Leadership

Chapter 9 Leadership Photo of Bill Gates. "The task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been." —Henry Kissinger Learning Objectives What We Will Be Investigating: * What are the different kinds of leadership styles? * How do contrasting leadership models affect group performance? * What are the advantages and disadvantages of an autocratic leadership approach? * How do leaders wield influence over groups and their dynamics? Introduction Riggio (2009) discusses the Czech Republic's velvet revolution where the shared leadership model was used instead of the usual great man model. Leadership was dispersed amongst many groups instead of being centered around one figure (for a starter, see the Velvet Revolution in Related Web Links at the end of the chapter). Most would evaluate this shift in management (and management style) from an earlier command-style economy to a more democratic model as a success. In 1996, Al Dunlap took over the Sunbeam Corporation. Having a reputation for turning around struggling companies and increasing their overall value and stock price, Dunlap seemed to work magic with Sunbeam as well. By 1997, Sunbeam reported record earnings; in 1998, its stock was at an all-time high. But as do many magic tricks, Dunlap's seemed to involve some illusion. Suspicions about accounting practices led to Dunlap being sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2001; shortly thereafter, Sunbeam filed for bankruptcy. In 2009, Portfolio.com named Dunlap the sixth worst CEO of all time. Most would evaluate this story as definitely not a success. Must groups have a boss or a leader? Does the need for a leader differ by type of group? Would the kind of leadership provided by a school principal, or a corporate CEO differ? We know that a large proportion of start-up companies fail in their first couple of years; how much of that is due to leadership, as opposed, say, to lack of capital? And what, specifically, do leaders do? How do they influence? Do they guide, structure, or support? Provide vision? Dominate or dictate? Is leadership part of one's personality, that is, a set of character traits? Is leadership a set of skills that we can learn? Is it something akin to math—some people catch on faster, but nearly everyone can learn the basics? The answers are critical because so many situations require leadership. While we often glorify or vilify vivid individuals—Adolph Hitler, Franklin or Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, Mohammed, Queen Elizabeth I, and other memorable figures—there are also police officers, firefighters, teachers, parents, and other everyday heroes who provide leadership in myriad situations. If leadership is a set of skills, then we all have the potential to lead at some point. 9.1 What Is Leadership? In this section we establish a general working definition of leadership. It is an elusive term to define because leadership is often, though certainly not always, determined by a given context. Indeed, there are as many definitions of "leadership" as there are situations that call for leaders. Scholars have not settled on one general definition. More agree on what "management" means; there is more consensus on leadership types or styles. True Leadership: A Question of Conformity Versus Compliance Group leadership involves an asymmetrical influence upon group members in the direction of collective, interdependent goals; it also means coordinating member behavior in pursuit of group goals. Leaders use a variety of resources and a repertoire of styles, that is, recognizable and regular patterns of behaviors directed at influencing others. Photo of protesters in Morrocco. Dictators rule by coercion and often waste vast resources to maintain control. Eventually, though, their authority, and their power, crumbles. The recent uprisings in the Middle East provide further evidence of this. While one model of leadership is asymmetric, where influence flows more from leaders to group members than vice versa, the other model of group leadership—the "shared" model—emphasizes reciprocal properties, involving exchange and negotiation (Naidoo, Scherbaum, Goldstein, & Graen, 2011; Sin, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2009) between leaders and group members. One cannot lead without the acceptance, in some form, of group members. In efficient societies, well-run companies, and informal or volunteer groups, effective leadership invokes conformity more than it does compliance. Recall from Chapter 7 that conformity is when a person or group is internally motivated to accept influence, whereas compliance is when individuals accept influence because they have no choice. Which is the appropriate structure may depend upon many factors, including organizational culture, the makeup of the group, and the task to be accomplished. Common layperson references to leadership usually focus on personal behaviors and character traits rather than social roles. When someone expresses solely in-role behaviors that are legitimately designed to influence others, we typically call this authority. Examples of expressing legitimate authority are the dentist telling you to "open wide" for an oral exam; the police officer using a siren so that you pull your car to the side of the road; your employer assigning new projects. In modern industrial societies, occupants of an authoritative role typically exert highly situation-specific influence. If you meet your dentist at a party, he will either refrain from asking you to "open wide" or only joke about it. If you see your physician at the supermarket, she will not ask you to disrobe right then and there. In some institutions, such as the military or in most K-12 schools, the influence of authority figures generalizes to many situations. However, we typically distinguish between the military officer who delivers orders and the officer who inspires soldiers to follow, or between the manager who takes care of daily activities and the one who presents a bold plan for the company's future. Despite the daily necessity on many occasions for the former, we usually reserve the term "leadership" for the latter. The socially naïve assume that a leader orders others about, enforces obedience, and expects compliance. However, recall that externally imposed compliance requires surveillance. Dictators or bullies cost societies valuable resources to ensure that members comply. Today, we can see various models of what happens when a dictatorial regime encounters a genuine challenge, in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, and other countries of the "Arab Spring." Three Leadership Styles: Autocratic, Democratic, Laissez-Faire Many scholars consider Kurt Lewin (pronounced "leh-veen") to be the father of group dynamics. In his classic studies with Lippett and White (1939), sets of older elementary-school boys rotated among three "leaders" in hobby groups—that is, groups in which the students were supposed to be working on personal hobby projects. The autocratic leader gave orders and saw that they were carried out. The democratic leader worked with the boys to set group agendas. The most productive groups were students who worked under the autocratic leader—as long as the autocrat remained in the room. The groups with the laissez-faire leader were typically unproductive and dissatisfied; members of the laissez-faire group actually worked more on their hobbies when the