrates the four possible behavior approaches—low task– high relationship, high task–high relationship, high task–low relationship, and low task–low relationship. The exhibit describes typical task and relationship behaviors. High task behaviors include planning short-term activities, clarifying tasks, objec- tives, and role expectations, and monitoring operations and performance. High rela- tionship behaviors include providing support and recognition, developing followers’ skills and confidence, and consulting and empowering followers when making decisions and solving problems. Most leaders typically lean toward being stronger in either task-oriented or relationship-oriented behavior, but most experts suggest that a balance of concern for tasks and concern for people is crucial for leadership success over the long term.3

EXHIBIT 3.2 Meta-Categories of Leader Behavior and Four Leader Styles

R EL

AT IO

N S H

IP B

EH A

V IO

TASK BEHAVIOR

High

Low Low High

• Coaching toward achievement style • Combine task and relationship behaviors

High Task–High RelationshipLow Task–High Relationship • Participative or supportive style • Provide support and encouragement • Develop followers’ skill and confidence • Consult followers when making decisions and solving problems

Low Task–Low Relationship • Delegating style • Low concern for both tasks and relationships

High Task–Low Relationship • Authoritative style • Plan short-term activities • Clarify tasks, objectives, and expectations • Monitor operations and performance

Sources: Based on Gary Yukl, Angela Gordon, and Tom Taber, ‘‘A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behavior: Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research,’’ Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies 9, no. 1 (2002), pp. 15–32 and Gary Yukl, ‘‘Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention,’’ Academy of Management Perspectives (November 2012), pp. 66–81.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO Complete the questionnaire in Leader’s Self-Insight 3.1 to assess your relative emphasis on two important categories of leadership behavior.

Contingency approaches approaches that seek to delineate the characteristics of situations and followers and examine the leadership styles that can be used effectively

68 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

Both Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory and Fiedler’s contingency model, discussed in the following sections, use these meta-categories of leadership behavior but apply them based on different sets of contingencies.

3-2 HERSEY AND BLANCHARD’S SITUATIONAL THEORY The situational theory developed by Hersey and Blanchard is an interesting extension of the Leadership Grid outlined in Chapter 2. This approach focuses on the charac- teristics of followers as the most important element of the situation and conse- quently of determining effective leader behavior. The point of Hersey and Blanchard’s theory is that subordinates vary in readiness level. People low in task readiness, because of little ability or training, or insecurity, need a different leader- ship style than those who are high in readiness and have good ability, skills, confi- dence, and willingness to work.4

LEADER’S SELF-INSIGHT 3.1

T–P Leadership Questionnaire: An Assessment of Style

Instructions: The following items describe aspects of leadership behavior. Assume you are the appointed leader of a student group and feel the pressure for performance improvements to succeed. Respond to each item according to the way you would most likely act in this pressure situation. Indicate whether each item below is Mostly False or Mostly True for you as a work-group leader.

Mostly False

Mostly True

1. I would hold members personally accountable for their performance. ______ ______

2. I would assign members to specific roles and tasks. ______ ______

3. I would ask the members to work harder. ______ ______

4. I would check on people to know how they are doing. ______ ______

5. I would focus more on execution than on being pleasant with members. ______ ______

6. I would try to make members’ work more pleasant. ______ ______

7. I would focus on maintaining a pleasant atmosphere on the team. ______ ______

8. I would let members do their work the way they think best. ______ ______

9. I would be concerned with people’s personal feelings and welfare. ______ ______

10. I would go out of my way to be helpful to members. ______ ______

Scoring and Interpretation The T–P Leadership Questionnaire is scored as follows: Your T score represents task orientation and is the number of Mostly True answers for questions 1–5. Your P score represents your people or relationship orientation and is the number of Mostly True answers for questions 6–10. A score of 4 or 5 would be considered high for either T or P. A score of 0 or 1 would be considered low. T ¼ _ _ _. P ¼ _ _ _.

Some leaders focus on people needs, leaving task concerns to followers. Other leaders focus on task details with the expectation that followers will carry out instruc- tions. Depending on the situation, both approaches may be effective. The important issue is the ability to identify relevant dimensions of the situation and behave accord- ingly. Through this questionnaire, you can identify your relative emphasis on the two dimensions of task orienta- tion (T) and people orientation (P). These are not opposite approaches, and an individual can rate high or low on either or both.

What is your leadership orientation? Compare your results from this assignment to your result from the quiz in Leader’s Self-Insight 2.2 in Chapter 2. What would you con- sider an ideal leader situation for your style?

Source: Based on the T–P Leadership Questionnaire as published in ‘‘Toward a Particularistic Approach to Leadership Style: Some Find- ings,’’ by T. J. Sergiovanni, R. Metzcus, and L. Burden, American Educa- tional Research Journal 6, no. 1 (1969), pp. 62–79.

Situational theory Hersey and Blanchard’s extension of the Leadership Grid focusing on the charac- teristics of followers as the important element of the situation, and consequently, of determining effective leader behavior

69NOT FOR SALE

3-2a Leader Style According to the situational theory, a leader can adopt one of four leadership styles, based on a combination of relationship (concern for people) and task (concern for pro- duction) behavior. The appropriate style depends on the readiness level of followers.

Exhibit 3.3 summarizes the relationship between leader style and follower readi- ness. The upper part of the exhibit indicates the style of the leader, which is based on a combination of concern for people and concern for production tasks. The bell- shaped curve is called a prescriptive curve because it indicates when each style should be used. The four styles are telling, selling, participating, and delegating. The telling style (S1) is a very directive approach that reflects a high concern for tasks and a low concern for people and relationships, as shown in the exhibit. The leader provides detailed objectives and explicit instructions about how tasks should be accomplished. The selling style (S2) is based on a high concern for both relationships and tasks. With this approach, the leader provides task instruction and personal support, explains

EXHIBIT 3.3 The Situational Model of Leadership

(S up

po rt

iv e

B eh

av io

r) R

EL AT

IO N

S H

IP B

EH A

V IO

Share ideas and facilitate in decision making

Explain decisions and provide opportunity for clarification

Turn over responsibility for decisions and implementation

Able and Willing

or Confident

Able but Unwilling

or Insecure

Unable but Willing

or Confident

Unable and Unwilling

or Insecure

Provide specific instructions and closely supervise performance

(H IG

H )

(LOW) TASK BEHAVIOR (Guidance)

FOLLOWER READINESS

LEADER STYLE

(HIGH)

HIGH

FOLLOWER DIRECTED

LEADER DIRECTED

LOWMODERATE

S3 S2

R3 R2 R1

DE LE

G AT

IN G

P A

R TI

C IP

AT IN

SELLING

TELL ING

Source: Adapted from The Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership Model / The Center for Leadership Studies, Inc.

70 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

decisions, and gives followers a chance to ask questions and gain clarity about work tasks. The participating style (S3) is characterized by high relationship and low task behavior. The leader encourages participation, consults with followers, and facilitates decision making. The fourth style, the delegating style (S4), reflects a low concern for both tasks and relationships. This leader provides little direction or support because com- plete responsibility for decisions and their implementation is turned over to followers.

3-2b Follower Readiness The appropriate style depends on the readiness level of followers, indicated in the lower part of Exhibit 3.3. R1 represents low readiness and R4 represents high follower readiness. The essence of Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory is for the leader to diagnose a follower’s readiness and select a style that is appropriate for the readiness level, such as the follower’s degree of education and skills, experience, self-confidence, and work attitudes.

R1 Low Readiness When one or more followers exhibit very low levels of readiness, the leader has to use a telling style, telling followers exactly what to do, directing them in how to do it, and specifying timelines. For example, Phil Hagans owns two McDonald’s franchises in northeast Houston and gives many young workers their first job. He uses a telling style regarding everything from how to dress to the correct way to clean the grill, giving young workers the strong direction they need to de- velop to higher levels of skill and self-confidence.5

R2 Moderate Readiness A selling leadership style works well when followers lack some skills or experience for the job but demonstrate confidence, ability, and willing- ness to learn. With a selling style, the leader gives some direction but also explains deci- sions and clarifies tasks for followers rather than merely instructing how tasks should be performed. Sheryl Sandberg uses a selling style as chief operating officer at Face- book. Many Facebook employees are fresh out of college with little experience, but they are energetic, enthusiastic, and committed. Sandberg’s style combines decisive leadership with persuasion and consensus building. She uses logic and data to explain her decisions, but she also seeks input and feedback from employees. She describes her- self as a leader who tends to ‘‘mentor and demand at the same time.’’6

R3 High Readiness A participating style can be effective when followers have the necessary education, skills, and experience but might be insecure in their abilities and need some encouragement from the leader. The leader can guide followers’ development and act as a resource for advice and assistance. An example of the participating style is Eric Brevig, a visual-effects supervisor with Industrial Light and Magic, who maximizes the creativity of artists and animators by encouraging partic- ipation. Rather than telling people how to do their jobs, Brevig presents them with a challenge and works with them to figure out the best way to meet it.7

R4 Very High Readiness The delegating style of leadership can be effectively used when followers have very high levels of ability, experience, confidence, and willing- ness to accept responsibility for their own task behavior. The leader provides a general goal and sufficient authority to do the tasks as followers see fit. Highly edu- cated professionals such as lawyers, college professors, and social workers would typically fall into this category. There are followers in almost every organization who demonstrate very high readiness.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can tell followers how to perform their tasks if they have few skills, little experience, or low self- confidence. If followers have a moderate degree of skill and show enthusiasm and willingness to learn, provide direction but seek followers’ input and explain your decisions.

