Bennis competency based leadership model

CHAPTER 4 Chronology of Leadership Study and Practice

© Elnur/ShutterStock, Inc.

One’s feelings waste themselves in use of words; they ought all to be distilled into actions and into actions which bring results.

Florence Nightingale

This chapter provides a historical summary and overview of leadership theory as it has evolved over the ages. Major theories and models are presented. Early documents (2300 B.C.) outlining leadership principles and definitions (400 B.C.) are addressed, with the discussion then proceeding through the contemporary and accepted models of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This chapter presents the theories and models in the original light that the creating authors intended. Strengths and weaknesses of each theory, as well as applications and strategies for use, are integrated into each theoretical overview.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

· 1. Describe the progression of leadership thought as portrayed in theories and models from the “great man” and trait phase, to the behavioral phase, to the situational or contingency phase.

· 2. Distinguish constructs of a trait theory or model, a behavioral theory or model, and a situational or contingency theory or model of leadership, and interpret those constructs’ value in the present day.

· 3. Apply a behavioral theory or model and a situational or contingency theory or model of leadership, and demonstrate the application in an example based on a definition of leadership.

· 4. Compare and contrast, through the use of illustrative diagrams, two or more behavioral or situational/contingency theories or models of leadership.

· 5. From the progression of leadership thought, design, create, and explain a personal leadership model applicable to leading health organizations today.

· 6. Appraise and relate constructs and variables from the progression of leadership thought to your personal leadership model for leading health organizations today.

INTRODUCTION

The study of historical leadership is important for both graduate students and early careerists for several reasons. First, as with the study of any historical theory grounded in the literature, it is important to know where the study of the discipline began so that leaders do not repeat mistakes of the past or spend effort on advocating philosophies no longer considered relevant in the study of leadership. Second, early careerists will recognize opportunities and best practices discovered by predecessors that, if applied properly, can aid them in developing competencies in their own leadership practice. Third, leadership theories and models have built upon one another over time; contemporary leadership theories, models, and practices have a lineage stretching back for decades—if not centuries—that have paved the way and informed modern leadership thought.

These are the most salient reasons to study the history of leadership thought. In reality, hours-long discussions could be sustained pondering many other reasons to explore the history of the discipline. You can learn from the past and build upon the work and thinking of others to develop your leadership plan and model for your career in the health industry. For practical purposes, better-known theories and models are presented in this chapter; a thorough discussion of leadership theories and models could easily run to thousands of pages of text.

Which theories and models and which constructs and variables form the basis for your leadership model? Read this chapter critically not only to learn about leadership theories and models, but also to form the base of your leadership plan/model. This is not “just history,” but a focused exploration of leadership history through theory and models so you can learn from history and use it to your advantage. How will your career look if you are a better leader than anyone else? How will it look if you are one of a hundred or a thousand with similar leadership capabilities? Build your leadership plan to lead people and manage resources.

The progression of leadership thought is a constructivist approach over time; that is, early theories and models form the foundations or stepping stones for the next theories or models proposed. As you read about the theories and models, list the constructs and variables associated with each theory or model under the various phases of leadership thought and begin to identify which constructs and approaches are salient to health leadership in today’s environment. As you study the leadership progression of thought and research, think about which theories and models are descriptive, prescriptive, or both. Ultimately, you should begin to identify leadership constructs and approaches that resonate with your own philosophy, thereby enabling you to build a preliminary personal leadership model that you can utilize in your career.

There are three distinct phases of leadership thought: (1) “great man” and trait theories and models, (2) behavioral theories and models, and (3) situational or contingency theories and models ( Table 4-1 ). A fourth phase may now be in an early stage of development; this potential phase incorporates organizational culture into situational leadership practice.

Some theories and models from earlier phases did overlap somewhat with part of another phase of leadership thought. Nevertheless, in general, the theories and models presented in this chapter can be classified into a specific phase based on the constructs and variables they incorporate rather than the chronological time period in which they emerged. When leaders’ traits—for example, height or eye color—are utilized to distinguish them or measure success or select another leader, traits are the overriding factor of the theory or model. Likewise, when an individual “great” leader, such as Alexander the Great or George Washington, is identified and characterized for purposes of measuring success, identifying another leader, or role modeling, the basis of the theory or model is considered a “great man” phase approach. Upon reflection, great man and trait theories and models are very similar and, therefore, tend to be grouped together. Behavioral theories are behavior or action based. In other words, successful leaders perform some action or behavior or a set of actions or behaviors, such as showing concern for people by rounding (i.e., walking around the workplace talking with subordinates purposefully). Situational (or contingency) theories and models incorporate the context or situation or environment into the leadership approach to identify avenues for success that can be attributed to the leader. Situational leadership requires leaders to be flexible, and to build and develop the competencies, knowledge, skills, and abilities (especially situational assessment) needed to adapt styles and practices to the current situation. The “toolbox” of leadership—that is, the capability to use several styles, practices, or “tools”—is most important in situational leadership theories and models.

Table 4-1 Progression of Leadership Thought by Phase

“Great Man” and Trait Phase (Circa 450 B.C.–1940s)

Behavioral Phase (1940s–1960s)

Situational or Contingency Phase (1970s–Present)

Attempted to determine which specific traits make a person an effective leader. Great leaders are the focus of trait identification.

Attempted to determine which particular behaviors and styles leaders use to cause others to follow them. Which behaviors and styles were successful was a focus of the theories.

Attempts to explain effective leadership within the context of the larger work situation and environment where the leader adapts styles, strategies, and applications to best fit the situation or by selecting a leader who best fits the situation based on the leader’s style and strategies.

GREAT MAN AND TRAIT LEADERSHIP PHASE

Great man and trait theories and models concentrated on individual leaders who were considered “great,” with those leaders’ characteristics or traits being identified as reasons for their success. Other models focused simply on traits without identifying a great man. “Great women” were also identified, such as Joan of Arc, but to a lesser degree due to social norms and cultures that prevailed prior to the 1900s. Many “great leaders”—both women and men—could serve as the focus of a great man theory or model. The cultural norm through the early twentieth century was encapsulated by Dowd in 1936, who argued that there is no such thing as leadership by the masses. According to his view, the individuals in every society possess different degrees of intelligence, energy, and moral force, and in whatever direction the masses may be influenced to go, they are always led by the superior few. 1

Although pure trait theory has fell into obsolescence, traits of leadership are still very important to the subject of leadership. 2 Based more heavily on description, these theories and models propose emulation of what great leaders do and which traits they possess; prescription is indirect and “universal,” in that situational context and behavior adaption are not incorporated into this genre of leadership thought. Some of the more accepted (for their time) theories and models of this phase are presented here.