leader left the room. The democratic leader was the most popular. Student hostility was highest under the autocratic leader. Later research, such as Vroom and Yetton's (1973), has replicated many of these early findings with some variations. Vroom suggests that the effectiveness of participatory leadership depends on the situation, such as the relationships among group members. Hersey and Blanchard (1977) single out the level of group development in their situational leadership theory. They indicate that mature groups may function quite well under a delegating style, which resembles laissez-faire leadership. Interestingly enough, the behaviors of the democratic leader appear very close to what developmental research labels "the authoritative parent" as opposed to the authoritarian parent, which is more comparable to the autocratic leader described above. Both the democratic leader and the authoritative parent are typically warm, friendly, empathetic, and concerned, while at the same time holding and enforcing high standards for group (family) members. Children of authoritative parents tend to have higher school achievement (Mattanah, 2005; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). Companies vary considerably in both their level of organizational maturity and in their cultural climate. Both should be considered when enacting leadership styles. For example, a small franchise where all employees and the owner interact informally will almost certainly not tolerate an autocratic leadership style. In such a context, it is inappropriate, and probably counterproductive, for the owner to lead by barking out orders; such a leadership style seems obviously out of place, and would certainly risk alienating employees. Leadership style must be attuned to its setting. Defining the Autocratic Leader While the initial Lewin, Lippett, and White results were interpreted as support for democratic leadership, remember that students in groups with the autocratic leaders outperformed the other groups as long as they were supervised. Other research confirms this finding (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939), leading some teachers and executives to ponder whether a leader must be harsh and directive to get results. Probably not. Early research on group leadership conflated several behaviors in the autocratic leader, which should be disentangled if we want more information on effective leadership. Below is a list of leadership behaviors that are related to effective leadership. Both autocratic and democratic leaders might use these, although the behaviors may manifest themselves differently. * Initiating and maintaining group structure. Effective leaders—and autocratic leaders—assign task role and tasks appropriate to the size of the group. The structure can of course determine how much negotiation is appropriate. In a small group of employees, a good bit of give-and-take may be possible—and appropriate. In a large group, such negotiation may be neither possible nor desirable. * Issuing clear directives. Both types of leaders keep the group moving toward its goals; after all, that is the reason one has leaders, tasks, and groups seeking to accomplish those tasks. But a productive leader will be able determine when an autocratic approach is more effective and when a more democratic approach will lead to better results. * Maintaining on-task behavior. Effective autocratic leaders ensure that side conversations and loafing are kept to a minimum. They can effectively maintain on-task behavior. It is easy to imagine that a democratic model may result in more loafing, motivating the leader to impose a harsher approach. At the same time, if the leader is too autocratic, loafing and other behaviors that interfere with a group's work may emerge as a method of resisting that leadership style, as it may come across as a power-grab, as too dictatorial. * Monitoring productivity. Clearly enough, all types of leaders hold group members accountable for productivity. Only by imposing methods for evaluating and measuring productivity can it be determined if the group is meeting its goals. The response, however, can be distinct between the leadership styles, particularly if the group falls short of those goals. * Maintaining one-way flow of communication and influence. Autocratic leaders engage more in communication that flows only one way. In crisis situations or with tasks requiring little discussion, this kind of information flow is appropriate and efficient. Leaders using a more democratic style are more likely to elicit feedback from their followers, a positive strategy when the feedback is potentially helpful to the whole group and discussion will motivate followers. Leadership versus Management John Kotter of the Harvard Business School contrasts the different roles played by a leader and by a manager. The research cited earlier indicates that both democratic and autocratic leaders initiate and maintain structure. Autocratic leaders may be more aloof or insistent on hierarchy—but by now we know that occupying a leadership or an authority position may induce these behaviors in leaders even if the individual did not originally behave this way as a member. R. Freed Bales maintained (1950) that to initiate and maintain structure, issue directives, sustain on-task behavior, and monitor group productivity will almost inevitably irritate at least some group members and create friction. However, autocracy is usually reserved for the last point above, a downward-only flow of communication and influence from leaders to followers. This can be a completely reasonable approach, particularly in a large organization. It does risk distancing the leader from his or her employees, which, for various reasons we have discussed, can have negative results. In theory, at least, one can be both structured and democratic. At the same time, few leaders are—or should be—dogmatically committed to one particular style of leadership. Most effective managers recognize that adjustments may be necessary. After all, if one approach isn't working, it is only sensible to adopt another approach. 9.2 Strong Leadership: Innate or Learned? Photo of Jack Welch. For his leadership revamping General Electric, Jack Welch has become an exemplar of strong corporate leadership. When Jack Welch became CEO of General Electric, he dismantled its bureaucracy, drastically reduced inventory, fired employees, closed factories, and, in general, presented a classic example of the autocratic leadership style. He was, indeed, known as "Neutron Jack," on the analogy of the neutron bomb that kills people without destroying the buildings those people are in. Not always popular, and, perhaps more important, usually not caring if he was popular, Welch reinvigorated GE's business model and corporate culture. He was named, by Forbes magazine, the CEO of the century. We already know that leaders aren't bullies, although a directive autocratic style can be effective under some circumstances. We either follow leaders because we want to or because a set of social norms of legitimacy say that we should. But is leadership a set of personal traits that inspire, a set of skills that can be learned, or both? Trait Perspective Many philosophers, social scientists, and laypeople endorse the idea that leaders are born, not made. In this perspective, shown for example in the recent book Outliers (Gladwell, 2008), individuals possess