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 71

NOT FOR SALE

In summary, the telling style (S1) works best for followers who demonstrate very low levels of readiness to take responsibility for their own task behavior, the selling style (S2) is effective for followers with moderate readiness, the participating style (S3) works well for followers with high readiness, and the delegating style (S4) is appropriate for followers with very high readiness. In today’s multigenerational workplace, with people of widely different ages and readiness levels working side by side, many leaders find that they have to use multiple styles. Aaron Brown super- vises a team at IBM that includes employees who span four decades in age, have work experience of between 3 and 30 years, and have varied attitudes, expectations, and ways of working.8 For Brown, getting the best performance out of employees who differ so widely is as challenging—and as energizing—as coping with today’s faster, more competitive business landscape.

Hersey and Blanchard’s contingency model focuses only on the characteristics of followers, not those of the larger situation. The leader should evaluate subordi- nates and adopt whichever style is needed. Using an inappropriate style can hurt morale and performance, as illustrated by the following example.

Laura Smith tried to use a selling or participating style because these approaches fit with her idea of what a ‘‘good’’ leader should be. She failed to realize that many of her employees were at a low readiness level and needed a telling style, with the leader providing clear instructions and specific rules regarding activities and work behavior.

In the Hersey–Blanchard model, leaders can tailor their approach to individual subordinates, similar to the leader–member exchange theory described in Chapter 2.

IN THE LEAD Laura Smith, Yola When 26-year-old Laura Smith opened a yogurt and coffee shop in Washington, D.C. in 2010, she thought she had a winning formula with D.C.’s only fresh yogurt bar. Less than two years later, Yola closed its doors and Smith was looking for a new career. There were several reasons Yola didn’t make it, not least of all the very high rent cost. Yet Smith also acknowledges that an incorrect leadership style hurt the business.

Smith says that if she could have a ‘‘do-over,’’ she would provide more structure, more rules, and more boundaries for her employees, something that is needed in a business where most employees are young and have little work experience. Smith wanted to run her business by allowing employees to have the freedom to express their personal creativity, and she hated the idea of ‘‘telling grown adults when they can take breaks, exactly how to slice a scone out of a baking sheet, and exactly how many minutes late they can be.’’ However, she soon found that her business became characterized by an attitude of permissiveness, where many employees showed up late, performed sloppy work, or did as little as possible while they were on the clock. No one was happy with the work environment.

Smith realized that her employees needed and even wanted to be told what and how to do things. ‘‘It’s the thing I wish I could go back and do over—not because it would have saved my business but because everyone, myself included, would have been so much happier,’’ she says.9

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can act as a resource to provide advice and guidance when followers have a high level of skill, experience, and responsibility. Delegate responsibility for decisions and their implementation to followers who have very high levels of skill and positive attitudes.

72 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

If one follower is at a low readiness level, the leader must be very specific, telling the employee exactly what to do, how to do it, and when. For a follower high in readi- ness, the leader provides a general goal and sufficient authority to do the task as the follower sees fit. Leaders can carefully diagnose the readiness level of followers and then apply the appropriate style.

3-3 FIEDLER’S CONTINGENCY MODEL Fiedler and his associates developed a model that takes not only followers but other elements of the situation into consideration.10 Although the model is some- what complicated, the basic idea is simple: Match the leader’s style with the situation most favorable for his or her success. Fiedler’s contingency model was designed to enable leaders to diagnose both leadership style and organizational situation.

3-3a Leadership Style The cornerstone of Fiedler’s theory is the extent to which the leader’s style is relationship-oriented or task-oriented. A relationship-oriented leader is concerned with people. As with the consideration style described in Chapter 2, a relationship- oriented leader establishes mutual trust and respect and listens to employees’ needs.

LEADER’S SELF-INSIGHT 3.2

Are You Ready?

Instructions: A leader’s style can be contingent upon the readiness level of followers. Think of yourself working in your current or former job. Answer the following questions based on how you are on that job. Please answer whether each item is Mostly False or Mostly True for you in that job.

Mostly False

Mostly True

1. I typically do the exact work required of me, nothing more or less. ______ ______

2. I am often bored and uninterested in the tasks I have to perform. ______ ______

3. I take extended breaks whenever I can. ______ ______

4. I have great interest and enthusiasm for the job. ______ ______

5. I am recognized as an expert by colleagues and coworkers. ______ ______

6. I have a need to perform to the best of my ability. ______ ______

7. I have a great deal of relevant education and experience for this type of work. ______ ______

8. I am involved in ‘‘extra-work’’ activities such as committees. ______ ______

9. I prioritize my work and manage my time well. ______ ______

Scoring and Interpretation In the situational theory of leadership, the higher the follower’s readiness, the more participative and delegat- ing the leader can be. Give yourself one point for each Mostly False answer to items 1–3 and one point for each Mostly True answer to items 4–9. A score of 8–9 points would suggest a ‘‘very high’’ readiness level. A score of 7–8 points would indicate a ‘‘high’’ readiness level. A score of 4–6 points would suggest ‘‘moderate’’ readiness, and 0–3 points would indicate ‘‘low’’ readiness. What is the appropriate leadership style for your readiness level? What leadership style did your supervisor use with you? What do you think accounted for your supervisor’s style? Discuss your results with other students to explore which leader- ship styles are actually used with subordinates who are at different readiness levels.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO Answer the questions in Leader’s Self-Insight 3.2 to determine your own readiness level and the style of leadership that would be most appropriate for you as a follower.

Fiedler’s contingency model a model designed to diag- nose whether a leader is task-oriented or relation- ship-oriented and match leader style to the situation

73NOT FOR SALE

A task-oriented leader is primarily motivated by task accomplishment. Similar to the initiating structure style described in Chapter 2, a task-oriented leader provides clear directions and sets performance standards.

Leadership style was measured with a questionnaire known as the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale. The LPC scale has a set of 16 bipolar adjectives along an eight-point scale. Examples of the bipolar adjectives used by Fiedler on the LPC scale follow:

open quarrelsome efficient self-assured gloomy

guarded harmonious inefficient hesitant cheerful

If the leader describes the least preferred coworker using positive concepts, he or she is considered relationship-oriented, that is, a leader who cares about and is sensitive to other people’s feelings. Conversely, if a leader uses negative concepts to describe the least preferred coworker, he or she is considered task-oriented, that is, a leader who sees other people in negative terms and places greater value on task activities than on people.

3-3b Situation Fiedler’s model presents the leadership situation in terms of three key elements that can be either favorable or unfavorable to a leader: the quality of leader–member relations, task structure, and position power.

Leader–member relations refers to group atmosphere and members’ attitudes toward and acceptance of the leader. When subordinates trust, respect, and have confidence in the leader, leader–member relations are considered good. When sub- ordinates distrust, do not respect, and have little confidence in the leader, leader– member relations are poor.

Task structure refers to the extent to which tasks performed by the group are defined, involve specific procedures, and have clear, explicit goals. Routine, well- defined tasks, such as those of assembly-line workers, have a high degree of struc- ture. Creative, ill-defined tasks, such as research and development or strategic planning, have a low degree of task structure. When task structure is high, the situation is considered favorable to the leader; when low, the situation is less favorable.

Position power is the extent to which the leader has formal authority over sub- ordinates. Position power is high when the leader has the power to plan and direct the work of subordinates, evaluate it, and reward or punish them. Position power is low when the leader has little authority over subordinates and cannot evaluate their work or reward them. When position power is high, the situation is considered favorable for the leader; when low, the situation is unfavorable.

When leader–member relations are good, task structure is high, and position power is strong, the situation is considered highly favorable to the leader. When leader–member relations are poor, task structure is low, and leader position power is weak, the situation is considered highly unfavorable to the leader. The situation

74 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

would be considered moderately favorable when some of the three elements are high and others low. That is, a leader might have strong position power but tasks are unstructured and leader–member relations are poor. Or, leader–member relations might be good, but position power is weak and tasks are unstructured. There can be various levels of moderate favorability based on various combinations of the three key elements.

3-3c Contingency Theory When Fiedler examined the relationships among leadership style, situational favor- ability, and group task performance, he found the pattern shown in Exhibit 3.4. Task-oriented leaders are more effective when the situation is either highly favorable or highly unfavorable. Relationship-oriented leaders are more effective in situations of moderate favorability.

The task-oriented leader excels in the highly favorable situation because everyone gets along, the task is clear, and the leader has power; all that is needed is for someone to take charge and provide direction. Similarly, if the situation is highly unfavorable to the leader, a great deal of structure and task direction are needed. A strong leader defines task structure and can establish authority over subordinates. Because leader–member relations are poor anyway, a strong task orientation will make no difference to the leader’s popularity. Consider how Sergio Marchionne’s task-oriented leadership style fit the situation he found at Chrysler.

EXHIBIT 3.4 Fiedler’s Classification: How Leader Style Fits the Situation

Highly Unfavorable Situation

Task-Oriented Leader is More Effective

Moderately Favorable Situation

Relationship-Oriented Leader is More Effective

Highly Favorable Situation

Task-Oriented Leader is More Effective

Source: Based on Fred E. Fiedler, ‘‘The Effects of Leadership Training and Experience: A Contingency Model Interpretation,’’ Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1972), p. 455.

