High lpc leaders perform best when the situational favorability is

LEADERSHIP
Characteristics of Successful Leaders

1. They challenge the process.

2. They inspire a shared vision.

3. They enable others to act.

4. They model the way.

5. They encourage others (care about others, recognize and celebrate others achievements)

Leadership – both a process and a property

· Process – leadership is the use of non-coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of group members toward group accomplishment

· Property – set of characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to employ such influence successfully. It does not involve force or coercion

Note: Even after thousands of studies, there is still a lack of consensus among experts on exactly what leadership is and how it should be analyzed. Leaders may or may not be “managers.” Although as discussed in class, leadership is a dimension of management. Leadership results when a person influences followers to accept his or her requests without any apparent exertion of power.

A FRAMEWORK OF LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVES
2 Dimensions
1. Focus – refers to the decision of whether to view leadership as a set of traits (trait perspective) or a set of behaviors (behavioral perspective).

· Trait perspective – views leadership primarily in terms of relatively stable and enduring individual characteristics.

· Behavioral perspective – views leadership primarily in terms of observable leader behavior/actions of leader.

2. Approach – defines whether a universal or contingency perspective is adopted.

· Universal perspective – assumes that there is “one best way” to lead in all situations

· Contingency perspective – assumes that the situation in which leadership is exercised is crucial

Over all then:

Type 1 – set of traits possessed by the effective leader in any group or organizational context (trait perspective)

Type 2 – looked for set of behavior displayed by the effective leader, again n any group or organizational setting e.g. Michigan and Ohio studies

Type 3 – assumes good traits vary with the situation (e.g. Fiedler’s contingency model)

Type 4 – set of behaviors which are contingent on the particular situation

Trace the development of leadership research?
Answer: Leadership research originally revolved around traits, and then looked at leader behavior, more recently added situational variables towards identifying preferred styles in certain situations.

Before we go over specific theories if we look for the common ground: what does it all mean?

1. No lack of theories. Concepts of tasks and people are often expressed in more elaborate terms but have the same meaning.

· Task dimension – initiating structure, directive leadership, production orientation, concern for production

· People dimension – consideration, employee oriented, supportive, relationship oriented

What is not clear is if the task and people dimensions are separate dimensions or part of a single continuum

Other theories wrestle with whether a leader should share power with subordinates in decision making.

Theories disagree on whether leader’s style is fixed or flexible. Probably both opinions are true depending on a leader’s personality. High self-monitors are more likely to adjust their relationship style to changing situations then are low self-monitors. So the belief that you need to adjust the situation to the leader in order to improve the leader-situation match seems to be necessary only with low self-monitoring individuals/leaders.

Specific discussion of leadership theories
I. Trait approaches. Earliest research. Thought leaders like Napoleon, Ghandi, and Lincoln have unique set of qualities or traits. Therefore, research agenda was to:

1. Identify traits

2. Develop techniques for measuring them

3. Use these techniques to select leaders.

Trait approaches assumed that a finite number of individual traits could be found.

Therefore research was designed to identify intellectual, emotional, physical, and other personal traits of successful leaders. Summary of findings:

A. Intelligence – leaders tend to be more intelligent. Extreme differences in intelligence sometimes cause problems.

B. Personality – some indication that personality has an impact on leader performance. However, it is still unclear which personality traits are most important.

C. Physical characteristics – contradictory results found. No clear findings.

D. Supervisory ability – valid measurement of this concept is difficult so it is hard to determine or test.

Summary
Some studies have reported that traits contribute to leadership success. However, leadership success is neither primarily nor completely a function of these traits.

Reasons for contradictions/shortcomings of trait theory
1. List of potentially important traits is endless. Too long a list of little value.

2. Approach never specified how traits related to leader behaviors or leader performance.

3. Leadership traits do not operate alone, but in combination.

4. Patterns of effective behavior depend largely on the situation.

5. Causality problems. Ignored the possibility that leadership activity/outcomes can influence a leader’s traits (e.g. success as a leader leads to greater self confidence).