personal characteristics or traits that earmark them for greater success. More than most authors, Gladwell also credits various advantages, opportunities, and family or cultural backgrounds that combine with these personal characteristics. Nature and nurture are then working together to create the leader. Photo of Oprah Winfrey. Through her various business ventures, Oprah Winfrey has become one of the richest women in the world. Most recently she started up her own television network, OWN. What are these traits? Scholars such as Lord (1977) have studied implicit leadership theories, or the traits that group members believe leaders possess. They mention qualities such as dominance, task performance, determination, a commanding presence, intelligence, honesty, and humor. The traits that group members mention tend to be the same ones that are cited in social commentary and in some social science writings. They are the qualities that most groups recognize as valuable and worthy of respect. Even an informal group—say, a committee of a parent-teacher organization or an after-school club—will identify those people who display the desired skills and abilities to lead. We may all be familiar with people who seem, on a very regular basis, to end up leading whatever group they are in: It is, at least in part, because they display the characteristics that we recognize needed by effective leaders. How accurate are these professional and layperson theories? Systematic research that attempts to find correlations between personal traits and leadership has typically failed (Hartmann, 1999). Worse yet, the most talkative person, the tallest person, or the middle-aged person, rather than the group member with the most task or social skill, often becomes the emergent group leader (Vroom & Sternberg, 2002). Emergent group leaders are those selected by the group after an initial interaction period. Emergent group leaders tend to resemble the descriptions for the diffuse and status specific characteristics in expectation states theory (see Chapter 4) more than they do a personality syndrome identified by psychologists. Perhaps this is why the trait-situation combination approach to leadership as opposed to a pure trait approach has become much more influential. We will return to the combination approach shortly, under laboratory-created groups. There are some consistent results about personal traits and emergent leadership. Emergent leaders tend to be more intelligent than the average group member—although not vastly so. They tend to be conscientious, friendly, and socially sensitive, with a good sense of humor. Mérei (1980), who studied children's groups during the 1950s, found that children who repeatedly emerged as leaders as he shifted them across groups quickly discovered important norms in the group and conformed to them. After their initial conformity, these children would initiate changes. These results suggest that social flexibility is also important in emergent leaders. Managerial Skills and Functions A number of experts discuss the distinct requirements utilized by managers at different levels of an organization. As it turned out, the child leaders Meréi studied were more interested in ultimately directing the group than in particular interests or activities. Some would call this set of attributes Machiavellian. Michael Maccoby, in his book The Gamesman (1976) , describes a corporate or organizational leader who has little interest in job skills, little ideological commitment to any position or in vindicating his or her views, or, indeed, any interest in anything at all except becoming the boss. A cool amoral ambitious aura surrounds the gamesman. Another type of leader is the charismatic leader. Self-confidence, dominance, and commitment to a vision are often used to describe this type of person. The charismatic leader is one who leads by inspiring followers (rather than "group members"). Intense and persuasive, such leaders seek to convert others to the group's views and goals. The charismatic leader is often associated with a leadership style that has become increasingly influential (and increasingly studied), transformational leadership. This approach actually changes the way employees regard themselves and their role in the organization (thus they are transformed); a successful transformational leader will thus transform not just individuals, but the organization itself. It often leads to the employees having a new sense of their workplace and their role within it; it can also lead those employees to identify more vigorously with the organization's mission and goals. Like Jack Welch, there are examples in private industry that parallel this kind of skillful leader with the ability to accomplish extraordinary things. Bill Gates has led Microsoft for decades. Steve Jobs at Apple is another example, as is Warren Buffet and his Hathaway Group. These are leaders who kept a careful eye on the times and worked to develop products and strategies that applied to needs and the broader cultural context. In doing so, they not only lead incredibly successful companies, possibly transforming the employees within it, but they arguably affected some kind of transformation in society as a whole. Situational Perspective on Leadership Other social and behavioral scientists support a situational approach, that is, "leaders are made, not born." They assert that leadership is a collection of skills, such as supporting group members, providing motivation, or keeping the group on task. While some individuals develop these skills prior to assuming a leadership role, others have leadership thrust upon them, developing skills on the job. Of course, one does not magically acquire leadership skills simply by assuming a position of authority: The new leader may have had skillful mentors or prior training. Alvin Zander's research on leadership in field situations (1996, 1960) strongly supports the situational perspective. In several studies, Zander worked with naturalistic groups in their contextual field, but he also randomly assigned leaders to teams. He found that some individuals engaged in leadership behaviors regardless of whether they occupied central or peripheral group positions. However, virtually all persons assigned to central positions became more directive and showed other leadership traits. Consistent with Zander's results, recall from Chapter 3 that studies of group communication structures typically report that persons located in the central or hub position of centralized communication structures disproportionately emerge as group leaders. A middle ground between the trait and situational perspective is the concept of skill transport or the skill generalization approach to leadership. People may take skills that have worked well in one type of leadership situation, such as giving orders, and transport or generalize these to a second situation. Thus skills that were learned in situation one appear as "personality traits" in situation number two because they appear so effortless and ingrained. Zander's findings also suggest that at least some leaders import their skills from other settings. We will expand on this notion in the following sections. When we review the literature on leadership styles and contingency models of leadership, the role of individual determinism and character can be overemphasized. Many middle managers have little choice about what their leadership style is