Xenophon: An Early Leader Theory (400 B.C.)

As early as 400 B.C., Xenophon ( Figure 4-1 ) first defined leadership and its impact on organizations; later, Bennis stated the converse notion—namely, that the most important (and underlying) issue is lack of leadership. 3 Today, leaders in a variety of organizations must understand the role and importance of effective leadership, leadership development, and succession planning in achieving organizational success. Unfortunately, leadership and leadership development do not confine themselves to a single checklist, comprehensive model, or flowchart. Xenophon wrote Anabasis, which served as a guide to Alexander the Great during his conquests. Restated in modern terms, Xenophon’s key idea was that leaders guide their people (their army) to success by demonstrating courage and modeling “leadership.” A key characteristic of a leader, from Xenophon’s perspective, was horsemanship; being a great horseman was critical to role-modeling leadership. In the warfare of the time, horses were essential, and mastery of horsemanship was a valuable leader attribute.

FIGURE 4-1 Xenophon.

Photo courtesy of MyOliveTrees [ www.myolivetrees.com ]

FIGURE 4-2 Niccolo Machiavelli.

Photo courtesy of Santiago Soto Borreiros

Xenophon’s writings included On the Cavalry Commander, 4 which described the successful military leader. The strength of this body of work was its focus on military leadership and its value as a unique source of wisdom for future leaders such as Alexander the Great. Weaknesses were its focus on characteristics and skills indirectly linked to subordinates’ performance or motivation.

Machiavelli: Narcissist Theory (1530)

Although leadership has been discussed from the earliest times, one of the first formal documents written about leadership and organizational structure was Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince (1527). Machiavelli ( Figure 4-2 ) suggested that the qualities of a good leader were to be malevolent and feared. The major theme of Machiavelli’s work was “The end justifies the means.” Although behavioral discussions are presented in Machiavelli’s work, the overtones of trait and great man approaches are clear throughout his book. At the same time, the lack of consideration of consequences and the inherent immorality of his strategies should be apparent. Strengths of this work are its pragmatic approach, which served as fodder for political science thought; its weaknesses are the cynical nature of the discussions. Also, the focus on leaders’ use of fear as a motivational tool is clearly suspect.

Carlyle, Galton, and James’s Great Man Theory (1840–1880)

From approximately 1840 to 1880, great man theorists Carlyle, Galton, and James studied great men from history who exhibited certain behaviors and possessed certain characteristics. They documented successful outcomes of these “great” leaders, such as prosperity, political standing, or affluence. Based on the study of these characteristics, the theorists suggested that to be a good leader, a person would have to emulate the characteristics of these men. Such characteristics often centered on an individual’s race and gender. Not surprisingly, many of the great men identified in the early chronicles were Anglican, male, and Caucasian (such as George Washington, depicted in Figure 4-3 ). In the past, some authors advocating this theory combined great man and trait theories into a common field of study; others did not.

In the early study of great man theories, an inordinate amount of weight was placed on certain immutable variables such as gender, race, height, and oration. Mutable variables, such as social class, education, and religion, factored heavily into the early great man theories as well. As the study of historical figures evolved, scholars began to examine commonalities among great historical figures and develop a finite list of traits associated with leadership. The primary focus on traits eventually evolved into a distinct discipline called trait theory. This niche concept suggested that leaders are defined by various characteristics, such as intelligence, extraversion, experience, education, confidence, and initiative. Possession of these traits was said to distinguish a leader from a follower in early trait-based theories. 5

FIGURE 4-3 George Washington: A great man theory icon.

Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s Trait Theory (1938–1939)

The emphasis on traits was solidified as an acceptable practice in 1938 and 1939 when Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s research emerged as the benchmark studies of their time. 6 , 7 These scholars studied the leadership styles of two groups of 10- and 11-year-olds in mask-making clubs. During the experiment, they noted that the two groups demonstrated two distinct leadership behavior types: authoritarian or democratic. The study led to the subsequent examination of the effects of these leadership styles on production, group tension, cooperation, and feelings of “we’ness” versus “I’ness.” Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s early work has become some of the more often-cited and highly quoted leadership and social psychology studies of the modern era. This work aided in the migration to the behavioral phase. Accordingly, much of the modern research in leadership theory traces its roots back to these early studies. Unfortunately, the failure of Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s theory to identify any single trait or behavior, or set of traits or behaviors, that could systematically explain leadership success across various situations promoted a paradigm shift in leadership study, such that researchers began to analyze the effects of situations on leader behavior.

Stogdill’s Leader Traits and Skills

Stogdill performed reviews of trait theory research well after the great man and trait phase of leadership had ended. From this analysis, he compiled a list of traits and skills of the successful leader from that literature. “However, Stogdill makes it clear that recognition of the relevance of leader traits is not a return to the original trait approach.” 8 Table 4-2 lists the traits and skills Stogdill found consistently in the trait literature.

Table 4-2 Stogdill’s Leader Traits and Skills

Traits

Skills

Adaptable to situations

Clever (intelligence)

Alert to social environment

Conceptually skilled (abstract to operational)

Ambitious and achievement oriented

Creative

Assertive

Diplomatic and tactful

Cooperative

Fluent in speaking

Decisive

Knowledgeable about group tasks

Dependable

Organized

Dominant

Persuasive

Energetic

Socially skilled

Persistent

Self-confident

Tolerant of stress

Willing to assume responsibility

Source: Adapted from Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 256.

BEHAVIORAL LEADERSHIP PHASE

The behavioral phase of leadership study and thought emerged in the middle of the twentieth century, once theorists realized that the traits and great man arguments were unable to totally explain the phenomenon of leadership. In particular, the question of which actions and behaviors facilitated leadership success lay at the heart of leadership research of this period. An important assumption of this behavioral phase was the notion that leadership could be learned or nurtured.