IN THE LEAD Sergio Marchionne, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles The fate of the smallest of the Big Three U.S. automakers rests in the hands of Italian-born Sergio Marchionne, who rescued Fiat from the brink of collapse a few years ago with his close attention to detail. Marchionne is a strong task-oriented leader. Rather than settling into the top-floor executive suite at Chrysler’s Auburn Hills, Michigan, headquarters, Marchionne chose an office in the fourth-floor engineering center. He carries six smartphones and keeps tabs on the smallest details, down to a faulty door handle on the

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 75

NOT FOR SALE

Sergio Marchionne’s task-oriented style is appropriate for the difficult situation he found at Chrysler. Researchers at the University of Chicago looked at CEOs of companies in turnaround situations—where companies typically have high debt loads and a need to improve results in a hurry—and found that tough-minded, task- focused characteristics such as analytical skills, a focus on efficiency, and setting high standards were more valuable leader qualities than were relationship skills such as good communication, listening, and teamwork.12

The relationship-oriented leader performs better in situations of moderate favorability because human relations skills are important in achieving high group performance. In these situations, the leader may be moderately well liked, have some power, and supervise jobs that contain some ambiguity. A leader with good interpersonal skills can create a positive group atmosphere that will improve rela- tionships, clarify task structure, and establish position power.

A leader, then, needs to know two things in order to use Fiedler’s contingency theory. First, the leader should know whether he or she has a relationship- or task- oriented style. Second, the leader should diagnose the situation and determine whether leader–member relations, task structure, and position power are favorable or unfavorable.

An important contribution of Fiedler’s research is that it goes beyond the notion of leadership styles to try to show how styles fit the situation. Many studies have been conducted to test Fiedler’s model, and the research in general provides some support for the model.13 However, Fiedler’s model has also been criticized.14 Using the LPC score as a measure of relationship- or task-oriented behavior seems simplis- tic to some researchers, and the weights used to determine situation favorability seem to have been determined in an arbitrary manner. In addition, some observers argue that the empirical support for the model is weak because it is based on correlational results that fail to achieve statistical significance in the majority of cases. The model also isn’t clear about how the model works over time. For instance, if a task-oriented leader such as Sergio Marchionne is matched with an unfavorable situation and is successful, the organizational situation is likely to improve, thus becoming a situation more appropriate for a relationship-oriented leader.

new Dodge Charger. ‘‘If you really want to run the business,’’ he says, ‘‘you need to get involved at this level.’’

Marchionne came into a highly unfavorable situation at Chrysler. Like General Motors, Chrysler had to be rescued by a federal bailout several years ago, and Marchionne took charge just after the company emerged from bankruptcy and Fiat assumed part ownership. Sales were slumping, Chrysler’s image was tarnished, morale and motivation were low, costs were high, and operational problems plagued the company. Marchionne became known at Fiat for working long hours, seven days a week, and he told his top executives at Chrysler to plan on doing the same for the foreseeable future. He meets with managers regularly and gives them specific orders for what he wants to see accomplished. Managers who were committed to staying stuck in the old way of doing things were fired.

Chrysler has been slower to bounce back than GM, but Marchionne’s task-oriented leadership is having a positive effect. Sales are improving, and operational problems have been brought under control. In addition, Marchionne’s hard-hitting approach has brought a refreshing energy into the organization, giving employees a greater sense of hope and motivation.11

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can effectively use a task-oriented style when the organizational situation is either highly unfavorable or highly favorable to you as a leader. Use a relationship- oriented style in situations of moderate favorability because human relations skills can create a positive atmosphere.

76 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

Will Marchionne’s task-oriented style continue to be effective under more favorable circumstances at Chrysler? Can or should he try to shift to a more relationship-oriented leader style? Fiedler’s model doesn’t address this issue.

Finally, Fiedler’s model and much of the subsequent research fail to consider medium LPC leaders, who some studies indicate are more effective than either high or low LPC leaders in a majority of situations.15 Leaders who score in the mid-range on the LPC scale presumably balance the concern for relationships with a concern for task achievement more effectively than high or low LPC leaders, making them more adaptable to a variety of situations.

New research has continued to improve Fiedler’s model,16 and it is still consid- ered an important contribution to leadership studies. However, its major impact may have been to stir other researchers to consider situational factors more seri- ously. A number of other situational theories have been developed in the years since Fiedler’s original research.

3-4 PATH–GOAL THEORY According to the path–goal theory, the leader’s responsibility is to increase subor- dinates’ motivation to attain personal and organizational goals.17 As illustrated in Exhibit 3.5, the leader increases follower motivation by either (1) clarifying the follower’s path to the rewards that are available or (2) increasing the rewards that the follower values and desires. Path clarification means that the leader works with subordinates to help them identify and learn the behaviors that will lead to successful task accomplishment and organizational rewards. Increasing rewards means that the leader talks with subordinates to learn which rewards are impor- tant to them—that is, whether they desire intrinsic rewards from the work itself or extrinsic rewards such as raises or promotions. The leader’s job is to increase personal payoffs to subordinates for goal attainment and to make the paths to these payoffs clear and easy to travel.18

This model is called a contingency theory because it consists of three sets of contingencies—leader style, followers and situation, and the rewards to meet fol- lowers’ needs.19 Whereas the Fiedler theory made the assumption that new leaders could take over as situations change, in the path–goal theory, leaders change their behaviors to match the situation.

3-4a Leader Behavior The path–goal theory suggests a fourfold classification of leader behaviors.20 These classifications are the types of behavior the leader can adopt and include supportive, directive, achievement-oriented, and participative styles.

Supportive leadership shows concern for subordinates’ well-being and personal needs. Leadership behavior is open, friendly, and approachable, and the leader creates a team climate and treats subordinates as equals. Supportive leadership is similar to the consideration or people-oriented leadership described earlier. An example is Jay Goltz, an entrepreneur who owns five small businesses in Chicago, who has always used supportive leadership. He has loaned money to employees, guaranteed car loans, helped several employees buy houses, and even bailed a couple of employees out of jail.21

Path–goal theory a contingency approach to leadership in which the leader’s responsibility is to increase subordinates’ moti- vation by clarifying the behaviors necessary for task accomplishment and rewards

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can increase follower motivation, satisfaction, and performance by adopting a leadership behavior that will clarify the follower’s path to receiving available rewards or increase the availability of rewards the follower desires.

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 77

NOT FOR SALE

Directive leadership tells subordinates exactly what they are supposed to do. Leader behavior includes planning, making schedules, setting performance goals and behavior standards, and stressing adherence to rules and regulations. Directive leadership behavior is similar to the initiating structure or task-oriented leadership style described earlier.

Participative leadership consults with subordinates about decisions. Leader behavior includes asking for opinions and suggestions, encouraging participation in decision making, and meeting with subordinates in their workplaces. The participa- tive leader encourages group discussion and suggestions, similar to the coaching or supporting style in the Hersey and Blanchard model.

Achievement-oriented leadership sets clear and challenging goals for subordi- nates. Leader behavior stresses high-quality performance and improvement over current performance. Achievement-oriented leaders also show confidence in subor- dinates and assist them in learning how to achieve high goals.

The four types of leader behavior are not considered ingrained personality traits as in the earlier trait theories; rather, they reflect types of behavior that every leader is able to adopt, depending on the situation. Here’s how Alan Robbins, founder of

EXHIBIT 3.5 Leader Roles in the Path–Goal Model

Clarify Path Increase Rewards

Leader defines what follower must do to attain work outcomes

Leader clarifies follower’s work role

Follower has increased knowledge and confidence to accomplish outcomes

Follower displays increased effort and motivation

Organizational work out- comes are accomplished

Leader learns follower’s needs

Leader matches follower’s needs to rewards if work outcomes are accomplished

Leader increases value of work outcomes for follower

people; the leader

coaches them. The

boss depends on

authority; the

leader on good

will. The boss

inspires fear; the

leader inspires

enthusiasm. H. Gordon Selfridge

(1864–1947), founder of British retailer

Selfridges.

78 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

Plastic Lumber Company, shifted from a participative to a directive style and got better results from his employees.

Alan Robbins had believed his participative style would be appreciated by employees. However, employee satisfaction increased when he began using a directive style and specifying what was expected and what behaviors would not be tolerated. The directive style enabled people to focus on meeting performance standards by following clear procedures and guidelines. Thus, although Robbins would prefer to be participative, he realized it was not the best approach for the situation. The Con- sider This box provides an interesting perspective on the disadvantages of persisting in a behavior style despite the processes of change.

3-4b Situational Contingencies The two important situational contingencies in the path–goal theory are (1) the per- sonal characteristics of group members and (2) the work environment. Personal characteristics of followers are similar to Hersey and Blanchard’s readiness level and include such factors as ability, skills, needs, and motivations. For example, if an employee has a low level of ability or skill, the leader may need to provide addi- tional training or coaching in order for the worker to improve performance. If a subordinate is self-centered, the leader may use monetary rewards to motivate him or her. Subordinates who want or need clear direction and authority require a direc- tive leader to tell them exactly what to do. Craft workers and professionals, how- ever, may want more freedom and autonomy and work best under a participative leadership style.

IN THE LEAD Alan Robbins, Plastic Lumber Company Alan Robbins started Plastic Lumber Company because he saw a way to both help the planet and make money by converting plastic milk and soda bottles into fake lumber. He also had definite ideas about how to run a company. Robbins wanted to be both a boss and a friend to his employees. His leadership style stressed teamwork and participation, and Robbins spent a lot of time running ideas by workers on the factory floor. However, he soon learned that most of his low-skilled workers didn’t really want a chance to participate; they just wanted clear direction and consistent standards so that people knew what was expected of them.

The degree of freedom Robbins allowed with his participative style actually led to some serious problems. Some workers were frequently absent or late without calling, showed up under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and started fights on the factory floor. Letting employees participate in decision making weakened Robbins’s authority in many employees’ eyes. Those who genuinely wanted to do a good job were frustrated by the lack of order and the fact that some employees seemed to get away with anything.