supposed to be, no matter what their personal preference. For example, in large organizations from factories to universities, quotas may be imposed from above. The middle manager may have relatively little say about what the group goals may be or even how they are to be obtained. In courses required for student majors, the college instructor may have relatively little control over which material is covered. K-12 teachers may keep a nervous eye on state-mandated achievement test content. Put bluntly, task-oriented leadership rules the day. The socioemotional-oriented leader may sneak in friendliness, concern, and support, but democratic leadership may not be an available option. Do these kinds of mandates from higher administration or from within the group itself make a difference? Almost certainly. When group members have a say in group goals and their implementation, they work harder and without constant supervision—that is, they conform rather than comply. Perhaps group leaders may be able to increase participation in goal implementation, even if the nature of the goals is imposed from above. Leaders may also utilize resources such as expertise, legitimacy, or rewards to create a more positive group climate even if they are unable to employ greater group member influence on the larger collectivity. Imagine a small engineering firm with an important contract that, if fulfilled, will almost certainly lead to a great deal of new business. The head of the firm could, of course, simply outline the goals that need to be met and dictate what needs to be done. But rather than doing this, he realizes that with a looming deadline, he needs his employees to buy in to the project in a way that an autocratic approach may not accomplish. He thus has a meeting where he explains what is needed, asks his employees for input and suggestions, and in various ways indicates that their success depends upon the entire group remaining on task, while working with, and helping, each other. By generating group loyalty to what the firm wants to achieve, the firm's head gets his employees to realize that they are important to the organization meeting its goals. The result: employees coming in early, staying late, coming in on weekends, and a good bit of interactive support and encouragement among all the members of the team. 9.3 Beyond the Person: How Leaders Are Chosen Why is there such inconsistency in trait studies of leadership? Why do there seem to be so many possible styles? One problem in the research results is that exponents of the trait approach seem to assume that most leaders are emergent, that is, that groups select their own leaders. Although this may be true in many informal groups or in volunteer organizations, it is probably not the case for businesses, schools, houses of worship, or politics. Thus, traits that scholars and laypeople assume characterize leaders in implicit leadership theories may be instead the traits that group members wish that their leaders had, and which leaders indeed may have in disproportionate amounts in emergent but not necessarily in appointed situations. At the same time, as we saw earlier, a person can be identified as a potential leader—the kind chosen by an owner or boss to become a leader—by behavioral characteristics that are traditionally associated with effective leadership. Photo of coworkers pointing at their leader. Do leaders take charge of people? Or do people choose who they want to lead them? However, instead of being selected internally, leaders are often imposed upon groups through appointment. The key difference is that with emergent leaders, the members of a group choose a person to lead them, whereas with an imposed leader, an outside collective chooses a person to be the leader of another group. Many behaviors these appointed individuals show in leadership situations, then, reflect authority bestowed upon them by an external entity, not leadership bestowed on them from the group to be led. Indeed, people may be chosen for authority roles because they appear to embody the goals of the organization or because they "manage" rather than "lead." In any event, authority figures may be—or may not be—emergent leaders. Upper management chooses most middle managers, although input from subordinates may be encouraged. Company presidents, boards of directors, church elders, school boards, business owners, high school faculty, or people in other relatively elite positions, in turn, often appoint upper management. New middle or upper managers may be even recruited from outside the organization. Their parties typically select political leaders before their names go on the ballot (except sometimes in local races). This assortment of circumstances may explain why studies in naturalistic settings generally find little correlation between personal traits and leadership position, let alone leadership success. Pleasing status superiors rather than working well with group members may determine one's appointment to authority roles. Relational skills such as ingratiation or conformity may influence leadership selection in formal groups. Outstanding individual task achievement may also impress status superiors, even when individuals with these accomplishments have poor relational skills. Business in the Real World Effective Business Leaders What are the characteristics of a good business leader? Consider groups you have worked in, or led. Did the groups perform their tasks efficiently? Was there considerable social loafing? Were the experiences generally positive, generally negative, or did you experience both? What role did the leader play in determining group success? Was the model a top-down model, such as an autocratic approach? If so, why was that a good approach to adopt? Would a contrasting style have worked better and, if so, what kind of style would have been more appropriate? In your group experiences, did group members generally conform and "go along to get along"? Was there sufficient opportunity given for members to voice concerns, objections, criticisms, and dissent? What kind of response did the group give to any dissenting views that were expressed? What kind of response did the leader give to those dissenting views? Imagine you are asked by your boss to put together a group of eight to 10 of your co-workers. You are asked to organize it, but she does not want you to lead it. What kinds of things will you look for in identifying a potential leader for this group? How will you determine that a given individual possesses these characteristics? What behaviors that you observe might help you pick the appropriate leader for this group? What sort of behavior would indicate that someone would not make a good leader? Making such decisions are what people in business need to do all the time. Being able to articulate well the specifics of a business goal as well as the personal qualities needed to drive that goal can often be the difference between meeting that goal or missing the mark. Finding the right leader for the right situation can be the difference between success and failure. Most of the studies that identify emergent leaders occur in laboratory settings. The study participants are typically undergraduate students who are strangers to one another, taking introductory psychology, sociology, business, education, or communications courses. The assumption is that these students are pretty much the same: young. After all, they are all