Bandura’s social learning theory 9 emphasizes the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others. People can learn through observation. According to Bandura, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action. Social learning theory explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction among cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences. Social learning theory advocates that individuals imitate or copy modeled behavior from observing others, the environment, and the mass media. Earlier theories and models accepted the idea that leadership was inherited, genetic, and based on nature. Although it seems less dramatic now, this shift in thought from only nature being at work to a combination of nature and nurture being recognized as part of leadership marked a huge step in research and leadership practice ( Figure 4-4 ). Leadership could be learned! More prescription is assumed in these theories and models as compared to the earlier phase of leadership. Even so, the behavioral phase was built upon the great man and trait phase of leadership thought.

FIGURE 4-4 Leadership thought progression.

McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y (1950)

At the sunset of the trait phase and the dawning of the behavior phase of leadership research, the concept of Theory X and Theory Y emerged. In the 1950s, McGregor hypothesized that leaders generally hold one of two contrasting sets of assumptions about people. He additionally suggested that these two dichotomous sets of assumptions would influence leadership behavior. For example, if managers/leaders assumed that their followers were lazy, indifferent, and uncooperative, then they would be treated accordingly (Theory X). Conversely, if they viewed their subordinates as energetic, bright, and friendly, they would treat them quite differently (Theory Y). These leadership attitudes toward followers would soon condition the leader to behave in a certain manner. In essence, this theory exemplifies a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those leaders who hold Theory X assumptions would be autocratic and very directive and those who hold Theory Y would be democratic and consensus-building oriented. A Theory X leader would view a subordinate who was late as irresponsible and would require stricter control over his or her behavior, whereas a Theory Y leader might speculate that this same subordinate found his or her job boring and might need additional opportunities to stimulate the person and improve performance (and behavior). The real contribution of McGregor’s work was the suggestion that a manager/leader influenced a leadership situation by these two dichotomous assumptions about people.

· • Theory X: People are lazy, extrinsically motivated, not capable of self-discipline, and want security and no responsibility in their jobs.

· • Theory Y: People do not inherently dislike work, are intrinsically motivated, exert self-control, and seek responsibility.

Theory Y leaders assess themselves (internal modifiers) in areas such as preferred leadership style, motives and limitations, past experiences, and external modifiers such as characteristics of the task, time constraints, organizational norms, structure and climate, past history with group, economic and legal limits, and degree of stability of the organization. Once the assessment is complete, the Theory Y leader chooses a leadership style (which may include an autocratic style depending on the situation). A Theory X leader has one leadership style—autocratic—and has a limited view of the world; that is, he or she does not consider internal and external modifiers. There is also a hint of situational or contingency leadership research in McGregor’s theory. The weakness of this model is its dichotomous nature.

Stogdill and Coons’s Ohio Leadership Studies (1950)

In 1947, under the direction of Stogdill, the Ohio State Leadership Studies 10 were conducted. The goal of these studies was to determine whether a relationship exists between effective leader behavior and subordinates’ satisfaction and performance. Two dimensions of leader behavior that emerged from these studies were consideration and initiating structure. The consideration focused on psychological closeness between the leader and followers, whereas the initiating structure dealt with concern for actively directing subordinates toward job completion or goal attainment.

Surprisingly, some people who rated highly on both constructs of consideration and initiating structure were not always the most effective leaders. Further research along these lines indicated that both of these dimensions were needed for effective leadership. It was found to be more important for a leader to strike a balance in terms of what is appropriate for the situation than to consistently display high consideration and high structure at all times ( Table 4-3 ).

The following summaries delineate the conclusions of how effective leader behavior relates to follower satisfaction and performance: 11

Consideration

· 1. Employee satisfaction with a leader depends on the degree of consideration displayed by the leader.

· 2. Leader consideration affects employee satisfaction more when jobs are unpleasant and stressful than when they are pleasant and have low stress.

· 3. A leader who rates high on consideration can exercise more initiating structure without a decline in employee satisfaction.

· 4. Consideration given in response to good performance will increase the likelihood of future good performance.

Initiating Structure

· 1. Initiating structure by a leader that adds to role clarity will increase employee satisfaction.

· 2. Initiating structure by a leader will decrease employee satisfaction when structure is already adequate.

· 3. Initiating structure by a leader will increase performance when a task is unclear.

· 4. Initiating structure by a leader will not affect performance when a task is clear.

The major drawback to the Ohio State Studies was the limited consideration given to situational differences that may influence leader effectiveness. From this point, you can see the development of research (future studies) leaning toward situational leadership.

Table 4-3 Initiating Structure and Consideration

Manager’s Initiating Structure

Manager’s Consideration

High

Low

High

High performance

Low performance

Low grievance rate

Low grievance rate

Low

Low turnover

Low turnover

High performance

Low performance

High grievance rate

High grievance rate

High turnover

High turnover

Source: Adapted from Gordon, J. (1991). A diagnostic approach to organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

University of Michigan Leadership Studies (1950)

Conducted around the same time as the Ohio State Studies, the University of Michigan leadership studies sought answers to many of the same research questions as their Ohio State counterparts. Not surprisingly, the Michigan study results were similar to those conducted at Ohio State, thus supporting some convergent validity assumptions. Like the Ohio State Studies, the Michigan studies suggested that leaders could be grouped into one of two classifications: employee oriented or production oriented. The research suggested that highly productive supervisors spent more time planning departmental work and supervising their employees. The same supervisors spent less time working alongside and performing the same tasks as subordinates. The successful supervisors accorded their subordinates more freedom in specific task performance and tended to be employee oriented. In contrast, the employee-focused leader spent his or her time forging relationships and maintaining harmony in the work environment. Such a leader was less interested in written policies and formalized delegation of responsibilities. 12 In the end, leaders with both an employee orientation and a production orientation were the most successful.

Katz’s Skills Theory (1955)

In 1955, Robert Katz proposed three categories of skills leaders should have: technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills. Technical skills relate to knowledge and capabilities the leader needs to be competent and proficient in certain activities. Human skills are nearly self-evident: They are the skills leaders need to relate to and to interact with other people. Such skills would include excellent communication skills, the ability to work with groups and teams, and the social skills to get each member of the team to perform at his or her maximum potential. Conceptual skills are a bit more difficult to define: They are the many skills that allow the leader to understand what needs to be done, how it should be done, and when to do it. Leaders need to be able to conceptualize ideas to be able to see the “big picture.”