6. Neglects the question of what degree of a trait is optimal for leader effectiveness. (Perhaps curvilinear relationship instead of linear).

There are apparently some traits that should determine leadership but we are not even close to generating that list.

II. Behavioral approaches late 1940’s – Goal was to determine what behaviors were associated with effective leadership. Assumed 1. That behavior of effective leaders was different from ineffective, and 2. Behaviors of effective leaders would be the same for all situations.

Three research thrusts 1) Michigan studies, 2) Ohio State studies and 3) managerial grid

1. The Michigan studies run by Rensis Likert interviewed supervisors and subordinates of high- and low-productivity groups in several organizations, looked for differences. 2 basic forms of leadership identified (seen as one-dimensional)

· Job-centered leader behavior – leader pays close attention to the work of subordinates, explains work procedures, and is interested mainly in performance

· Employee-centered leader behavior – interested in developing a cohesive work group and ensuring that employees are basically satisfied with their jobs. The leader’s main concern is the well being of subordinates.

Research Results: Could not identify which style more effective.

2. The Ohio State studies – conducted same time in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. Administered Questionnaire to military and industrial settings. Asked subordinate’s perceptions of their leaders’ actual behavior. Also identified two major factors, which were said to represent two different unique dimensions.

· Consideration behavior – leader is concerned about the feelings or workers and respects their ideas. Relationship characterized by mutual respect, trust and two-way communication.

· Initiating structure behavior – leader clearly defines the leader-subordinate roles so that subordinates know what is expected of them. Also establishes channels of communication and determines the methods for accomplishing the group’s task.

Unlike employee centered and job centered consideration and initiating structure were not thought to be located on the same behavioral dimension.

Research results: No clear research on whether it was good to be high or low on each dimension. Also looked at stability of leader behaviors and said if you held the situation constant leader behavior was relatively constant.

3. The managerial grid: Blake and Mouton: consists of two dimensions similar to Michigan and Ohio State studies.

Concern for production = initiating structure and task-centered behaviors.

9 = high concern: high concern for production is task-oriented and focuses on getting results or accomplishing the mission.

1 = low concern

Concern for people = consideration and employee centered behaviors.

9 = high = avoids conflict and strives for friendly relations with subordinates

1 = low

Said the most effective style: 9,9 Team Management

1,9 Country club management thoughtful attention to the needs of people for satisfying relationships lead to a comfortable, friendly organization atmosphere and work tempo.

1,1 Impoverished management exertion of minimum effort to get required work done is appropriate to sustain organization membership.

5,5 Organization man management adequate organization performance is possible through balancing the necessity to get out work with maintaining morale of people at a satisfactory level.

9,1 Authority-obedience efficiency in operations results from arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a minimum degree.

9,9 Team management work accomplishment is from committed people; interdependence through a “common stake” in organization purposes leads to relationship of trust and respect.

Summary of behavioral models
· Attracted considerable attention from researchers, but research revealed significant limitations and weakness. Valuable in identifying important leader behaviors a freeing leadership from the traditional trait theory approach. All failed because of Universalist perspective.

Specific criticisms of the behavioral approach:

1. Researchers have made little attempts to conceptualize situational variables and their influence on leadership behavior.

2. Most of the research studies yield generally insignificant correlations between leader behavior measures and effectiveness criteria.

3. The theory has not answered the question of causality.

4. Relied on questionnaire responses to measure leadership.

5. Results not generalizable beyond the sample population used in the investigation.

These three theories have provided information on what behaviors leaders should possess; however, the theories do not resolve the relationships between leader style and performance, satisfaction and efficiency.

Next we will discuss the situation approaches to leadership
Overall comparison of the situation approaches:

1. Focus on dynamics of leadership

2. Stimulated leadership research

3. Remain controversial because of measurement problems, limited research testing, and/or contradictory research results

Theories differ in terms of:

1. Leadership styles, 2. Situational variables and 3. Outcomes criteria (e.g. leader effectiveness – Fiedler; decision quality, timeliness and follower acceptance – Vroom and Yetton); Satisfaction and performance – path goal)

The contingency theory by Fiedler
Contends that a leader’s effectiveness will depend on the situation and that, as a result, some leaders may be effective in one situation or organization, but not in another. Theory explains why this discrepancy may occur and identifies leader-situation matches that should result in effective performance.