undergraduates. Thus the individuals who emerge as leaders in these created groups are assumed to have some type of special quality about them. It might be charisma, it might be organizational. Whatever the personal trait is assumed to be, researchers usually assume that the group began as a level playing field of equals, and emergent leadership reflects stellar personal characteristics or achievements. Unfortunately, laboratory researchers collect little background data on participants. They may think they do by administering batteries of personality tests. And many study directors will also probably collect data on such demographics as race, ethnicity, gender, and maybe age. However, the background characteristics we are interested in this context probably personality tests. For example, what is the grade level of each participant, such as freshman or senior? Does the participant belong to a prestigious fraternity or sorority? What's the student's major field? Is the student a recognized campus leader? Does the student's parent(s) occupy a leadership position? To researchers, faculty, or graduate students, these are characteristics that belong to their own distant pasts. To them, these undergraduates seem pretty much alike—excepting, of course, easily observable traits such as gender or race, or maybe height. However, it is very likely that the students themselves in these groups notice the fine distinctions among the other group members. If Ethan belongs to a prestigious fraternity or is a senior, if Sophia is the president of the college student council or is a major in math, rather than English, almost certainly students in these created laboratory groups will discover these characteristics quickly in the chit-chat among participants before the official experiment begins. If students have had prior experience with the task, such as Sophia on a mathematical task or Ethan on campus fraternities, these specific status characteristics will facilitate their rise as emergent leaders. It doesn't mean that Ethan and Sophia are the most qualified to lead the group in the task at hand; rather it means the group made a decision and delegated leadership positions based on superficial information—not necessarily the best way to appoint the head of group. Of course, the rash and potentially unfair distinctions among students who supposedly operate on a level playing field in the laboratory are multiplied 100 times over out in the real world. When electing forepersons, juries tend to pick better-educated White males with prestigious jobs (Deosaran, 1984). Congregation presidents tend to be better educated and male. Photo of man in suit wearing king mask with crown. How good are we at picking leaders? Are we more apt to find the most effective person in a given situation, or do we tend to rely on superficial judgments? Are we looking at the personality characteristics that make individuals rise like cream to the top of the group as emergent leaders, or are we examining instead cultural stereotypes? These status stereotypes may be based on gender or ethnicity, or situation-specific qualities that particular individuals possess and that group members recognize as indicating experience or a higher degree of ability. Without research designed to explicitly test these types of hypotheses, we simply do not know. Do leaders tend to dominate the group conversation? So do individuals with high status characteristics, and they interrupt other members more, too. If Ashley had leadership experience in a summer camp youth group, is Ashley a leader, or simply more experienced with the rules of the summer camp group than most of the other laboratory group members? We may have experience in groups when a leader is, in fact, chosen for reasons that are not good reasons; maybe Ashley is chosen because of her knowledge of camp rules; the other members of the group may discover that this is not a particularly relevant criterion, and Ashley's leadership, if inferior, will eventually be exposed. We may also be familiar with working with someone whose leadership role was achieved for the wrong reason, as happens when a business follows the rule "it's not what you know, it's who you know." If a team leader is put in a position simply because he is the boss's son, and is not particularly competent, that incompetence will, eventually, be exposed. But this can cost the organization time and, thus, money. Overall, the data do not negate the idea that at least some leaders are born or that personal qualities can make a difference. In any case, while we may generalize various styles, the resulting model and successful approach will vary with each leader, each group, each team, each individual, and each organization. 9.4 Two Types of Leaders: Task Leader and Socioemotional Leader One striking consistency in the 20th-century literature on leadership in informal or laboratory groups is that two types of leaders typically emerge in goal-oriented collectivities that interact over time: the task leader and the socioemotional leader. A task leader—also called a low LPC (least preferred co-worker) leader, a goal-oriented leader, or a bureaucratic leader—is highly task oriented, decisive, directive, and who initiates and coordinates group activity. The low LPC leader name comes from research on the assessments leaders give of co-workers. The individual a leader has the most trouble working with is the least preferred co-worker. In describing this least preferred co-worker leader ratings can range from relatively low, the ratings are mostly negative, to relatively high, the ratings even for this least preferred person are mostly positive. Low LPC ratings and task leadership are related because a low LPC rating for a co-worker indicates a focus by the leader on getting tasks done, not on establishing interpersonal relationships with the co-worker. In contrast, a high LPC rating for a co-worker indicates that even the least preferred co-worker is viewed positively, indicating a desire to establish and maintain relationships (Chemers, Rice, Sundstrom, & Butler, 1975; Fiedler, 1967). The socioemotional leader—also called high LPC leader, supportive, people-oriented, or a social relations leader—interjects humor, is friendly, is complimentary, lowers friction, and generally contributes to a positive group climate. R. Freed Bales (1950), who was one of the first to systematically observe these two forms of leadership through his Interaction Process Analysis and his observations of groups that met for several weeks, believed that both types of management were necessary: the task leader to move the group toward its goal achievements, and the socioemotional leader to promote interpersonal group cohesion. Further, he believed it was difficult to combine these two skills, since some friction would inevitably occur as a task leader urged goal completion or criticized achievement efforts. Further research indicates that the emergence of either or both kinds of leadership depends on the task, characteristics of group members, or organizational characteristics (Smith, 1984). We examine the effectiveness of each basic type of leader under contingency models in the next section. Although Lord, De Vader, & Alliger (1986) have proposed that the above typology is a socially constructed fiction, occurring because of what group members believe leadership to be (implicit leadership theories) and thus group members are selectively