Katz identified the level of importance that each of these three areas has for each level of management. The most important skills for top-level management are human and conceptual; the most important skills for mid-level management are human; and the most important skills for supervisory management are technical and human. Mid-level managers also need a fair degree of technical and conceptual skills, whereas technical skills are not as important for top-level leadership and conceptual skills are not as important for supervisory management. 13 , 14 A summary of the skills follows:

· • Technical skills: Knowledge about approaches, methods, processes, procedures, and techniques for conducting specialized work, and the ability to use those tools and equipment relevant to the activity

· • Interpersonal skills: Knowledge about human behavior and interpersonal relationships; the ability to understand the feelings, attitudes, and motivations of others; the ability to communicate and deal with conflict effectively; and the ability to build effective relationships

· • Conceptual skills: Analytical ability; logical thinking; proficiency in concept development and the capability to make sense of complex and ambiguous relationships; creativity in idea generation and problem-solving; and the ability to analyze events and perceive trends, anticipate changes, and recognize opportunities and problems (inductive and deductive reasoning)

· • Administrative skills (added as a fourth category by later researchers): the ability to perform particular types of managerial functions or behaviors (e.g., hiring, planning, organizing, budgeting, delegating, negotiating, coaching, mentoring, and conducting meetings)

Argyris’s Personality and Organization Theory (1957)

In 1957, Argyris published a seminal work called Personality and Organization. It was one of the first publications to relate organizational learning and success with a leader’s ability to achieve synchronization between his or her vision and goals with the subordinate’s or employee’s perception or tolerance of the vision and goals. To demonstrate this theory, Argyris posited two sets of organizational values he called “theories in use” and “theories in action.”

Theories in use suggest that, given a basic scenario dealing with organizational norms, cultures, or values in a stable environment, an individual’s outcome can be forecasted and predicted. The theory suggests there is an implicit acknowledgment of what we should do as leaders and managers; that is, the person’s predicted answers are conducive to the behavior and effort expected in the organization.

Theories in action are those activities that occur in the organization that are dissimilar from the predicted theories in use. For example, if organizational norms and behaviors call for a multicultural workforce and the personnel hired reflect only one gender or race, there could be a disconnect between organizational goals and organizational outcomes. In this case, the two may not be in synchrony. 15 – 17

This early leader theory on managing and leader organizations acknowledges that organizations are part and parcel of the humans who work in them. Sufficient training, branding, and communication of institutional norms, values, and objectives are the leader’s responsibilities.

Training and culture shifts can increase the effectiveness of a leader’s ability to ensure that the actions and thoughts executed come from the same (desired) agenda. 18 For example, multicultural sensitivity training can provide an opportunity for personnel in organizations to become more tolerant of different races and demographic characteristics. Extreme methods of applying this theory may include organizational reengineering, where personnel in the organization who are incapable of unlearning irrelevant predispositions and do not support the organization are moved to different parts of the organization or “right-sized” out of a job.

Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (1964)

In 1964, Blake and Mouton offered what was then a very unique approach to leadership. Their managerial grid is a behavioral leadership model based on four constructs: concern for production, concern for people, motivation, and leadership style. Motivation can be negative (motivate by fear) or positive (motivate through desire and encouragement). Motivation is rarely shown (perhaps due to the difficulty in determining motivation type and amount).

Essentially, Blake and Mouton identified five different managerial styles based on the priority the individual leader assigns to product versus people: Country Club, Team Leader, Impoverished, Produce or Perish, and Middle of the Road. The first two styles place far more importance on people than on product, the second two emphasize product, and the last one rides the fence, emphasizing neither product/production nor the person or people/subordinates. Figure 4-5 depicts the managerial grid.

In the Mouton–Blake managerial grid, the least effective leadership style is the Impoverished style, because such a person does not really care about either product or people. The most effective is Team Leader, because such an individual places a high priority on both the product and the people and will look for win–win solutions that will satisfy the needs of all. This leader is not naive; he or she does realize that in some situations it is not possible to reach a solution that will satisfy everyone. Another key facet of the Mouton–Blake managerial grid is that each leadership approach is understood to be important and useful given certain circumstances and in certain situations. There are clear connections between Blake and Mouton’s work on the managerial grid and Hersey and Blanchard’s 1977 situational leadership model. Although the managerial grid is taught in most graduate management and leadership programs, there is no research validating its efficacy. 19 , 20

FIGURE 4-5 Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid.

Source: Reproduced from Blake, R., & Moulton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

SITUATIONAL OR CONTINGENCY LEADERSHIP PHASE

We turn now to more recent research in leadership theory. Situational leadership theories and models—also called contingency models, because the leader model should change contingent (based) on the situation at hand—are more applicable to health organizations today because the healthcare environment is dynamic and stakeholder relationships are multifaceted and complex. Contingency or situational theories and models assert that no one way of leading works well in all situations. Instead, leaders need the ability to change styles and select those skills that best deal with the organizational situation at hand. Effective leaders diagnose the situation, identify an appropriate leadership style, and then determine whether its implementation is possible. At least four dimensions must be evaluated when assessing situational or contingent leadership research:

· • Subordinate: Expertise, experience, resources, motivation, task load, and knowledge of the job

· • Supervisor/leader/manager: Values, attitudes, level of influence, and level of authority

· • Task characteristics: Complexity, time, risk, autonomy, ambiguity, uncertainty, and workload

· • Organizational culture: Coupling, communication environment, ambiguity and uncertainty tolerance, balance of work, social and personal life, planning emphasis, decision-making alignment, employee enhancement, and level of knowledge management and learning orientation

The other significant element in situational leadership is the emergence of organizational culture within the situational context. Simply stated, culture is a group’s unique view of the world. Every organization—whether a family or a health system conglomerate—has an overriding organizational culture and various sets of subcultures. Leaders must attend to cultural issues to be successful.