Basic premise: Contends that a leader’s effectiveness will depend on the situation and that, as a result, some leaders may be effective in one situation or organization, but not in another. The theory explains why this discrepancy may occur and identifies leader-situation matches that should result in effective performance.

Task vs. relationship motivation
Task motivation: parallels job centered and initiating structure leader behavior

Relationship motivation: Similar to employee centered and consideration leader behavior. The major difference is that Fielder viewed Task vs. relationship motivation as a trait that is constant.

Degree of motivation measured by Least Preferred coworker scale (LPC) asks people to select least desired co-worker and then answer series of questions on E.g. pleasant – unpleasant; inefficient – efficient; unfriendly – friendly. Person gets a high score is described LPC consistently positive terms.

Believed that everyone’s least preferred co-worker is about equally “unpleasant” and that differences in descriptions actually reflect differences in a personality trait among the respondents.

Theory contends that high LPC more concerned with interpersonal relations. There is great conflict in the field over what LPC actually means.

Situational favorableness
Fiedler identified three factors that determine the favorableness of the situation. In decreasing order of influence they are leader-member relations, task structure, and leader position power.

1. Leader-member relations: Refers to the personal relationship between the leader and subordinates. Includes the degree to which subordinates trust, respect, and have confidence in the leader, and vice versa.

2. Task Structure have four components:

· Goal-path multiplicity – The number of different ways in which the job can be performed.

· Decision verifiability – How well the job provides feedback on results.

· Decision specificity – The degree to which a task has an optimal solution or outcome.

· Goal clarity – How clearly the requirements of the job are stated

Considered more structured vs. unstructured if: low multiplicity, high verifiability, high specificity, and high goal clarity

This situation considered more favorable because the leader does not have to be closely involved in defining activities and can devote time to other matters.

3. Position power – Power inherent in the leader’s role itself.

High position power when have: Power to assign work, reward and punish employees, recommend them for promotions etc.

So situations most favorable when: leader member relations are good/high, task is structured, and leader has good/high position power.

Leader motivation and situation favorableness
Basic premise is that: Leadership trait can’t change so need to find the correct situation for your personality style or change the situation.

The theory suggests: Low-LPC (task-oriented) leaders are best in situations of low and high favorability; high-LPC (relationship oriented) leaders are best in situations of moderate favorability (situation is neither very good or very bad)

Scientific evidence for Fiedler’s Theory
1. Results inconsistent; 2. LPC measure lacks validity and reliability; 3. Theory not supported by research; 4. Fiedler’s assumptions about the inflexibility of leader behavior are unrealistic; 5. Meaning of variables questionable – at what point does a situation become unstructured. However, theory was an advance because it gives explicit consideration to the organizational situation and its role in effective leadership; 6. No discussion of what scores middle LPC is like. Many measurement issues exist. For example, should leaders be used to indicate situation variables (as is now done) or should subordinates be used; and, 7. Because of theories complexity most of theory not fully tested.

The Path-goal Theory developed by Evans and House. Also a contingency approach but focuses on the situation and leader behaviors rather than on fixed traits of the leader. Thus allows for the possibility of adapting leadership to the situation.

Basic premises of Path-goal theory found its roots in expectancy theory. Leader affects the performance of subordinates by clarifying the behaviors (paths) the lead to desired rewards (goals). Ideally, of course, getting the rewards depend on effective performance. A leader provides guidance, clarity of direction, and rewards necessary for effective performance. The theory suggests that a leader may behave in different ways in different situations.

Unlike Fiedler’s contingency theory, path-goal theory assumes that the same leader may display any or all of these leadership styles depending on the situation.