perceptive, there is more to the story than biased perceptions. The emergence of these two types of leaders has been documented so thoroughly, by so many researchers using very different typologies for at least 50 years, in so many different groups that we can safely accept it as a generalization. Each type of leader has special skills that may be particularly effective in specific situations. Black and white photo of taskmaster checking work of laborers. Rigid and sometimes ruthless task-masters ruled the day in the early 20th century. Here, a factory boss (upper right-hand corner) checks the work of his laborers. The sociopolitical climate plays an undeniable role in the success of different leadership styles. Companies, for example, are attuned to the bottom line and obviously believe that task leadership contributes to productivity. On the other hand, there are societies characterized by "the divine right of kings," in which political rulers enjoy nearly total control. Or totalitarian societies in which any political choice is conspicuously absent. In the feudal or totalitarian society, socioemotional leadership was a luxury, nice but not necessary, since the titular leader could pick and choose his own leadership style. The U.S. factory boss, until the early twentieth century, could also choose to be a tyrant, secure in the knowledge that the government, the clergy, and the Pinkerton detectives were there to support him if workers complained, rebelled, or attempted to form unions. In these cases, leadership was clearly general, diffuse, and not situation specific. The 1950s, in contrast, was marked by a labor shortage of male workers in their 20s because birth rates during the 1930s and early 1940s had been so low. Thus it was more difficult to recruit and retain good workers. Management had to work harder to hire and retain a strong, loyal workforce because demand for labor outstripped the supply. Should we then be surprised that the 1950s ushered in an era of "enlightened management," in which managers were expected to be more sensitive to worker feelings and the rise of democratic leadership? With control less than total, companies were forced to develop new and less autocratic styles of leadership. The shift was on from a task-driven leader to a more socioemotional leader. Today, both types of leaders can be found. Again, much of this might be determined by the business context or economic times. In a relatively weak economy with high unemployment rates, employees have fewer options to resist or to reject a particular a job opportunity or the particular leader or leadership style of the organization that presents that opportunity. In tough times, job-seekers may be forced to accept a more dictatorial, task-driven leader than they might otherwise desire. Likewise, some might prefer the task-driven style to the socioemotional style. Either way, there can be informal resistance if leadership styles don't match employee preference—in the form of social loafing, for example. Such reactance can damage the effectiveness of the organization, so an effective leader must be aware of such potential risks. 9.5 Processes of Leadership Whether leaders are born, bred, or appointed by others, they still need to engage in the actual process of leading. In fact, it is this process of leadership that is ultimately what will define the success of a given leader. So this section will take a closer look at how exactly a leader must operate and the ways in which a leader can move the group towards a specific end. Three Styles of Influence Leaders use what is available to them to influence group members. This means using resources such as the bases of power that French and Raven (1959) developed. We first examined these classic resources under influence and conformity in Chapter 7: * reward power * coercion power * referent power * legitimate power * expert power Photo of Apple Store interior. In assessing the design and feel of the Apple Store, what kind of leadership style seems to shape the company brand—compliance, conformity, or identification? Both reward and coercive power require the leader to have sufficient resources to reward and sufficient position power to penalize. These resources will be more accessible in formal groups and organizations such as companies. Referent power comes from the attractiveness of the person in the leadership position. Recall, attraction fosters persuasion, and the leader may be more attractive merely by the higher status warranted by the position itself. Legitimate power ties into this same status of positional leadership; such power is more likely to be found in formal organizations than in informal groups. Expertise power stems from the fact that we tend to respect those who are knowledgeable and thus those people tend to be more persuasive. These bases of power transform into styles of influence (Kelman, 1958), which we also briefly examined in Chapter 7. These include compliance, conformity, and identification. Compliance draws heavily on the leader's reward and coercion power; as mentioned earlier in the chapter, in such cases group members accept influence because they must. Conformity draws on referent, legitimate, and expert power. These are the instances in which members want to accept influence. In identification processes, group members accept influence because they identify with the leader and want to be like her or him, similar to referent power. Typically this means the leader uses personal attributes such as warmth, attractiveness, a reputation for spectacular achievements, or expertise rather than positional attributes such as an authoritative role. Contingency Models: Situational Factors That Affect Process By this time it should be clear that the same styles, or bases of power and influence, are not equally effective across different situations. Rather a combination of leadership style and group characteristics should be more predictive of group productivity and satisfaction. Perhaps the most well-known theory that combines leadership style and situational factors is Fred Fiedler's contingency model (1967). As described above, he assessed leader motivational style through a questionnaire method called the LPC scale. Individuals who rate their least preferred co-worker in a relatively positive manner, or "high LPC" leaders, are more relationship oriented. The socioemotional leaders described above would be high LPC leaders. Low LPC scorers are considered more task oriented. Fiedler identified three major group factors that can heavily influence the situation: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. * Leader-member relations. Groups that are marked by internal conflict and factions, or hostility toward leadership, present more difficult situations for the leader. On the other hand, leader-member relations can be cordial and cooperative. A group leader who has both the respect and cooperation of the other group members is much less likely to see obstacles to achieving those goals generated by those members. * Task structure. When a task is marked by a clear, unambiguous sequence of actions in order to reach its goal, it is an easier group task than one in which there may be several correct solutions, different sequences to reach the goal, and no consensus on the right way to proceed. A manager who says "give me the relevant budget figures for the next three quarters" may not get the desired information. Contrast