Some researchers have suggested that leadership strategies in any setting have strong underlying similarities, but must change as the setting changes over time. Even if the health organization remains essentially the same, change in the environment, such as the recent changes in healthcare delivery, may require leaders to change their strategy/style to be effective. Culture comes into the discussion of leadership as an influence on leadership style selection; organizational culture has grown in importance over the last decade in that leaders can actually develop culture—not merely assess and adapt to it. This realization may be leading into another phase of leadership thought; this idea is discussed briefly in the next section of this chapter.

To provide a simple example of situational leadership in action, suppose that subordinates have the expertise and competence needed to perform an organizational task. In such a case, an employee-oriented leadership style will be more effective than a task-oriented leadership style. In contrast, if leader and follower both have the same attitudes, then followers may be more willing to accept a task- or production-oriented leadership style.

This phase of leadership—the phase currently in vogue—immerses behaviors into the context of the leadership situation and environment. Situational assessment skills are critical to this body of knowledge on leadership. Thus leaders can be “made” through nature, can be nurtured, and now must consider situational factors and adapt to those situations to be successful. Leaders must also adapt! This phase has more potential for prescription and not just description of theories and models. As illustrated in Figure 4-6 , leadership models are a progression wherein later approaches build on the knowledge of the past. A number of different models of leadership fit under the general category of contingency. Given that this phase constitutes the most widely accepted set of theories and models today, several approaches falling under this rubric are highlighted in this section.

Exchange Theory

Exchange theory focuses on a vertical dyad linkage approach that comprises the connection between the leader and the led. This approach emphasizes the interaction of the leader with the subordinate group. The leader exchanges resources, such as increased rewards, increased job latitude, influence on decision making, and open communication, for members’ commitment to higher involvement in organizational functioning. This line of research embraces social exchange theory, which suggests that leaders must offer something in exchange (e.g., bonus, increased status) for improved or additional performance by subordinates. It is the precursor of modern transactional leadership theory.

According to exchange theory, the leader categorizes followers into two groups: (1) the cadre or in-group and (2) the hired hands or out-group. With the in-group, the leader allows greater latitude, which in turn yields higher performance ratings, lower propensity to quit, greater supervisory relationships, and greater job satisfaction. The out-group receives less latitude and, therefore, demonstrates poorer performance outcomes.

This approach has been criticized because it relies on narrow information and situations, does not study the organizational outcomes associated with this exchange relationship, and utilizes exchanges in diverse and inconsistent ways. 21 The important point is that social exchange is a viable way of regarding leadership and is directly linked to transactional leadership theory.

FIGURE 4-6 Leadership thought progression revisited.

Fiedler’s Contingency Model (1946)

In the mid-1960s, Fiedler introduced a contingency model of leadership. 22 In this model, Fiedler proposed that the performance of any group depends on the leader’s style in terms of motivation and relationship to the subordinates and the favorability of the situation. De Jonge 23 explains that Fiedler was the first to discuss this approach, and it is Fiedler’s approach that has been researched most often. Fiedler identified three variables related to the context: group atmosphere, task structure, and leader’s power position. For this researcher, the performance of any group depended on two other factors, which became known as “leadership style” and” situational favorableness”; these two factors determine how effective the leader will be. 24 The term leadership style is a leader’s manner of behaving and acting in a work environment, is strongly dependent upon his or her personality, and is relatively stable.

Fiedler identified three situational factors that are present in any situation: (1) leader–member relations; (2) task structure; and (3) position power of the leader. A leader utilizing a task-oriented style (notice the progression from the Ohio State and University of Michigan studies) will most likely be successful when subordinates have enough of the following attributes:

· • Leader–member relations: The amount the group trusts and respects the leader and is willing to follow his or her directions

· • Task structure: The amount in which the task is clearly specified and defined or structured

· • Position power: The leader’s amount of official power—that is, the ability to influence others due to the leader’s position in the organization (also known as “legitimate power” in French and Raven’s power taxonomy)

The antithetic leader style is indicated when a lack of enough leader–member relations, task structure, and position power would suggest the leader use a relationship-oriented style. Fiedler’s theory defines leadership effectiveness in terms of work group performance. Group performance is contingent upon the situational constructs and match between (1) a person’s leadership style and (2) the “favorableness” of the leadership situation where the following relationship holds:

Group Performance = Leadership Style + Situational Favorableness

According to Yukl, to determine a person’s leadership style, Fiedler developed a measure called the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale. 25 This instrument describes the one person with whom the leader worked least well among all the workers he or she has supervised. Such an evaluation classifies people into three types:

· • Those who are relationship oriented—who see good interpersonal relationships as a requirement for task accomplishment and find satisfaction from these close relations

· • Those who are task oriented—who focus on task completion and worry about interpersonal relationships afterward

· • The middle-LPC people—who are flexible and not overly constrained with either relationship or task completion

Situational favorableness refers to the extent a particular situation enables a leader to influence a group of subordinates. Three factors are used to measure this aspect of the model:

· • Leader–member relations: The quality of the relationship between the leader and followers (the most important construct because it directly contributes to the influence the leader will have over subordinates)

· • Task structure: Step-by-step clarity of a task (the higher the degree of task structure, the more influence the leader will have)

· • Position power: The ability for the leader to reward and punish subordinates by hiring, firing, and promoting them

Several important issues exist regarding Fielder’s model of leadership. First, evidence suggests that other situational variables, such as training and experience, contribute to leader effectiveness. Second, there is some doubt as to whether the LPC scale is a true measure of leadership style; critics contend its interpretation is speculative and inadequately supported. 26 Some researchers argue that the reliability of the measurement of leadership style using the LPC is low, and the range and appropriateness of the three situational components are narrow.