Leader behaviors – theory identifies four kinds of leader behavior:

· Directive – lets subordinates know what is expected of them. Gives specific guidance as to how to accomplish tasks, schedules work to be done, maintains definite standards of performance for subordinates.

· Supportive – friendly and shows concern for the status, well-being, and needs of subordinates.

· Participative leadership – leader consults with subordinates about issues and takes their suggestions into account before making a decision.

· Achievement – oriented leader sets challenging goals, expects subordinates to perform at their highest level, and shows strong confidence that the subordinates will put forth effort and accomplish goals.

Situational factors: 2 factors

1. Personal characteristics of subordinates:

· Locus on control – Extent to which individuals think that what happens to them results from their own behavior or from external causes. High or internal locus of control subordinates prefers participative leader. Low or external locus of control subordinates encourage directive leader.

· Perceived ability – refers to how the subordinate views their ability with respect to the task. Employees who rate their own ability relatively high are less likely to accept direct leadership.

2. Environmental characteristics:

· Task structure: more structured less need of leader

· Formal authority system: substitutes for task oriented behavior

· Primary work group: if get support then supportive leader not needed

Path goal theory proposes that leader behavior will motivate subordinates if it helps them cope with environmental uncertainty created by these factors. In some cases, certain forms of leadership will be redundant, decreasing subordinate satisfaction.

Evidence: Goal was to stimulate research on the theory’s major propositions, not to offer definitive answers. Major predictions supported, but not entire model.

Pros: 1. Attempts to identify the factors that motivate subordinates to perform. 2. Introduces situation and individual difference factors in examining leader effectiveness. 3. Attempts to explain why a particular leader style works best in a particular situation.

Cons: 1. Model resulted in the development of only a few hypotheses. 2. Its predictive power is questionable. 3. Research support is inconsistent. Research supports the theory’s hypotheses that in more structured jobs, subordinates are more satisfied with supportive leader behavior than with directive behavior. Only some research support for hypothesis that the higher the task structure, the lower the relationship between directive leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction. 4. Much research has tested only part of the model.

Example of path-goal theory
An employee has been at her job for four years. The job is relatively standardized and routine. In terms of leadership, her boss should utilize high consideration. The job is highly structured, and the employee knows how to do it, so initiating structure would be seen as redundant.

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model also called the leader-participation model is more of a decision making model looks at how much should a leader involve subordinates in decision making. Model is a tree diagram. The theory identifies 5-leader behaviors contingent upon seven situation variables: 1. Quality, 2. Information quantity, 3. Problem structure, 4. Need for acceptance, 5. Acceptance by subordinates, 6. Organization foal acceptance, and 7. Likelihood of conflict.

Life cycle theory – based on the notion that appropriate leader behaviors depends on the maturity of the leader’s followers.

Maturity – refers to how motivated, competent, experienced, and interested is the subordinate in accepting responsibility. As maturity increases, leader needs to shift from high task oriented to low task-oriented person oriented. Relationship behavior should start low, rise at a moderate rate, and then decline again. Not there is a typo in the diagram in the book so go by this description.

Says leader substitutes tend to negate the leader’s ability to increase or decrease satisfaction or performance.

Charismatic leadership theory – assumes that like trait theories charisma is an individual characteristic of the leader. Charisma is a form of interpersonal attraction that inspires support and acceptance and is likely to make a supervisor who is more successful in influencing subordinate behavior. The theory also suggests behaviors and traits of charismatic leaders: e.g. self-confidence, strong-conviction in their own beliefs and ideals, strong need to influence people, communicate high expectations about follower performance, express confidence in followers. Not really tested.

Characteristics which are believed to contribute to charisma:
1. The followers trust the correctness of the leader’s beliefs

2. The follower beliefs are similar to the leader’s beliefs

3. The followers accept the leader unquestionably

4. The followers feel affection for the leader

5. The followers obey the leader willingly

6. The followers feel an emotional involvement in the mission of the organization

7. The followers believe that they can contribute to the success of the group’s mission

PAGE