the manager who makes the request clearer: "Give me the anticipated inventory figures for the next three quarters, and compare incoming revenue streams from the last two quarters with what we expect in the next two quarters." * Position power. Leaders that are high on position power have relatively large amounts of resources so they can reward achievement. They also often have considerable control over recruitment, retention, and the assignment of group members to tasks. This resembles the at-will model that many employers either propose or implement. Unions, contractual agreements such as tenure, or even a strong labor market, which gives workers many employment alternatives, can erode high position power. As we have seen, this kind of position power is increased when employees have fewer options. A boss may request her employees to work on a Saturday: Without formal contractual agreements, there is considerable pressure for employees to do so, lacking a viable alternative. The extreme combinations of these three factors are good when leader-member relations are good, the task is highly structured, and the leader's position power is high. The bad extreme occurs where leader-member relations are poor, the task is unstructured, and position power is low. Under both extreme combinations, Fiedler believes low LPC leaders will be more effective. Achieving task completion, after all, should boost morale in the case of a bad situation. Human relations skills (the high LPC leader) should be less necessary in groups under excellent circumstances but would be become more important in the ambiguous (and more frequent) middle combinations. Management Connections To Sell or Not To Sell You run a small 50-employee firm that imports specialty food items from China and Japan. A much larger company has approached you with a friendly offer to buy out your company. The offer is very generous, and will make many of your employees wealthy, due to the stock options they hold. You would, yourself, become extremely wealthy if you accept this offer. On the other hand, you and your parents started this company, and you have poured your heart and soul into it. You have built it into a great success, and hoped to bring your two children into the business and hand it over to them when you retire. Finally, the company offering to buy you out has implied that if the friendly offer is not accepted, a more hostile approach, through aggressive stock purchases, may be attempted, meaning you would lose your business if this hostile takeover were successful. You have approximately six months to respond to the buy-out offer. How do you go about determining what is best for you, your family, your employees, and your company? What factors will you consider in coming to your decision, and what input will you seek, and from whom? Outline a strategy for making this decision, and identify the leadership style you think will produce the best and most effective outcome. Will you form a subgroup of employees to brainstorm? Will you simply decide on your own how to respond to this offer? Will you ask your employees for their views? How much dissent will you allow, relative to your own preliminary position? Do you consult your family, other businesspeople, or anyone else for their advice? List the most important factors you will have to consider in coming to a decision that you regard as best for all concerned. Blake and Mouton's (1964) Ohio State model creates a Leadership Grid to measure task and socioemotional leadership style preferences. Their perspective, as well as Hersey and Blanchard's (1977) situational leadership theory, discusses various combinations of these two leadership styles. While the Ohio State model generally argues for a high level of both task and socioemotional leadership, situational leadership theory, which considers the level of group development and the type of task, extends Fielder's ideas. Both situational leadership theory (which is newer) and Fielder's contingency model in particular have received considerable empirical testing and a reasonable amount of research support. Leadership and Groupthink Recall from Chapters 6 and 8 that a key finding in groupthink studies is that it takes more than interpersonal cohesion to create the syndrome that contributes to poor decision making. Leadership is a very important element in the mix. Groupthink is more likely to emerge when * Leaders exert an autocratic, rather than democratic, style of leadership. * Leaders are highly directive. * The task is more complex and ambiguous. * Leaders state their preferences at the beginning of group meetings—or even in coalitions prior to group meetings. * Leaders stifle dissenting ideas or the expression of dissenting information. * Leaders isolate group members who express dissenting ideas or opinions. Leaders may even fire dissenting members who don't go along with the leader's wishes or vision. The role of the leader thus becomes critical in group decision making. For example, John Kennedy's leadership style at cabinet meetings was much less directive after the Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion (Forsyth, 2010). Politics gives a number of similar examples. Some have suggested that the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq on the basis of the views of a small inner circle, views that may have conflicted with those of other members of the administration, as well as with some of Bush's supporters. The Obama administration supported bail-outs for certain financial institutions, perhaps on the insistence of a relatively small group, and also ignoring the conflicting and dissenting views of others in the administration (and of Obama's supporters). This happens a great deal in politics, and some have pointed to the Nixon administration as one that became so isolated that it ignored or suppressed contrasting views and, ultimately, became so out of touch that it self-destructed. These kinds of behavior, of course, also happen in business: the isolated leader, the small group of board members making most or all of a company's decisions, and both situations leading to the dangerous risk of ignoring alternative views. 9.6 Do Groups Really Need Leaders? Having considered styles of leadership, the making of leaders, and how leaders exert influence, we are left with an important question: Do groups even need leaders? After all, many small friendship groups exist with, at best, rotating informal leadership. In synagogues, a minyan, a group of 10 adult members, can conduct a service. Feminist groups have experimented with attempts to prevent emergent leadership, for example, by insisting that each woman in the group speak before anyone takes another turn. Small companies have tried to eliminate middle management in favor of a horizontal structure in which all employees simply report directly to the business owner. Such experiments also have become more common in the current economic landscape in an attempt to control costs. When tasks are unitary, goals are operational, or individuals strongly identify with their work and have past histories of meeting group goals, a team leader that is immediately available or closely supervises work may be unnecessary. However, most groups are much more complex. Consider a public high school, which has several departments representing different disciplines. There will be special groupings (choir, the football team). Faculty and