Even though Robbins had a natural tendency to be a participative leader, he shifted to a directive leadership style to try to restore some order. With a comprehensive rules and policy manual, drug testing for all workers, and clear standards of behavior, the work environment and employee performance at Plastic Lumber improved significantly.22

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 79

NOT FOR SALE

The work environment contingencies include the degree of task structure, the nature of the formal authority system, and the work group itself. The task structure is similar to the same concept described in Fiedler’s contingency theory; it includes the extent to which tasks are defined and have explicit job descriptions and work procedures. The formal authority system includes the amount of legitimate power used by leaders and the extent to which policies and rules constrain employees’ behavior. Work-group characteristics consist of the educational level of subordi- nates and the quality of relationships among them.

3-4c Use of Rewards Recall that the leader’s responsibility is to clarify the path to rewards for followers or to increase the amount or type of rewards to enhance satisfaction and job per- formance. In some situations, the leader works with subordinates to help them acquire the skills and confidence needed to perform tasks and achieve rewards already available. In others, the leader may develop new rewards to meet the specific needs of subordinates.

Exhibit 3.6 illustrates four examples of how leadership behavior is tailored to the situation. In the first situation, the subordinate lacks confidence; thus, the sup- portive leadership style provides the social support with which to encourage the sub- ordinate to undertake the behavior needed to do the work and receive the rewards.

ConsiderThis!

The phrase ‘‘too much of a good thing’’ is relevant in leadership. Behavior that becomes over-

bearing can be a disadvantage by ultimately resulting in the opposite of what the individual is

hoping to achieve.

Polarities All behavior consists of opposites or polarities. If I do anything more and more, over and over,

its polarity will appear. For example, striving to be beautiful makes a person ugly, and trying too

hard to be kind is a form of selfishness.

Any overdetermined behavior produces its opposite:

• An obsession with living suggests worry about dying. • True simplicity is not easy. • Is it a long time or a short time since we last met? • The braggart probably feels small and insecure. • Who would be first ends up last.

Knowing how polarities work, the wise leader does not push to make things happen but

allows a process to unfold on its own.

80 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

In the second situation, the job is ambiguous, and the employee is not performing effectively. Directive leadership behavior is used to give instructions and clarify the task so that the follower will know how to accomplish it and receive rewards. In the third situation, the subordinate is unchallenged by the task; thus, an achievement- oriented behavior is used to set higher goals. This clarifies the path to rewards for the employee. In the fourth situation, an incorrect reward is given to a subordinate, and the participative leadership style is used to change this. By discussing the sub- ordinate’s needs, the leader is able to identify the correct reward for task accom- plishment. In all four cases, the outcome of fitting the leadership behavior to the situation produces greater employee effort by either clarifying how subordinates can receive rewards or changing the rewards to fit their needs.

Path–goal theorizing can be complex, but much of the research on it has been encouraging.23 Using the model to specify precise relationships and make exact predictions about employee outcomes may be difficult, but the four types of leader behavior and the ideas for fitting them to situational contingencies provide a useful way for leaders to think about motivating subordinates.

3-5 THE VROOM–JAGO CONTINGENCY MODEL The Vroom–Jago contingency model shares some basic principles with the previous models, yet it differs in significant ways as well. This model focuses specifically on varying degrees of participative leadership and how each level of participation influ- ences the quality and accountability of decisions. A number of situational factors

EXHIBIT 3.6 Path–Goal Situations and Preferred Leader Behaviors

OutcomeLeader Behavior Impact on FollowerSituation

Follower lacks self-confidence

Ambiguous job

Lack of job challenge

Incorrect reward

Increases confidence to achieve work outcome

Clarifies path to reward

Sets and strives for high goals

Clarifies followers’ needs to change rewards

Increased effort; improved satisfaction and performance

Supportive Leadership

Directive Leadership

Achievement- Oriented Leadership

Participative Leadership

Vroom–Jago contingency model a contingency model that focuses on varying degrees of participative leadership and how each level of participation influences the quality and accountability of decisions

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 81

NOT FOR SALE

shape the likelihood that either a participative or autocratic approach will produce the best outcome.

This model starts with the idea that a leader faces a problem that requires a solution. Decisions to solve the problem might be made by a leader alone or by the inclusion of a number of followers.

The Vroom–Jago model is very applied, which means that it tells the leader precisely the correct amount of participation by subordinates to use in making a particular decision.24 The model has three major components: leader participation styles, a set of diagnostic questions with which to analyze a decision situation, and a series of decision rules.

3-5a Leader Participation Styles The model employs five levels of subordinate participation in decision making, rang- ing from highly autocratic (leader decides alone) to highly democratic (leader dele- gates to group), as illustrated in Exhibit 3.7.25 The exhibit shows five decision styles, starting with the leader making the decision alone (Decide); presenting the problem to subordinates individually for their suggestions and then making the deci- sion (Consult Individually); presenting the problem to subordinates as a group,

EXHIBIT 3.7 Five Leader Decision Styles

Decide Consult Individually

Consult Group Facilitate Delegate

Area of Influence by Leader Area of Freedom for Group

You present the problem to the group in a meeting. You act as facilitator, defining the problem to be solved and the boundaries within which the decision must be made. Your objective is to get concurrence on a decision. Above all, you take care to show that your ideas are not given any greater weight than those of others simply because of your position.

You present the problem to the group members in a meeting, get their suggestions, and then make the decision.

You present the problem to the group members individually, get their suggestions, and make the decision.

You make the decision alone and either announce or “sell” it to the group. You may use your expertise in collecting information that you deem relevant to the problem from the group or others.

You permit the group to make the decision within prescribed limits. The group undertakes the identification and diagnosis of the problem, develops alternative procedures for solving it, and decides on one or more alternative solutions. While you play no direct role in the group’s deliberations unless explicitly asked, your role is an important one behind the scenes, providing needed resources and encouragement.

82 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions, then making the decision (Consult Group); sharing the problem with subordinates as a group and acting as a facilitator to help the group arrive at a decision (Facilitate); or delegating the problem and permitting the group to make the decision within prescribed limits (Delegate). The five styles fall along a continuum, and the leader should select one depending on the situation.

3-5b Diagnostic Questions How does a leader decide which of the five decision styles to use? The appropriate degree of decision participation depends on a number of situational factors, such as the required level of decision quality, the level of leader or subordinate expertise, and the importance of having subordinates commit to the decision. Leaders can ana- lyze the appropriate degree of participation by answering seven diagnostic questions.

1. Decision significance: How significant is this decision for the project or organization? If the decision is highly important and a high-quality decision is needed for the success of the project or organization, the leader has to be actively involved.

2. Importance of commitment: How important is subordinate commitment to carrying out the decision? If implementation requires a high level of commitment to the decision, leaders should involve subordinates in the decision process.

3. Leader expertise: What is the level of the leader’s expertise in relation to the problem? If the leader does not have a high amount of information, knowledge, or expertise, the leader should involve subordinates to obtain it.

4. Likelihood of commitment: If the leader were to make the decision alone, would subordinates have high or low commitment to the decision? If subordinates typically go along with whatever the leader decides, their involvement in the decision-making process will be less important.

5. Group support for goals: What is the degree of subordinate support for the team’s or organization’s objectives at stake in this decision? If subordinates have low support for the goals of the organization, the leader should not allow the group to make the decision alone.

6. Goal expertise: What is the level of group members’ knowledge and expertise in relation to the problem? If subordinates have a high level of expertise in relation to the problem, more responsibility for the decision can be delegated to them.

7. Team competence: How skilled and committed are group members to working together as a team to solve problems? When subordinates have high skills and high desire to work together cooperatively to solve problems, more responsibility for the decision making can be delegated to them.

These questions seem detailed, but considering these seven situational factors can quickly narrow the options and point to the appropriate level of group participation in decision making.

3-5c Selecting a Decision Style Further development of the Vroom–Jago model added concern for time constraints and concern for follower development as explicit criteria for determining the level of participation. That is, a leader considers the relative importance of time versus fol- lower development in selecting a decision style. This led to the development of two

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 83

NOT FOR SALE

decision matrixes, a time-based model to be used if time is critical, for example if the organization is facing a crisis and a decision must be made immediately, and a development-based model to be used if time and efficiency are less important criteria than the opportunity to develop the thinking and decision-making skills of followers.

Consider the example of a small auto parts manufacturer, which owns only one machine for performing welds on mufflers. If the machine has broken down and production has come to a standstill, a decision concerning the purchase of a new machine is critical and has to be made immediately to get the production line mov- ing again. In this case, a leader would follow the time-based model for selecting the decision style. However, if the machine is scheduled for routine replacement in three months, time is not a critical factor. The leader is then free to consider the importance of involving production workers in the decision making to develop their skills. Thus, the leader may follow the development-based model because time is not a critical concern.

Exhibit 3.8 and 3.9 illustrate the two decision matrixes—a timesaving-based model and an employee development–based model—that enable leaders to adopt a participation style by answering the diagnostic questions in sequence. Returning to the example of the welding machine, if the machine has broken down and must be replaced immediately, the leader would follow the timesaving-based model in Exhibit 3.8. The leader enters the matrix at the left side, at Problem Statement. The matrix acts as a funnel as you move left to right, responding to the situational questions across the top, answering high (H) or low (L) to each one, and avoiding crossing any horizontal lines.