Erikson’s Psychoanalytic Theory (1964)

Psychoanalytic theory was a derivative of the early Freudian studies of personality and development. The factors that were originally thought by Freud to affect only an individual’s relationship with the environment and close family members have now been extended to consider their influence on teams and organizations. Psychoanalytic theory has become an interesting tool used over the last 50 years to study the various influences on followership, leadership, and group and organizational dynamics in both large organizations and smaller groups built on interpersonal relationships. 27 – 29

In 1964, Erikson posited psychoanalytic theory as a study of attachment and childhood development. 30 Over time, however, psychoanalytic theory became recognized as an opportunity to research “intrigue” in the leadership literature. For example, Erikson’s initial theory posited that a variety of unconscious factors stimulate and motivate behavior. For some individuals, followership may be stimulated by a need of a subordinate to replace a father figure with a person of authority in the workplace. Consequently, a father’s mentoring and emotional attachment for children within the family dynamic may extend to the need to display those tendencies by subordinates in the workplace. All this occurs through an unconscious need to follow or lead others. 31

In many cases, a charismatic leader may be viewed as a father figure by followers in the organization. 32 , 33 The charismatic leader may display those qualities that are desired or sought after by subordinates in the workplace who are seeking to have as their guide a leader who will exhibit patriarchal behaviors. In a pure tribal sense, a natural pecking order (informal chain of command) is established that may (or may not) establish legitimate lines of authority in the workplace.

Although natural predispositions to follow and obey may present themselves in the workplace, the same might be said of the opposite tendencies—in other words, the inclination to rebel and disobey. 34 Predispositions in the environment toward certain traits may evoke (unconsciously or otherwise) certain outcomes, leading to negative results. 35 , 36 For example, if a new leader in an organization has a more rigid philosophy of leadership that emphasizes adherence to an 8 AM to 5 PM workday, as opposed to the more flexible self-directed and autonomous philosophy espoused by that leader’s predecessor, the employees may present as “organizational disrupters” and noncom-pliant. In this case, the employees may not be rebelling against the new leader as much as demonstrating their predisposed feeling to rebel against the rigid schedule and the perception of authoritative leadership. The resistance may derive from the employee’s unconscious being, related to a sense of negative control and directorship experienced in adolescence.

A leader’s awareness of his or her predisposition to lead or follow is crucial in any self-diagnosis and application. Those who are predisposed to be followers may be uncomfortable in filling the leader role and may perform better with fewer leaders over them to provide praise and structure. Similarly, those predisposed to lead and mentor others in a personal and predisposed manner may be uncomfortable in environments characterized by stricter organizational norms and reporting mechanisms.

House’s Path–Goal Theory (1971)

Path–goal theory, which was developed by Robert House in 1971, suggests that a leader can affect subordinates’ performance, satisfaction, and motivation by (1) offering rewards for achieving performance goals, (2) clarifying paths toward these goals, and (3) removing obstacles to performance. 37 This theory adds the elements of clarity (step-by-step instructions, for example) and explicit effort by the leader to remove barriers blocking goal achievement for the subordinate to the leadership discussion. The ability and effects of the leader’s efforts are influenced and moderated by the subordinate’s personality (e.g., the subordinate’s locus of control [as described by Rotter, either internalizer or externalizer], self-perceived ability, and self-efficacy) and characteristics of the environment (e.g., the amount of task structure, organizational coupling, and team orientation).

Victor Vroom was very active in developing theories that fall within this realm, including expectancy theory (a motivational approach). Vroom’s 1964 theory is significantly connected to House’s path–goal theory of leadership and the situational leadership theory introduced by Hersey and Blanchard. The constructs of leadership styles in the path–goal theory have similarity to those found in situational leadership theory. The path–goal theory began with just two options for a leader’s behavior: supportive or directive. This model was then subsequently expanded to incorporate McClelland’s achievement orientation and participation. According to House, the leader can influence employee performance by “offering rewards for achieving performance goals; clarifying paths towards goals, removing obstacles to performance.” 38

Path–goal theory now encompasses four leadership behavior options: directive, supportive, achievement oriented, and participative ( Figure 4-7 ). Each approach has its time and place. When a task is not structured, when it is complex, or when employees lack the skills to adequately perform the task, the leader needs to use the directive approach. When the task is boring and routine, the leader needs to be supportive. When a task is unstructured but could be challenging for the worker, the leader might be more achievement oriented, offering encouragement to build employee confidence. When the task is totally unstructured, the leader might be more effective by using a participative approach.

FIGURE 4-7 Path–goal theory.

Vroom, Yetton, and Jago’s Normative Decision-Making Model (1973)

Vroom, Yetton, and Jago’s normative decision-making model was intended to help leaders make more effective decisions while at the same time garnering support for those decisions from their subordinates. These researchers identified five styles of decision making, ranging from very autocratic to consultative. Because it incorporates the idea that leaders make decisions differently based on different situations, their model falls under the very broad umbrella of contingency models. Vroom, Yetton, and Jago suggested that four major categories of decision-making styles exist, with two subcategories appearing under three of the major categories: 39

· Autocratic Type 1: The leader uses information that is easily available and makes the decision alone.

· Autocratic Type 2: The leader collects information from followers, makes the decision alone, and then informs others.

· Consultative Type 1: The leaders share the problem individually with those persons whom he or she considers to be relevant, asks for ideas and suggestions, and then makes the decision.

· Consultative Type 2: The leader shares problems with relevant others as a group, asks for ideas and suggestions, and then makes the decision alone.

· Group-Based Type 1: The leader brings one other person into the decision-making process for the purposes of sharing information and making the decision.

· Group-Based Type 2: The group makes the decision with the leader, with consensus being the priority. 40 , 41

· Delegative: The leader gives the responsibility and authority to make the decision to someone else.

The strengths of this model include (1) its incorporation of the reality that decisions are made in situational context, (2) the broad range of decision-making styles, and (3) its inclusion of leader and group dynamics in the decision-making process. Weaknesses include (1) the lack of understanding of decision load, technology, and leader and subordinate attention and (2) the lack of acknowledgment of irrational decision making.

Graen’s Leader–Member Exchange and Vertical Dyad Linkage Theories (1975)

The leader–member exchange theory (LMX) was proposed in 1975 by Graen and Cashman. This model suggests that leaders accomplish work through various personal relationships with different members of the subordinate group. Leaders give tasks that are more positive to members whom they feel support them. LMX suggests behavior is not consistent across subordinates. As a result, leaders classify subordinates into two groups: an in-group and an out-group (similar to the classifications used in Fiedler’s contingency theory). Subsequently, the leader adapts his or her behavior to account for individual subordinate needs for direction, contact, and supervision. This creates a unique relationship with every different member of the group, called a “dyad.” Graen and Cashman later coined the term vertical dyad linkage (VDL) to describe the situation in which leader–group interactions, judgments, and opinions are formed by the leader and the members of each dyad. With this theoretical model of leader behavior, the emphasis is on the interaction of the leader with the supervised group. For example, the leader exchanges resources, such as increased job latitude, influence on decision making, and open communication, for members’ commitment to higher involvement in organizational functioning.

