Mgmt Leadership

farabd

nahavandi_lead5_ppt_03_-_r13.ppt

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Mgmt Leadership

Chapter Three

Early Theories: The Foundations of Modern Leadership

Learning Objectives

Identify the three major eras in the study of leadership and their contributions to modern leadership
Explain the methods, results, shortcomings, and contributions of the trait and behavior approaches and identify their impact on current approaches
Present the most significant early theories of leadership and their implications for current theory and practice of leadership

Three Eras of Modern Leadership Research

The trait Era – 1800s to mid 1940s
The behavior era – mid 1940s to 1970s
The contingency era – early 1960s to present

The Trait Era:late 1800 to Mid 1940

The belief that leaders are born rather than made dominated much of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century.

More than 40 years of study provided little evidence to justify the assertion that leaders are born and that leadership can be explained through one or more traits. For instance, much evidence indicates that, on the average leaders are more sociable, more aggressive, and lively than other group members. In addition, leaders generally are original and popular and have a sense of humor. Which of the traits are most relevant, however, seems to depend on the requirements of the situation.

Because of weak and inconsistent findings, the commonly shared belief among many researchers in the late 1930s and early 1940s was that although traits play a role in determining leadership ability and effectiveness, the role is minimal and that leadership should be viewed as a group phenomenon that cannot be studied outside a given situation.
More recent studies in the 1960s and 1970s reinforced these findings by showing that factors such as intelligence or assertiveness are related to leadership effectiveness, but they alone cannot account for much of a leader’s effectiveness.

The Behavior Era

Researchers turned to behaviors, rather than traits, as the source of leaders effectiveness. Focusing on behaviors provides several advantages over a trait approach:

-Behaviors can be observed objectively

-Behaviors can be measured

-Behaviors can be taught

Among the best-known behavioral approaches to leadership are the Ohio State leadership studies. After subsequent analyses, a condensed list yielded several central leadership behaviors.

Among them, task and relationship-related behaviors were established as primary leadership behaviors

After many years of research, it is still not obvious which behaviors are most effective. It is consistently agreed, though, that considerate, supportive, people-oriented behaviors are associated with follower satisfaction, loyalty, and trust whereas structuring behaviors are more closely related to job performance.
Evidence shows that effective leadership requires both consideration and structuring behaviors.

Examples of Major Leadership Behaviors

Structuring/Task

Set goals
Clarify expectations
Set schedules
Assign tasks

Consideration/People

Show empathy and understanding
Be friendly and approachable
Allow participation
Nurture followers

Contingency Era

The primary assumption of the contingency view is that personality, style, or behavior of effective leaders depends on the requirements of the situation in which the leaders find themselves.
This approach suggests that there is no one best way to lead, that the situation and the various relevant contextual factors determine which style or behavior is most effective, that people can learn to become good leaders, that leadership makes difference in the effectiveness of groups and organizations, and that personal and situational characteristics affect leadership effectiveness.

Elements of Fiedler’s Contingency Model

Fred Fiedler was the first researcher to propose a contingency view of leadership. Fiedler’s basic premise is that leadership effectiveness is a function of the match between the leader’s style and the leadership situation. If the leader’s style matches the situation, the leader will be effective. Otherwise, the leader will not be effective.

.The leader’s style:

To determine a leader style, Fiedler uses least-preferred coworker (LPC) scale, a measure that determines what motivation the leader has: task motivation or relationship motivation

According to Fiedler, people with low LPC scores-those who give a low ratings to their least-preferred coworker (describing the person as incompetent, cold, untrustworthy..) are task motivated. They draw their self-esteem mostly from accomplishing their task well.

When the task-motivated leaders or their groups fail, they tend to be harsh in judging their subordinates and are highly punitive.

When the task is going well, the task-motivated leader is comfortable with details and with monitoring routine events.

People who have high LPC scores rate their least-preferred coworker relatively positively (describing that person as loyal, sincere, warm, and accepting); they are relationship motivated and draw their self-esteem from having good relationships with others.

Relationship-motivated persons are easily bored with details and focus on social interactions.

Individuals who fall in the middle of the scale have been labeled socio-independent. They tend to be less concerned with other people’s opinions and may not actively seek leadership roles.

Situational control:

Fiedler uses three factors to describe a leadership situation. In order of importance, they are

-the relationship between the leader and the followers

-the amount of structure of the task

-the position power of the leader

The 3 elements continue to define the amount of control the leader has over the situation.

According to Fiedler, the most important element of any leadership situation is the quality of the relationship and the cohesion between the leader and the followers and among the followers.

Good leader-member relations (LMR) mean that the group is cohesive and supportive, providing leaders with a high degree of control to implement what they want.When the group is divided or has little respect or support for the leader, the leader’s control is low.

Task structure (TS) is the second element of a leadership situation. It refers to the degree of clarity of a task. A highly structured task has clear goals and procedures, few paths to the correct solution, and one or few correct solutions and can be evaluated easily. The degree of task structure affects the leader’s control. Whereas, the leader has considerable control when doing a structured task, an unstructured task provides little sense of control.

The third and least influential element of the leadership situation is the leader’s position power (PP), which refers to the leader’s official power and influence over subordinates to hire, fire, reward, or punish. The leader with a high amount of formal power feels more in control than one who has little power.