The first question (decision significance) would be: How significant is this decision for the project or organization? If the answer is High, the leader proceeds to importance of commitment: How important is subordinate commitment to carry- ing out the decision? If the answer is High, the next question pertains to leader expertise: What is the level of the leader’s expertise in relation to the problem? If the leader’s knowledge and expertise are High, the leader next considers likelihood of commitment: If the leader were to make the decision alone, how likely is it that subordinates would be committed to the decision? If there is a high likelihood that subordinates would be committed, the decision matrix leads directly to the Decide style of decision making, in which the leader makes the decision alone and presents it to the group.

As noted earlier, this matrix assumes that time and efficiency are the most im- portant criteria. However, consider how the selection of a decision style would differ if the leader had several months to replace the welding machine and considered follower development of high importance and time of little concern. In this case, the leader would follow the employee development–driven decision matrix in Exhibit 3.9. Beginning again at the left side of the matrix: How significant is this decision for the project or organization? If the answer is High, proceed to importance of com- mitment: How important is subordinate commitment? If high, the next question concerns likelihood of commitment (leader expertise is not considered because the development model is focused on involving subordinates, even if the leader has knowledge and expertise): If the leader were to make the decision alone, how likely is it that subordinates would be committed to the decision? If there is a high likelihood, the leader next considers group support: What is the degree of subordi- nate support for the team’s or organization’s objectives at stake in this decision? If the degree of support for goals is low, the leader proceeds directly to the Group

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can use the Vroom–Jago model to determine the appropriate amount of follower participation to use in making a decision. You can follow the time-based guidelines when time is of the essence but use development-based guidelines when cultivating followers’ decision-making skills is also important.

84 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

Consult decision style. However, if the degree of support for goals is high, the leader then asks: What is the level of group members’ knowledge and expertise in relation to the problem? An answer of High would take the leader to the question: How skilled and committed are group members to working together as a team to solve problems?

EXHIBIT 3.8 Timesaving-Based Model for Determining an Appropriate Decision-Making Style—Group Problems

4. L

ik el

ih oo

d of

om m

itm en

t? Decide

Delegate

Consult (Group)

Facilitate

Consult (Individually)

Facilitate

Consult (Group)

Decide

Facilitate

Consult (Individually)

Decide

Delegate

Facilitate

Decide

1. D

ec is

io n

ig ni

fic an

ce ?

2. Im

po rt an

ce o

C om

m itm

en t?

5. G

ro up

S up

po rt

6. G

ro up

xp er

tis e?

7. T

ea m

C om

pe te

nc e?

H H

L L

P R O B L E M

S T A T E M E N T

3. L

ea de

E xp

er tis

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 85

NOT FOR SALE

An answer of High would lead to the Delegate style, in which the leader allows the group to make the decision within certain limits.

Note that the timesaving-driven model takes the leader to the first decision style that preserves decision quality and follower acceptance, whereas the employee development–driven model takes other considerations into account. It takes less time to make an autocratic decision (Decide) than to involve subordinates by using a Facilitate or Delegate style. However, in many cases, time and efficiency are less important than the opportunity to foster subordinate development. In many of today’s organizations, where knowledge sharing and widespread participation are considered critical to organizational success, leaders are placing greater emphasis on follower development when time is not a critical issue.

EXHIBIT 3.9 Employee Development–Based Model for Determining an Appropriate Decision-Making Style—Group Problems

Delegate

Facilitate

Consult (Group)

Delegate

Facilitate

Consult (Group)

Delegate

Facilitate

Consult (Group)

Decide

Delegate

Decide

P R O B L E M

S T A T E M E N T

H H

4. L

ik el

ih oo

d of

om m

itm en

1. D

ec is

io n

ig ni

fic an

ce ?

2. Im

po rt an

ce o

C om

m itm

en t?

5. G

ro up

S up

po rt

6. G

ro up

xp er

tis e?

7. T

ea m

C om

pe te

nc e?

3. L

ea de

E xp

er tis

Source: Victor H. Vroom, ‘‘Leadership and the Decision-Making Process,’’ Organizational Dynamics 28, no. 4 (Spring 2000), pp. 82–94. This is Vroom’s adaptation of Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s Taxonomy.

86 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

Leaders can quickly learn to use the model to adapt their styles to fit the situa- tion. However, researchers have also developed a computer-based program that allows for greater complexity and precision in the Vroom–Jago model and incorpo- rates the value of time and value of follower development as situational factors rather than portraying them in separate decision matrixes.

The Vroom–Jago model has been criticized as being less than perfect,26 but it is useful to decision makers, and the model is supported by research.27 Leaders can learn to use the model to make timely, high-quality decisions. Let’s try applying the model to the following problem.

In the Whitlock Manufacturing case, either a timesaving-based or an employee development–based model can be used to select a decision style. Although timeliness is important, the leader’s desire to involve subordinates can be considered equally important. Do you think Weinstein used the correct leader decision style? Let’s examine the problem using the employee development–based decision tree since Weinstein is concerned about involving other team members. Moving from left to

IN THE LEAD Art Weinstein, Whitlock Manufacturing When Whitlock Manufacturing won a contract from a large auto manufacturer to produce an engine to power its flagship sports car, Art Weinstein was thrilled to be selected as project manager. The engine, of Japanese design and extremely complex, has gotten rave reviews in the automotive press. This project has dramatically enhanced the reputation of Whitlock Manufacturing, which was previously known primarily as a producer of outboard engines for marine use.

Weinstein and his team of engineers have taken great pride in their work on the project, but their excitement was dashed by a recent report of serious engine problems in cars delivered to customers. Fourteen owners of cars produced during the first month had experienced engine seizures. Taking quick action, the auto manufacturer suspended sales of the sports car, halted current production, and notified owners of the current model not to drive the car. Everyone involved knows this is a disaster. Unless the engine problem is solved quickly, Whitlock Manufacturing could be exposed to extended litigation. In addition, Whitlock’s valued relationship with one of the world’s largest auto manufacturers would probably be lost forever.

As the person most knowledgeable about the engine, Weinstein has spent two weeks in the field inspecting the seized engines and the auto plant where they were installed. In addition, he has carefully examined the operations and practices in Whitlock’s plant where the engine is manufactured. Based on this extensive research, Weinstein is convinced that he knows what the problem is and the best way to solve it. However, his natural inclination is to involve other team members as much as possible in making decisions and solving problems. He not only values their input, but he also thinks that by encouraging greater participation he strengthens the thinking skills of team members, helping them grow and contribute more to the team and the organization. Therefore, Weinstein chooses to consult with his team before making his final decision.

The group meets for several hours that afternoon, discussing the problem in detail and sharing their varied perspectives, including the information Weinstein has gathered during his research. Following the group session, Weinstein makes his decision. He will present the decision at the team meeting the following morning, after which testing and correction of the engine problem will begin.28

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 87

NOT FOR SALE

right in Exhibit 3.9, the questions and answers are as follows: How significant is this decision for the organization? Definitely High. Quality of the decision is of critical importance. The company’s future may be at stake. How important is sub- ordinate commitment to carrying out the decision? Also High. The team members must support and implement Weinstein’s solution. Question 3 (leader expertise) is not considered in the employee development–driven model, as shown in Exhibit 3.9. The next question would be If Weinstein makes the decision on his own, will team members have high or low commitment to it? The answer to this question is prob- ably also High. Team members respect Weinstein, and they are likely to accept his analysis of the problem. This leads to the question What is the degree of subordinate support for the team’s or organization’s objectives at stake in this decision? The answer, definitely High, leads to the question What is the level of group members’ knowledge and expertise in relation to the problem? The answer to this question is probably Low, which leads to the Consult Group decision style. Thus, Weinstein used the style that would be recommended by the Vroom–Jago model.

Now, assume that Weinstein chose to place more emphasis on efficient use of time than on employee involvement and development. Using the timesaving-based decision matrix in Exhibit 3.8, answer the questions across the top of the matrix based on the information just provided (rate Weinstein’s level of expertise in ques- tion 3 as high). Remember to avoid crossing any horizontal lines. What decision style is recommended? Is it the same as or different from that recommended by the employee development–based tree?

3-6 SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP The contingency leadership approaches considered so far have focused on the lead- er’s style, the followers’ nature, and the situation’s characteristics. The final contin- gency approach suggests that situational variables can be so powerful that they actually substitute for or neutralize the need for leadership.29 This approach outlines those organizational settings in which task-oriented and people-oriented leadership styles are unimportant or unnecessary.

Exhibit 3.10 shows the situational variables that tend to substitute for or neu- tralize leadership characteristics. A substitute for leadership makes the leadership

EXHIBIT 3.10 Substitutes and Neutralizers for Leadership

Variable Task-Oriented Leadership

People-Oriented Leadership

Organizational variables Group cohesiveness Substitutes for Substitutes for

Formalization Substitutes for No effect on

Inflexibility Neutralizes No effect on

Low position power Neutralizes Neutralizes

Task characteristics Highly structured task Substitutes for No effect on

Automatic feedback Substitutes for No effect on

Intrinsic satisfaction No effect on Substitutes for

Follower characteristics Professionalism Substitutes for Substitutes for

Training/experience Substitutes for No effect on

Low value of rewards Neutralizes Neutralizes

Substitute a situational variable that makes leadership unneces- sary or redundant

88 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

style unnecessary or redundant. For example, highly educated, professional subordi- nates who know how to do their tasks do not need a leader who initiates structure for them and tells them what to do. In addition, long-term education often develops autonomous, self-motivated individuals. Thus, task-oriented and people-oriented leadership is substituted by professional education and socialization.30

Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins football team, discovered that his strong task-oriented approach with his professional, talented coaches was counterproductive.