This line of research embraces the social exchange theory, which suggests that leaders must offer an exchange (e.g., bonus, increased status) if they hope to obtain improved or additional performance by subordinates. The LMX approach has been criticized because it does not study the organizational outcomes associated with the exchange relationship, and because it links exchanges in diverse and inconsistent ways. Nevertheless, the obvious reality is that many leaders do treat employees differently based on personal relationships, suggesting that LMX theory merits additional attention.

LMX theory emphasizes “the two-way relationship between supervisors and subordinates [and] aims to maximize organization success by establishing positive interactions between the two.” 42 Research has shown there is a significant relationship between an employee’s performance and commitment and the quality of the relationship between leader and follower. LMX is said to increase employee commitment and loyalty to the company, and the research consistently concludes that “committed employees are associated with better organizational performance, have a lower turnover rate, and have lower absenteeism.” 43

Graen and colleagues originally called this relationship a vertical dyad linkage, only later referring to it as the leader–member exchange theory. Miner also points out that Graen et al.’s theory has commonalities with Vroom’s normative decision-making model. 44 Graen and colleagues are basically saying that the relationship between manager and subordinate must be positive and of high quality. The quality of this linkage will have a direct impact on performance and job satisfaction.

Two types of dyadic relationships are of great importance in LMX, which Graen referred to as “relationships with informal assistants and ordinary members . . . leadership and supervisory relationships and in-group and out-group relationships or high- and low-quality relationships.” 45 Each is a dyad. The most important dyadic relationship remains that between the manager and the subordinate. As leaders form higher-quality relationships with employees, those employees begin to feel as though they are part of the in-group. The in-group will always have more responsibilities and more influence in decision making as well as greater job satisfaction compared to the out-group. A low-quality relationship between the leader and an employee leads to a feeling of being in the out-group. 46 Leaders use a more participative approach with in-group employees and a more directive style with out-group employees.

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory (1977)

In the late 1970s, Hersey and Blanchard discussed situational leadership. 47 They initially called their model the life-cycle theory of leadership, but later renamed it situational leadership theory (SLT). Initially, Hersey and Blanchard identified four possible styles of leadership: telling, selling, participating, and delegating. Notice how similar these styles are to those identified by other theorists. Although SLT also falls under the broad umbrella of contingency theory, it is different from the other theories found within this realm. 48

In Hersey and Blanchard’s model, the leader must determine what these researchers refer to as the “maturity of the follower.” This determination dictates the degree of supervision that employees need. Employees with low maturity are those with low motivation or those with few or no skills in the task activities. Telling or directing is the leadership style most appropriate with such workers. Low to moderately mature employees need a combination of telling and personal attention. Moderate to highly mature employees require attention as well as sharing in decision making, and highly mature employees need freedom to make their own decisions. 49 This is really a very sensible approach: The less motivated and/or less skilled employees require more direction (more telling). As employees become more mature, more motivated, and more highly skilled, they need little or no direction or even encouragement.

From 1969 through 1977, Hersey and Blanchard developed SLT, 50 which they formally defined as a leadership style driven by the situation at hand. This model specifies the readiness of followers, defined as the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task, as the major contingency that influences appropriate leadership style. SLT is based on the relationships among three components:

· • Directive behavior (task behavior) the leader provides followers

· • The amount of supportive behavior (relational behavior) a leader provides

· • The development level (maturity) of the follower, which is derived from the amount of competence and commitment demonstrated while performing a specific task

In the last component, competence is the degree of knowledge or skills gained from education, training, or experience needed to do the task, and commitment is defined as the combination of confidence and motivation displayed by the follower in reference to doing the task. A follower can be competent but not committed to doing a task; consequently, he or she may need support to regain the devotion to accomplish the task.

SLT also suggests that the individual leadership style demonstrated should match the maturity of the subordinates who are being led. 51 Thus, according to this theory, there is no one best style of leadership. Instead, people in leadership and management positions become more effective when they select a leadership style that is appropriate to the development level of the individual or group they want to influence. Maturity is assessed in relation to a specific task and the psychological maturity and job experience of the follower. The leader may then exercise various levels of delegating, participating, selling, and telling to coax employees to complete their assigned tasks and achieve the desired goals. Application of the correct leadership style based on the developmental level of the follower or group is the key ingredient in the SLT model; however, sometimes situational variables may affect the leadership style—for example, time constraints, supervisory demands, and job demands. Each style varies the leadership approach based on the aforementioned situational factors. The most recently described leadership approaches include additional dimensions of leadership, such as whether the leader utilizes a transactional or transformational style.

As summarized in Figure 4-8 , SLT posits that leaders must utilize different styles depending on the situation: telling and directing (S1); selling and coaching (S2); participating and supporting (S3), or delegating (S4). Subordinate competence and commitment moderate the leader’s style.

FIGURE 4-8 Situational leadership.

Although contingency and normative decision-making approaches are types of situational theory, Hersey and Blanchard’s approach is more centric, because it depends on the amount of tasks and people that the leader adopts in reference to the level of subordinates’ commitment and competence. In Figure 4-8 , notice how subordinate development level D1 relates to S1 (directing) leader behavior, D2 relates to S2 (coaching) leader behavior, and so on. The greater the subordinates’ level of commitment and competence, the less the leader has to provide task-based and relation-based leadership. SLT holds that successful leadership is achieved by selecting the correct leadership style based on the readiness of the followers.

In critiquing the SLT, some researchers have questioned its conceptual clarity, validity, robustness, and utility, as well as the instruments used to measure leadership style. Of course, others have supported the utility of the model.