support staff are not interchangeable. Furthermore, there are many support staff in specialized positions, such as secretaries, guidance counselors, and security personnel. Group members are interdependent upon all other members filling their jobs well. Thus, the high school will require considerable coordination and various middle managers will need to be appointed. Similarly, a large department store may carry clothing for different family members, furniture, greeting cards and books, and colognes. Selling most of these items is a specialized task, requiring different departments and sets of administrators. Furthermore, the store will probably have departments indirectly related to sales, such as advertising, public relations, and window and store décor. A horizontal authority structure would be impractical in this setting. So do we need leaders? In most cases, the short answer is yes. 9.7 A Leadership Checklist: Ensuring Strong Leaders and Productive Groups When we review the influence of occupying a leadership position on the individual, it can be enough to send us scurrying for cover with a strong admonition to keep group leadership to a minimum. Why? Because whether appointed, elected, or randomly tossed into place, over time recall (Chapter 7) that leaders tend to * Become aloof and place distance between themselves and their subordinates. * Become egocentric perceivers: they overestimate their own impact on group success and underestimate the effects of their teammates. * Justify receiving increased and disproportionate rewards by inflating their impact on group success. Couple these actions and perceptions with the tendency for subordinates to ingratiate in order to impress the leader and the stage is set for problematic decision making. Given our research knowledge, it is probable that subordinates will keep on flattering the group leader and leaders will continue to engage in self-delusion. What can be done to counteract these tendencies? * Engage in periodic evaluation of the group and its leadership. Such an evaluation may include outside observers, preferably at a peer level. Peer outside evaluators will probably be subject to fewer probable ingratiation attempts. * Try to use objective measures of productivity and member satisfaction. For example, surveys of members, especially in small groups where it is easier to identify individuals, are problematic because group members may fear retaliation, in many cases justifiably so. Instead, examine turnover rates, grievances in unionized organizations, and the quality and quantity of unit production. * Foster ties across groups. The more outside information a group can draw on the better. * Try to create structures that give all members some chance at participation and decision making. These must be serious opportunities, and not just for good publicity. * Rotate leaders across groups. If managers are asked to lead different groups at different times they are less likely to become territorial about their group, since that group changes.The military does this in many cases as do some large corporations. The downside? Change at the top of a system, such as a school, a platoon, or a branch office, is stressful for group members, can lower morale, and can possibly lower productivity at least in the short run. Summary Leadership does not have one definition. Leaders use different styles of leadership, these styles having different effects depending on context. While some believe that leaders possess innate leadership qualities, they are born leaders, others argue that leadership is learned, either before taking on a leadership role or while leading. Although much research on leadership has focused on emergent leaders, leaders are often appointed to a group. Because of the nature of their placement in a leadership role appointed leaders possess different qualities than emergent leaders. When groups are working toward a goal task leaders or socioemotional leaders tend to emerge. When leaders lead they may use compliance, conformity, or identification to convince group members to follow, though the usefulness of these forms of influence is likely to vary by situation. Good leaders are needed. Good leaders affect how well the group works and are affected by the group as well. What Did We Discover? * Distinct models of leadership, such as autocratic, democratic, transformational, and laissez-faire, lead to distinct organizational cultures. * The appropriate leadership style must be developed by considering various factors, including group makeup, group size, and the goals of the group and organization as a whole. * An autocratic leader can keep group members on task and maintain focus on organizational goals; but group members may also resist that leadership style, leading to inefficiencies. * Leaders can influence groups by exerting power, offering rewards, and developing techniques to get group members to identify with organizational goals. Business Application Exercises 1. Consider a group you have worked in; how would you characterize the leadership style developed within that group? Would that kind of style translate to an appealing leadership style in the workplace? Why or why not? 2. What are the disadvantages of a democratic style of leadership? If those disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages, explain how. Do you think a democratic leadership style can work in a deadline-driven business field? 3. How are potential leaders identified? What characteristics do good leaders possess? If you were managing a team of 20 people, in a high-stress environment, what kind of leader do you think you would be? Why? 4. An important role the leader plays is to make clear a group's tasks and goals. Can you think of specific ways or specific strategies that can accomplish this very important leadership objective? Name five ways that you would try to clearly communicate group objectives to your team. Key Terms asymmetric leadership autocratic leader charismatic leader contingency model democratic leader emergent group leaders great man model group leadership identification processes implicit leadership theories in-role behaviors interaction process analysis laissez-faire leader Ohio State model repertoire of styles shared leadership model situational leadership theory situational perspective skill transport socioemotional leader styles of influence task leader trait-situation combination approach transformational leader Related Web Links The Velvet Revolution http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/200911/the-velvet-revolution-perfect-example-shared-leadership Al Dunlap Named Sixth Worst CEO of All Time http://www.cnbc.com/id/30502091?slide=16 Blake Mouton Managerial Grid http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_73.htm Autocratic Leadership http://www.omniscribeonline.com/blog/bid/40403/Leadership-Series-Autocratic-Leadership Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It http://baldreformer.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/credibility-how-leaders-gain-and-lose-it-james-kouzes-and-barry-posner-1993/ Bush's Decision to Invade Iraq http://www.president-bush.com/bombiraq.html Obama Ignores Dissenting Views on Bailouts http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/obama-treasury-celebrates-bailout-profits_n_842747.html Isolation of Nixon Administration http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a2001nixonchaosoflies