At the Washington Redskins, the skills, training, experience, and professional- ism of coaches substituted for a task-oriented leadership style of the owner and also made a people-oriented style less important. Daniel Snyder decided to stay on the sidelines and let his coaches and players make the decisions on the field.

Unlike a substitute, a neutralizer counteracts the leadership style and prevents the leader from displaying certain behaviors. For example, if a leader is physically removed from subordinates, the leader’s ability to give directions to subordinates is greatly reduced. FedEx Office (formerly Kinko’s) provides an example. With numer- ous locations widely scattered across regions, regional managers have very limited personal interaction with store managers and employees. Thus, their ability to both support and direct is neutralized.

Situational variables in Exhibit 3.10 include characteristics of the followers, the task, and the organization itself. For example, when subordinates are highly profes- sional, such as research scientists in companies like Merck or Monsanto, both lead- ership styles are less important. The employees do not need either direction or support. With respect to task characteristics, highly structured tasks substitute for a task-oriented style, and a satisfying task substitutes for a people-oriented style.

When a task is highly structured and routine, like auditing cash, the leader should provide personal consideration and support that is not provided by the task. Satisfied people don’t need as much consideration. Likewise, with respect to the or- ganization itself, group cohesiveness substitutes for both leader styles. For example,

IN THE LEAD Daniel Snyder, Washington Redskins For many of Daniel Snyder’s 15 or so years as owner of the Washington Redskins, he had a reputation as a meddlesome, overbearing boss who got in the way of people doing their jobs. He got involved in every detail of the team, even making big decisions on player acquisition himself.

But Snyder has proven that leaders can change. ‘‘He’s stepped back from it,’’ one insider says. ‘‘And he’s having more fun because of it.’’ Some associates say Snyder finally was able to step back because he got tired of all the losses the team racked up—and the criticism he got from fans and the media because of them.

When Snyder started staying in the background, the team seemed to get better. In 2012, the Redskins won their first NFC East division title since 1999, Snyder’s first season as owner. ‘‘I think he deserves a lot of credit,’’ said former general manager Charley Casserly, whom Snyder fired in 1999. ‘‘He’s allowed them to do their jobs. They’ve turned the franchise around and made it a winner again.’’31

Neutralizer a situational characteristic that counteracts the leader- ship style and prevents the leader from displaying cer- tain behaviors

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can avoid leadership overkill. Adopt a style that is complementary to the organizational situation to ensure that both task needs and people needs are met.

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 89

NOT FOR SALE

the relationship that develops among air traffic controllers and jet fighter pilots is characterized by high-stress interactions and continuous peer training. This cohesiveness provides support and direction that substitute for formal leadership.32

Formalized rules and procedures substitute for leader task orientation because the rules tell people what to do. Physical separation of leader and subordinate neutral- izes both leadership styles.

The value of the situations described in Exhibit 3.10 is that they help leaders avoid leadership overkill. Leaders should adopt a style with which to complement the organizational situation. For example, the work situation for bank tellers pro- vides a high level of formalization, little flexibility, and a highly structured task. The head teller should not adopt a task-oriented style because the organization already provides structure and direction. The head teller should concentrate on a people- oriented style. In other organizations, if group cohesiveness or previous training

LEADER’S SELF-INSIGHT 3.3

Measuring Substitutes for Leadership

Instructions: Think about your current job or a job you have held in the past. Please answer whether each of the following items is Mostly False or Mostly True for you in that job.

Mostly False

Mostly True

1. Because of the nature of the tasks I perform, there is little doubt about the best way to do them. ______ ______

2. My job duties are so simple that almost anyone could perform them well after a little instruction. ______ ______

3. It is difficult to figure out the best way to do many of my tasks and activities. ______ ______

4. There is really only one correct way to perform most of the tasks I do. ______ ______

5. After I’ve completed a task, I can tell right away from the results I get whether I have performed it correctly. ______ ______

6. My job is the kind where you can finish a task and not know if you’ve made a mistake or error. ______ ______

7. Because of the nature of the tasks I do, it is easy for me to see when I have done something exceptionally well. ______ ______

8. I get lots of satisfaction from the work I do. ______ ______

9. It is hard to imagine that anyone could enjoy performing the tasks I have performed on my job. ______ ______

10. My job satisfaction depends primarily on the nature of the tasks and activities I perform. ______ ______

Scoring and Interpretation For your task structure score, give yourself one point for Mostly True answers to items 1, 2, and 4, and for a Mostly False answer to item 3. This is your score for Task Structure: ______

For your task feedback score, give yourself one point for Mostly True answers to items 5 and 7, and for a Mostly False answer to item 6. This is your score for Task Feedback: ______

For your intrinsic satisfaction score, score one point for Mostly True answers to items 8 and 10, and for a Mostly False answer to item 9. This is your score for Intrinsic Satis- faction: ______

A high score (3 or 4) for Task Structure or Task Feed- back indicates a high potential for those elements to act as a substitute for task-oriented leadership. A high score (3) for Intrinsic Satisfaction indicates the potential to be a substitute for people-oriented leadership. Does your leader adopt a style that is complementary to the task situation, or is the leader guilty of leadership overkill? How can you apply this under- standing to your own actions as a leader?

Source: Based on ‘‘Questionnaire Items for the Measurement of Substi- tutes for Leadership,’’ Table 2 in Steven Kerr and John M. Jermier, ‘‘Substi- tutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement,’’ Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22 (1978), pp. 375–403.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO Measure how the task characteristics of your job or a job you’ve held in the past might act as substitutes for leadership by answering the questions in Leader’s Self- Insight 3.3.

90 NOT FOR SALE

meets employee social needs, the leader is free to concentrate on task-oriented behaviors. The leader can adopt a style complementary to the organizational situa- tion to ensure that both task needs and people needs of followers are met.

Studies have examined how substitutes (the situation) can be designed to have more impact than leader behaviors on outcomes such as subordinate satisfac- tion.33 The impetus behind this research is the idea that substitutes for leadership can be designed into organizations in ways to complement existing leadership, act in the absence of leadership, and otherwise provide more comprehensive leader- ship alternatives. For example, Paul Reeves, a foreman at Harmon Auto Parts, shared half-days with his subordinates during which they helped him perform his leader tasks. After Reeves’s promotion to middle management, his group no longer required a foreman. Followers were trained to act on their own.34 Thus, a situa- tion in which follower ability and training were highly developed created a substi- tute for leadership.

The ability to use substitutes to fill leadership ‘‘gaps’’ is often advantageous to organizations. Indeed, the fundamental assumption of substitutes-for-leadership researchers is that effective leadership is the ability to recognize and provide the support and direction not already provided by task, group, and organization.

LEADERSHIP ESSENTIALS

• The most important point in this chapter is that situational variables affect leadership outcomes. The contingency approaches were developed to system- atically address the relationship between a leader and the organization. The contingency approaches focus on how the components of leadership style, sub- ordinate characteristics, and situational elements affect one another. Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory, Fiedler’s contingency model, the path–goal theory, the Vroom–Jago model, and the substitutes-for-leadership concept each examine how different situations call for different styles of leadership behavior.

• Hersey and Blanchard contend that leaders can adjust their task or relation- ship style to accommodate the readiness level of their subordinates. According to Fiedler, leaders can determine whether their leadership style is suitable for the situation. Task-oriented leaders tend to do better in very favorable or very unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders do best in situa- tions of intermediate favorability. The path–goal theory states that leaders can use a style that appropriately clarifies the path to desired rewards. The Vroom–Jago model indicates that leaders can choose a participative decision style based on contingencies such as quality requirement, commitment require- ment, or the leader’s knowledge and expertise. In addition, concern for time (the need for a fast decision) versus concern for follower development is taken into account. Finally, the substitutes-for-leadership concept recommends that leaders adjust their style to provide resources not otherwise provided in the organizational situation.

• By discerning the characteristics of tasks, subordinates, and organizations, lead- ers can determine the style that increases the likelihood of successful leadership outcomes. Therefore, effective leadership depends partly on developing diagnos- tic skills and being flexible in your leadership behavior.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can use a people-oriented style when tasks are highly structured and followers are bound by formal rules and procedures. You can adopt a task-oriented style if group cohesiveness and followers’ intrinsic job satisfaction meet their social and emotional needs.

NEW LEADER ACTION MEMO As a leader, you can provide minimal task direction and personal support to highly trained employees; followers’ professionalism and intrinsic satisfaction substitute for both task- and people-oriented leadership.

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 91

NOT FOR SALE

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Consider Fiedler’s theory as illustrated in Exhibit 3.4. How often do you think very favor-

able, intermediate, or very unfavorable situations occur to leaders in real life? Discuss.

2. Do you think leadership style is fixed and unchangeable, or can leaders be flexible and adaptable with respect to style? Why?

3. Consider the leadership position of the managing partner in a law firm. What task, subordi- nate, and organizational factors might serve as substitutes for leadership in this situation?

4. Compare Fiedler’s contingency model with the path–goal theory. What are the similar- ities and differences? Which do you prefer?

5. If you were a first-level supervisor of a team of telemarketers, how would you go about assessing the readiness level of your subordinates? Do you think most leaders can easily shift their leadership style to suit the readiness level of followers?

6. Think back to teachers you have had, and identify one each who fits a supportive style, directive style, participative style, and achievement-oriented style according to the path– goal theory. Which style did you find most effective? Why?

7. Do you think leaders should decide on a participative style based on the most efficient way to reach the decision? Should leaders sometimes let people participate for other reasons?

8. Consider the situational characteristics of group cohesiveness, organizational formaliza- tion, and physical separation. How might each of these substitute for or neutralize task- oriented or people-oriented leadership? Explain.