House’s Charismatic Leadership Model (1977)

Based on the earlier suggestion of Max Weber, who posited the dimension of charismatic leadership that he called charismatic domination in the early 1920s, House revisited the construct of charisma. Building on the earlier theories, he proposed a theory in 1977 specifically called charismatic leadership. 52 Recent studies have extended this theoretical base to examine the degree of an employee’s or subordinate’s identification with a team or work group as a function of charismatic leadership. 53

Charismatic leadership inspires followership through intangibles in personality that cannot be measured directly in an individual. Making the dynamic even more complex, charisma may be identified in a leader by subordinates, but cannot be directly operationalized as any one set of traits or skill sets. Similar to the old adage “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” charisma is in the eye of the beholder; however, levels of acceptance and acknowledgment cannot be uniformly communicated by the members of the organization. Charisma, like the definition of any construct itself, cannot be measured directly by any tangible property in a universal way.

Charismatic leaders inspire trust, faith, and confidence in nonmechanical ways. They have a natural predisposition to be self-assured and comfortable in their own skin. They rarely second-guess themselves and are generally extroverts. Charismatic leaders are always “turned on” in one dimension or another—that is, they may be the individual at a social gathering everyone wants to talk to, or they may be the voice of direction and order in an otherwise panicked and disordered atmosphere.

It is very difficult for those without natural charisma to mimic those who possess this natural ability on a long-term basis. Environmental change and culture shifts will make the mechanical charismatic leader unable to function for long periods of time in work or social situations; fatigue and apathy will set in. Being charismatic cannot be acted.

For those leaders with natural charismatic qualities, opportunities exist to leverage these inherent capabilities in the organization. Consider a leader with a natural predisposition to inspire and befriend who can combine this ability with learned executive skills and competencies in organizational dynamics; this blending can lead to success for the adept leader. For example, a CEO negotiating policy change in a legal market may know little about the financial structure of the merger’s initial public offering valuation; however, the CEO may excel in maintaining a positive dialogue with stakeholders that will maintain calm during times of unfamiliarity that allow the change to occur. 54 – 56

Despite the many positives associated with charismatic leadership, there are disadvantages to use of this leadership style as well. Charismatic leaders may be prone to avoiding professional discourse and could be challenged on ideas. They may surround themselves with “yes men” during long stints of leadership that result in organizational institutionalism and stagnation. In the worst-case scenarios, charismatic leaders may be prone to narcissism and feel superior to those persons who are not within their immediate circle of influence. 57 , 58

Burns’s Transformational Leadership Model (1978)

Two of the more recent theories of leadership discussed a great deal are transactional and transformational leadership theories. Transactional leadership was first described by Max Weber in 1947 and was revisited in 1981 by Benjamin Bass, who hypothesized that transactional leaders believe workers are motivated by rewards. That is similar to McGregor’s Theory X description of one type of subordinate. The transformational leadership model is a situation-influenced theory that suggests the situation influences the leader to adapt a style most fitting to the specific circumstances at hand. This style may be transactional or transformational, or some combination of the two. In practice, a combination of these approaches is the most practical leadership strategy to undertake in health organizations. The knowledge, skills, and abilities of a health leader to use transformation and transactional leadership are critical for success in today’s environment.

The descriptors applied to transactional leadership are “working to achieve specific goals, rewarding employees, [responding] to employees and [their] self-interests.” 59 Because a trade—an exchange of work and effort for rewards—occurs, transactional leadership is perceived as an economic model of leadership. 60 A potential negative outcome with this model is that employees may not be motivated to accomplish certain tasks if there is no reward attached to performance and positive outcomes.

It was James MacGregor Burns, who, around 1978, distinguished between transactional and transformational leadership styles. Burns based his theories on other sources, such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Kohlberg’s theories of moral development. 61 Burns believed the transactional leader lived in keeping with certain values, such as fairness, responsibility, and integrity. Transformational leadership is sometimes viewed as the opposite end of the pole from transactional leadership, though in reality that perception is inaccurate. Transformational leaders are charismatic; they have vision, empathy, self-assurance, commitment, and the ability to assure others of their own competence; and they are willing to take risks. 62 , 63 “Transformational leadership refers to the process of building commitment to the organization’s objectives and empowering followers to accomplish these objectives.” 64

Bass describes Burns’ expectation of transactional leadership as follows:

· Transactional leadership involves values . . . relevant to the exchange process such as honesty, fairness, responsibility, and reciprocity . . . bureaucratic organizations enforce the use of legitimate power and respect for rules and tradition rather than influence based on inspiration. For Burns, leadership is a process, not a set of discrete acts. Burns (1978) described leadership as “a stream of evolving interrelationships in which leaders are continuously evoking motivational responses from followers and modifying their behavior as they meet responsiveness or resistance, in a ceaseless process of flow and counter-flow.”

Bass summarized Burns’ take on transformational leadership thusly:

· At the macro-level of analysis, transformational leadership involves shaping, expressing, and mediating conflict among groups of people in addition to motivating individuals. 65

Building on Burns’s work, Bernard Bass argued that rather than the two leadership styles being polar opposites, there was a linear progression from transactional to transformational leadership. Bass also believed that transformational leadership should be measured in terms of how it affects employees, such as how much they trust and respect the leader. According to Bass, transformational leadership must be grounded in moral foundations that include inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence. These concepts position the transformational leader in a place similar to that identified in servant–leader models such as the model proposed by Greenleaf. 66

From this discourse, Bass (1985) proposed a theory of transformational leadership that is measured in terms of the leader’s influence on subordinates or followers. Subordinates or followers “connect” to the transformational leader through trust, admiration, a sense of loyalty, and respect for the leader. Transformational leaders, in turn, create an environment that propels subordinates and followers to greater performance and greater deeds 67 than previously expected, in three ways: (1) by making followers aware of the importance of their performance and task outcomes; (2) by replacing their own self-interest with the good of the group, team, and organization; and (3) by energizing and motivating followers’ higher-order needs. 68 In more recent research, transformational leadership has been identified as the most important predictor of individual success and active involvement in healthcare delivery teams (multidisciplinary teams). 69

In summary, transformational leadership focuses on four constructs. Bass’s original theory included three behaviors of transformational leaders; the fourth was added later to transformational behaviors:

· • Charisma: The leader influences followers by arousing strong emotions and identification with the leader.

· • Intellectual stimulation: The leader increases follower awareness of problems and influences followers to view problems from a new perspective.