Task-Motivated

(Low-LPC)

Draws self-esteem from task completion
Focuses on task first
Can be harsh with failing followers
Considers competence to be key employee trait
Enjoys details

Relationship-Motivated (High-LPC)

Draws self-esteem from interpersonal relationships
Focuses on people first
Likes to please others
Considers loyalty to be key employee trait
Gets bored with details

Task- and Relationship-Motivated Leaders

Fiedler’s Contingency Model

SITUATIONAL CONTROL

Leader-Member

Relations

Task Structure

Position Power

MODERATE

LOW

GOOD

BAD

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

LOW

HIGH

LOW

High-LPC

HIGH

High

Low

Low-LPC

Implications of Fiedler’s Contingency Model

Leaders must understand their own style and their leadership situation
Leaders should focus on changing the situation to match their style
A good relationship with followers is key to the leader’s ability to lead
Leaders can seek training to compensate for task ambiguity

The Normative Decision Model

The Normative Decision Model is limited to decision making rather than general leadership and it assumes that leaders can adopt different decision-making styles as needed.
The model recommends that leaders adjust their decision style depending on the degree to which the quality of the decision is important and the likelihood that employees will accept the decision.

Elements of the Normative Decision Model

The Normative Decision Model identifies 4 decision methods available to leaders.
Autocratic: in which the leader makes a decision with little or no involvement from followers.
Consultative: in which the leader consults with followers yet retains the final decision-making authority
Group: in which the leader relies on consensus building to solve a problem
Delegation: Total delegation of decision making to one employee

An autocratic decision-making style is appropriate in the following situations:

-When the leader has sufficient information to make a decision

-When the quality of the decision is not essential

-When employees de not agree with each other

-when employees do not agree with the goals of the organization

A consultative style of decision making is appropriate in the following situation:

-The leader has sufficient information, but the employees demand participation to implement the decision.

-The leader has insufficient information, and employee consultation will help the leader gather more information as well as develop commitment

-followers generally agree with the goals of the organization

A group-oriented decision style should be used when the leader does not have all the information, quality is important, and employee commitment is essential.

Delegation is used to assign the decision to a single individual who has the needed information, competence, and organizational commitment to make and implement it.

Path-Goal Theory

The Path-Goal Theory of leadership, developed in the early 1970s, proposes that the leader’s role is to clear the paths subordinates use to accomplish goals. By doing so, leaders allow subordinates to fulfill their needs, and as a result, leaders reach their own goals as well. The leader and followers establish a relationship that revolves around the exchange of guidance or support for productivity and satisfaction.
Framework
The major conceptual basis for the path-Goal Theory is the expectancy model of motivation.
Expectancy theory describes how individuals make rational choices about their behavior, based on their perceptions of the degree to which their effort and performance can lead to outcomes that value.

The nature of a task and follower characteristics determine which leadership behavior contributes to subordinates satisfaction. If the task is new and unclear, the followers are likely to waste their efforts owing to lack of knowledge and experience. They might feel frustrated and unmotivated, so the leader must provide instructions and training, thereby removing obstacles to followers’ performance and allowing them to do their job.
If a task is routine and subordinates performed it successfully a number of times, however, they might face an element of boredom, which would require the leader must show consideration, empathy and understanding toward subordinates.

Path-Goal Theory

Effectiveness:

Employee

satisfaction and

motivation

Leader’s Actions:

Focus on obstacle

removal

Become comfortable

with both task and

consideration behaviors

Understand followers’

perception

Leader

structuring and

consideration

Situational

contingencies:

Task structure
Employee need

for autonomy

Attributional Models

A component of the exchange between leaders and followers is the way the leader perceives and interprets followers behaviors and uses the interpretations to make decisions about future actions. For ex.when an employee fails to contact a key potential client and, as a result, loses that client to a competitor, the manager will attempt to understand the cause of the error to decide what needs to be done. Whether the manager perceives the cause to the employee’s laziness or lack of concern for the job or whether the problem was caused by the manager’s failure to communicate the importance of the client will determine future actions

In the first case, the employee is to be blame, and a reprimand or more serious disciplinary action might be appropriate. In the second case, because the manager shares the blame, he or she is not likely to reprimand the employee.

Substitutes for leadership

In some situations, a relationship between a leader and the followers is not needed to satisfy the followers’needs. Various aspects of the work environment provide enough resources and support to allow subordinates to achieve their goals without having to refer to their leaders. For ex.

The manager’s success depends on the employee’s good performance

Leadership Substitutes: Follower Characteristics

Experience and training substitute for

leader structuring

Professionalism substitutes for

leader consideration and structuring

Lack of value for goals neutralizes

leader consideration and structuring

Leadership Substitutes: Task Characteristics

Unambiguous tasks substitute for

leader structuring

Direct feedback from the task

substitutes for leader consideration and

structuring

Challenging task substitutes for

leader consideration

Leadership Substitutes: Organizational Characteristics

A cohesive team substitutes for leader

consideration and structuring

Leader’s lack of power neutralizes leader

consideration and structuring

Standardization and formalization substitute

for leader structuring

Organizational rigidity neutralizes leader

structuring

Physical distance neutralizes leader

consideration and structuring

Leader-Member Exchange LMX

Leader

Follower

In-Group

Out-group

Stages of LMX

Development of

Trust

Creation of

Emotional Bond

Testing and

Assessment

Implications of LMX

In order to use in-groups effectively, leaders should:

Base in-group membership on current performance and/or future potential
Review criteria for in-group membership
Assign tasks to those with best skills
Set clear performance-related guidelines for in-group membership

Implications of LMX

In order to use in-groups effectively, leaders should:

Avoid highly differentiated groups
Keep membership fluid and dynamic
Maintain different in-groups for different activities
Consider culture in determining membership