LEADERSHIP AT WORK

Task versus Relationship Role Play You are the new distribution manager for French Grains Bakery. Five drivers who deliver French Grains baked goods to grocery stores in the metropolitan area report to you. The drivers are expected to complete the delivery report to keep track of actual deliveries and any changes that occur. The delivery report is a key element in inventory control and provides the data for French Grains invoicing of grocery stores. Errors become excessive when drivers fail to com- plete the report each day, especially when store managers request different inventory when the driver arrives. As a result, French Grains may not be paid for several loaves of bread a day for each mistake in the delivery report. The result is lost revenue and poor inventory control.

One of the drivers accounts for about 60 percent of the errors in the delivery reports. This driver is a nice person and generally reliable, although he is occasionally late for work. His major problem is that he falls behind in his paperwork. A second driver accounts for about 30 percent of the errors, and a third driver for about 10 percent of the errors. The other two drivers turn in virtually error-free delivery reports.

You are a high task-oriented (and low relationship-oriented) leader and have decided to talk to the drivers about doing a more complete and accurate job with the delivery reports. Write below exactly how you will go about correcting this problem as a task-oriented leader. Will you meet with drivers individually or in a group? When and where will you meet with them? Exactly what will you say, and how will you get them to listen?

92 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

Now adopt the role of a high relationship-oriented (and low task-oriented) leader. Write below exactly what you will do and say as a relationship-oriented distribution manager. Will you meet with the drivers individually or in a group? What will you say, and how will you get them to listen?

In Class: The instructor can ask students to volunteer to play the roles of the distribution manager and the drivers. A few students can take turns role-playing the distribution manager in front of the class to show how they would handle the drivers as task- and relationship- oriented leaders. The instructor can ask other students for feedback on the leader’s effective- ness and on which approach seems more effective for this situation and why.

Source: Based on K. J. Keleman, J. E. Garcia, and K. J. Lovelace, Management Incidents: Role Plays for Management Development (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 69–72.

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: CASES FOR ANALYSIS

Alvis Corporation Kevin McCarthy is the manager of a production department in Alvis Corporation, a firm that manufactures office equipment. After reading an article that stressed the benefits of participative management, Kevin believes that these benefits could be realized in his department if the work- ers are allowed to participate in making some decisions that affect them. The workers are not unionized. Kevin selected two decisions for his experiment in participative management.

The first decision involved vacation schedules. Each summer the workers are given two weeks’ vacation, but no more than two workers can go on vacation at the same time. In prior years, Kevin made this decision himself. He would first ask the workers to indicate their pre- ferred dates, and he considered how the work would be affected if different people were out at the same time. It was important to plan a vacation schedule that would ensure adequate staffing for all of the essential operations performed by the department. When more than two workers wanted the same time period and they had similar skills, he usually gave preference to the workers with the highest productivity.

The second decision involved production standards. Sales had been increasing steadily over the past few years, and the company recently installed some new equipment to increase productivity. The new equipment would allow Kevin’s department to produce more with the same number of workers. The company had a pay incentive system in which workers received a piece rate for each unit produced above a standard amount. Separate standards existed for each type of product, based on an industrial engineering study conducted a few years earlier. Top management wanted to readjust the production standards to reflect the fact that the new equipment made it possible for the workers to earn more without working any harder. The savings from higher productivity were needed to help pay for the new equipment.

Kevin called a meeting of his 15 workers an hour before the end of the workday. He explained that he wanted them to discuss the two issues and make recommendations. Kevin figured that the workers might be inhibited about participating in the discussion if he were present, so he left them alone to discuss the issues. Besides, Kevin had an appointment to meet with the quality control manager. Quality problems had increased after the new equipment was installed, and the industrial engineers were studying the problem in an attempt to deter- mine why quality had gotten worse rather than better.

When Kevin returned to his department just at quitting time, he was surprised to learn that the workers recommended keeping the standards the same. He had assumed they knew

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 93

NOT FOR SALE

the pay incentives were no longer fair and would set a higher standard. The spokesman for the group explained that their base pay had not kept up with inflation and the higher incentive pay restored their real income to its prior level.

On the vacation issue, the group was deadlocked. Several of the workers wanted to take their vacations during the same two-week period and could not agree on who should go. Some workers argued that they should have priority because they had more seniority, whereas others argued that priority should be based on productivity, as in the past. Since it was quit- ting time, the group concluded that Kevin would have to resolve the dispute himself. After all, wasn’t that what he was being paid for?35

QUESTIONS

1. Analyze this situation using the Hersey–Blanchard model and the Vroom–Jago model. What do these models suggest as the appropriate leadership or decision style? Explain.

2. Evaluate Kevin McCarthy’s leadership style before and during his experiment in partici- pative management.

3. If you were Kevin McCarthy, what would you do now? Why?

An Impossible Dream? What’s wrong with the team? What’s wrong with the team? Zequine Mansell’s words repeated over and over in Allen Block’s head as he boarded the plane from Los Angeles to Chicago.

Block was responsible for the technical implementation of the new customer relationship management (CRM) software being installed for western and eastern sales offices in both cities. The software was badly needed to improve follow-up sales for his company, Exert Systems. Exert sold exercise equipment to high schools and colleges, as well as to small and midsized businesses for recreation centers, through a national force of 310 salespeople. The company’s low prices won a lot of sales; however, follow-up service was uneven, and the new CRM system promised to resolve those problems with historical data, inquiries, reminders, and updates going to sales reps daily. The CEO of Exert ordered the CRM system installed with all possible haste.

Block pulled a yellow pad and pen from the side pocket of his carry-on bag and tossed it in the seat beside the window, stashed the bag in the overhead compartment, and sat down as other passengers filed past. In an effort to shut out his thoughts, he closed his eyes and con- centrated on the muffled voices and low whooshing sound of the air vents. An image appeared in his mind of his promotion to Mansell’s job when she retired in two years. He blocked that thought and started doodling on the pad as a way of focusing his thoughts.

He wrote what’s wrong with the team three times and began drawing arrows to circles bearing the names of his team members: Barry Livingston and Max Wojohowski in Los Angeles and Bob Finley, Lynne Johnston, and Sally Phillips in Chicago. He marked through Sally’s name. She had jumped ship recently, taking her less-than-stellar but much-needed talents with her to another company. It was on a previous LA–Chicago flight that Sally had pumped him for feedback on her future with Exert. She had informed him that she had another job offer. She admitted it was less money, but she was feeling under pressure as a member of the team and she wanted more ‘‘quality of life.’’ Block told Sally bluntly that her technical expertise, on which he placed top importance, was slightly below that of her peers, so future promotion was less likely despite her impressive people and team skills.

He wrote ‘‘quality of life,’’ circled it, and then crossed it out and wrote ‘‘what the hell?’’ Why should she get quality of life? he mused. I’ve barely seen my wife and kids since this project started. Block’s team was under a great deal of pressure, and he had needed Sally to stick it out. He told her so, but the plane had barely touched down when she went directly to the office and quit, leaving the team short-handed and too close to deadline to add another body.

94 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE

What’s wrong with the team? Block furiously scribbled as his thoughts raced: (1) The deadline is ridiculously short. Mansell had scheduled a 10-week completion deadline for the new CRM software, including installation and training for both cities.

He was interrupted by the stewardess. ‘‘Would you care for a drink, sir?’’ ‘‘Yes. Just water.’’ Block took a sip and continued to write. (2) Thank God for LA. From the outset, Barry

and Max had worked feverishly while avoiding the whining and complaining that seemed to overwhelm members of the Chicago team. The atmosphere was different. Although the pro- ject moved forward, meeting deadlines, there appeared to be less stress. The LA guys focused tirelessly on work, with no families to consider, alternating intense work with joking around. ‘‘Those are my kind of people,’’ he thought. (3) But there is Chicago, he wrote. Earlier in the day Sam Matheny from sales had e-mailed, then called Block to tell him the two remaining members of the Chicago team appeared to be alternating between bickering and avoiding one another. Apparently this had been going on for some time. What’s with that? Block won- dered. And why did Sam know and I didn’t? So that morning, before his flight, Block had to make time to call and text both Finley and Johnston. Finley admitted he had overreacted to Johnston.

‘‘Look, man. I’m tired and stressed out. We’ve been working non-stop. My wife is not happy.’’

‘‘Just get along until this project is completed,’’ Block ordered. ‘‘When will that be?’’ Finley asked before hanging up. Block thought about Mansell’s persistent complaints to him that the team appeared

to have a lack of passion, and she admonished him to ‘‘get your people to understand the urgency of this project.’’ Her complaints only added to his own stress level. He had long con- sidered himself the frontrunner for Mansell’s job when she retired in two years. But had his team ruined that dream? The sense of urgency could be measured now in the level of stress and the long hours they had all endured. He admitted his team members were unenthusiastic, but they seemed committed.

Is it too late to turn around and restore the level of teamwork? He tore off the sheet from the pad, crumpled it in his hand, and stared out the window.

QUESTIONS

1. How would you characterize Block’s leadership approach (task versus people)? What approach do you think is correct for this situation? Why?

2. What would you do now if you were Block? How might you awaken more enthusiasm in your team for completing this project on time? Specify the steps you would take.

3. How would you suggest that Block modify his leadership style if he wants to succeed Mansell in two years? Be specific.

REFERENCES 1. Ryan Nakashima, ‘‘New Microsoft CEO’s Collegial Style Sparks

Hope,’’ USA Today (February 9, 2014) http://www.usatoday.com/ story/tech/2014/02/09/new-microsoft-ceo-hope/5340519/ (accessed October 12, 2015).

2. Gary Yukl, Angela Gordon, and Tom Taber, ‘‘A Hierarchical Taxon- omy of Leadership Behavior: Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research,’’ Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies 9, no. 1 (2002), pp. 15–32; and Gary Yukl, ‘‘Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention,’’ Acad- emy of Management Perspectives (November 2012), pp. 66–81.

3. See Yukl, ‘‘Effective Leadership Behavior’’; Lee Ellis, ‘‘Results/ Relationships: Finding the Right Balance,’’ Leadership Excellence (October 2012), p. 10; and Kate Ward, ‘‘Personality Style: Key to Effective Leadership,’’ Leadership Excellence (August 2012), p. 14.

4. Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organiza- tional Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, 4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1982).

5. Jonathan Kaufman, ‘‘A McDonald’s Owner Becomes a Role Model for Black Teenagers,’’ The Wall Street Journal (August 23, 1995), pp. A1, A6.

6. Carol Hymowitz, ‘‘New Face at Facebook Hopes to Map Out a Road to Growth,’’ The Wall Street Journal (April 14, 2008), p. B1.

7. Cheryl Dahle, ‘‘Xtreme Teams,’’ Fast Company (November 1999), pp. 310–326.

8. Carol Hymowitz, ‘‘Managers Find Ways to Get Generations to Close Culture Gap,’’ (In the Lead column), The Wall Street Journal (July 9, 2007), p. B1.

CHAPTER 3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP 95

NOT FOR SALE

9. Laura Smith, ‘‘Why I Regret Being a Nice Boss,’’ Slate.com (October 2, 2014), http://www.slate.com/articles/business/building_a_better_workplace/ 2014/10/why_i_regret_being_a_nice_boss_setting_boundaries_with_ employees.html (accessed October 12, 2015); and Jessica Sigman, ‘‘Closing Time: On Its Last Day, Yola Opens Up About Shutting Down,’’ Washington City Paper (October 3, 2012), http://www. washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/youngandhungry/2012/10/03/closing-time- on-its-last-day-yola-opens-up-about-shutting-down/ (accessed October 12, 2015).

10. Fred E. Fiedler, ‘‘Assumed Similarity Measures as Predictors of Team Effectiveness,’’ Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49 (1954), pp. 381–388; F. E. Fiedler, Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1958); and F. E. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).

11. Neal E. Boudette, ‘‘Fiat CEO Sets New Tone at Chrysler,’’ The Wall Street Journal (June 21, 2009), http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB124537403628329989.html (accessed September 14, 2012); and Jeff Bennett and Neal E. Boudette, ‘‘Boss Sweats Details of Chrysler Revival,’’ The Wall Street Journal (January 31, 2011), p. A1; and Kate Linebaugh and Jeff Bennett, ‘‘Marchionne Upends Chrysler’s Ways,’’ The Wall Street Journal (January 12, 2010), http://online.wsj.com/ article/SB10001424052748703652104574652364158366106.html (accessed September 14, 2012).

12. Reported in George Anders, ‘‘Theory & Practice: Tough CEOs Often Most Successful, a Study Finds,’’ The Wall Street Journal (November 19, 2007), p. B3.

13. M. J. Strube and J. E. Garcia, ‘‘A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Fie- dler’s Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness,’’ Psychological Bulletin 90 (1981), pp. 307–321; and L. H. Peters, D. D. Hartke, and J. T. Pohlmann, ‘‘Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership: An Application of the Meta-Analysis Procedures of Schmidt and Hunter,’’ Psychological Bulletin 97 (1985), pp. 274–285.

14. R. Singh, ‘‘Leadership Style and Reward Allocation: Does Least Preferred Coworker Scale Measure Tasks and Relation Orientation?’’ Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance 27 (1983), pp. 178–197; D. Hosking, ‘‘A Critical Evaluation of Fiedler’s Contingency Hypothe- ses,’’ Progress in Applied Psychology 1 (1981), pp. 103–154; Gary Yukl, ‘‘Leader LPC Scores: Attitude Dimensions and Behavioral Correlates,’’ Journal of Social Psychology 80 (1970), pp. 207–212; G. Graen, K. M. Alvares, J. B. Orris, and J. A. Martella, ‘‘Contingency Model of Leader- ship Effectiveness: Antecedent and Evidential Results,’’ Psychological Bulletin 74 (1970), pp. 285–296; and R. P. Vecchio, ‘‘Assessing the Validity of Fiedler’s Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: A Closer Look at Strube and Garcia,’’ Psychological Bulletin 93 (1983), pp. 404–408.

15. J. K. Kennedy, Jr., ‘‘Middle LPC Leaders and the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness,’’ Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 30 (1982), pp. 1–14; and S. C. Shiflett, ‘‘The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: Some Implications of Its Statistical and Methodological Properties,’’ Behavioral Science 18, no. 6 (1973), pp. 429–440.

16. Roya Ayman, M. M. Chemers, and F. Fiedler, ‘‘The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: Its Levels of Analysis,’’ Leadership Quarterly 6, no. 2 (1995), pp. 147–167.

17. Robert J. House, ‘‘A Path–Goal Theory of Leadership Effectiveness,’’ Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (1971), pp. 321–338.

18. Ibid. 19. M. G. Evans, ‘‘Leadership,’’ in S. Kerr, ed., Organizational Behavior

(Columbus, OH: Grid, 1974), pp. 230–233. 20. Robert J. House and Terrence R. Mitchell, ‘‘Path–Goal Theory of Lead-

ership,’’ Journal of Contemporary Business (Autumn 1974), pp. 81–97. 21. Jay Goltz, ‘‘Are You a Kind Boss? Or Kind of a Boss?’’ (You’re the

Boss column), The New York Times (June 13, 2011), http://boss.

blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/are-you-a-kind-boss-or-kind-of-a-boss/ (accessed March 15, 2013); and Jay Goltz, ‘‘Rethinking the Relation- ship Between Bosses and Employees,’’ The New York Times (December 22, 2014), http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/rethinking-the- relationship-between-bosses-and-employees/?_r=0 (accessed October 12, 2015).

22. Timothy Aeppel, ‘‘Personnel Disorders Sap a Factory Owner of His Early Idealism,’’ The Wall Street Journal (January 14, 1998), pp. A1–A14.

23. Charles Greene, ‘‘Questions of Causation in the Path–Goal Theory of Leadership,’’ Academy of Management Journal 22 (March 1979), pp. 22–41; and C. A. Schriesheim and Mary Ann von Glinow, ‘‘The Path–Goal Theory of Leadership: A Theoretical and Empirical Analy- sis,’’ Academy of Management Journal 20 (1977), pp. 398–405.

24. V. H. Vroom and Arthur G. Jago, The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988).

25. The following discussion is based heavily on Victor H. Vroom, ‘‘Lead- ership and the Decision-Making Process,’’ Organizational Dynamics 28, no. 4 (Spring 2000), pp. 82–94.

26. R. H. G. Field, ‘‘A Test of the Vroom–Yetton Normative Model of Lead- ership,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology (October 1982), pp. 523–532; and R. H. G. Field, ‘‘A Critique of the Vroom–Yetton Contingency Model of Leadership Behavior,’’ Academy of Management Review 4 (1979), pp. 249–251.

27. Vroom, ‘‘Leadership and the Decision-Making Process’’; Jennifer T. Ettling and Arthur G. Jago, ‘‘Participation Under Conditions of Con- flict: More on the Validity of the Vroom–Yetton Model,’’ Journal of Management Studies 25 (1988), pp. 73–83; Madeline E. Heilman, Harvey A. Hornstein, Jack H. Cage, and Judith K. Herschlag, ‘‘Reac- tions to Prescribed Leader Behavior as a Function of Role Perspective: The Case of the Vroom–Yetton Model,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology (February 1984), pp. 50–60; and Arthur G. Jago and Victor H. Vroom, ‘‘Some Differences in the Incidence and Evaluation of Participative Leader Behavior,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology (December 1982), pp. 776–783.

28. Based on a decision problem presented in Victor H. Vroom, ‘‘Leader- ship and the Decision-Making Process,’’ Organizational Dynamics 28, no. 4 (Spring, 2000), pp. 82–94.

29. S. Kerr and J. M. Jermier, ‘‘Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and Measurement,’’ Organizational Behavior and Human Perform- ance 22 (1978), pp. 375–403; and Jon P. Howell and Peter W. Dorf- man, ‘‘Leadership and Substitutes for Leadership among Professional and Nonprofessional Workers,’’ Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22 (1986), pp. 29–46.

30. J. P. Howell, D. E. Bowen, P. W. Doreman, S. Kerr, and P. M. Podsak- off, ‘‘Substitutes for Leadership: Effective Alternatives to Ineffective Leadership,’’ Organizational Dynamics (Summer 1990), pp. 21–38.

31. Mark Maske, ‘‘Daniel Snyder, Washington Redskins Owner, Adopts Hands-Off Role—and Team Wins,’’ The Washington Post (January 4, 2013), http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-04/ sports/36209112_1_daniel-snyder-washington-redskins-redskins-park (accessed March 15, 2013).

32. Howell et al., ‘‘Substitutes for Leadership: Effective Alternatives.’’ 33. P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, and W. H. Bommer, ‘‘Transforma-

tional Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Behaviors,’’ Journal of Management 22, no. 2 (1996), pp. 259–298.

34. Howell et al., ‘‘Substitutes for Leadership.’’ 35. Reprinted with permission from Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organizations,

7th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010), pp. 119–120.

96 PART 2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ON LEADERSHIP

NOT FOR SALE