Michigan and ohio state behavioral theories of leadership pdf

4 Leadership Behavior and Situational Factors

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Describe the style and behavioral approaches to leadership using the Michigan and Ohio studies as well as the Leadership Grid.

2. Explain the situational approach to leadership, including the role that followers play in leadership efficacy.

3. Discuss the contingency approach to leadership, specifically Fielder’s Contingency Theory and Path–Goal Contingency Theory.

4. List and explain the stages of the Leader–Member Exchange (LMX).

iStock/Thinkstock

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 73 9/2/15 2:00 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Tony Hsieh, CEO at Amazon’s Zappos, the retail online shoe and clothing company with 1,500 employees, is again experimenting with a more radical extension of the current organiza- tion. The firm is now organized as a holacracy—“a management structure in which circles of equally privileged employees work autonomously in codependency with other circles, some- times overlapping” (Feloni, 2015).

Hsieh plans on being manager-free with an even newer organizational form of self- management and self-organization based on Frederic Laloux’s Reinventing Organizations, which argues for peer-pressure, self-organizing systems. Hsieh noted that “For certain types of job functions where there are easy metrics to measure performance, a public leaderboard ranking will nat- urally create peer pressure by showing which teams are performing and which aren’t. For other types of job functions where metrics are more difficult to come by, regular peer-based presentations have been shown to be really effective, where each team presents to the other teams (once a quarter) what they are working on and why it is adding value to the company, and that will create a natural peer pressure” (Feloni, 2015).

Employees who did not support the new structure were offered severance packages if they resigned by last April 30, 2015. First, they had to either read the management book Rein- venting Organizations or “just email a statement that they are not reading it.” Hsieh doesn’t want employees “Having one foot in one world while having the other foot in the other world” because that would slow down the transformation toward self-management and self- organization. The self-organizing, self-managing “business-centric groups” would eliminate the “legacy management hierarchy” and embed merchandising, finance, tech, marketing, and other functions in business-centric circles. Former managers in good standing keep their sal- aries through the end of 2015, but their old roles and responsibilities change. Hsieh informed

employees that a new circle called “Reinventing Yourself” would help fit former managers into new roles that might be a good match for “their pas- sions, skills, and experience.” Hsieh said in an email, “Self-management and self-organization is not for every- one, and not everyone will want to move forward,” thus he offered a 3-month severance package and up to 3 months of COBRA reimbursement for every employee in good stand- ing. Two hundred and ten Zappos employees—14% of the staff—took the buyout (Feloni, 2015).

Months before the employee buyout decision, several employees were dis- gruntled with the holacracy system (Groth, 2015). Some said it was too

rigid and dogmatic, others said they were overwhelmed with role changes, especially since they were also being bought by Amazon. Most agree that “Zappos is going through one of the most tumultuous years in the history of the company” (Groth, 2010). It is too early to tell how employee and peer work relations will evolve with the new self-managing system. Both Jeff

Ethan Miller/Getty Images News/Thinkstock

Tony Hsieh is an entrepreneurial innovating leader who is not afraid to take risks for large gains—and some losses.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 74 9/2/15 2:00 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

Bezos and Tony Hsieh are entrepreneurial innovating leaders not afraid to take risks for large gains—and some losses.

The Hsieh and Zappos story is an experiment in leadership and management theory and prac- tice that scholars and practitioners are watching with interest. The theories and approaches discussed so far have sought to answer the question “What makes an effective leader?”. (Remember, an effective leader is someone who works with, motivates, and helps followers to attain their common organizational goals.) Later approaches following trait theory shifted attention from who leaders are to what leaders do and how their styles, personalities, and traits fit with different situations and organizations, offering a far more complex answer to the question.

In this chapter we discuss the historical evolution and implementation of several such the- ories, including style and behavioral approaches (the Michigan and Ohio State Studies), contingency theory, followed by the individualized leadership approach, which focuses on leader–follower exchanges and relationships. It is important to note, as was indicated in ear- lier chapters, that leaders are not necessarily heroes. They work, relate to, influence, and are influenced by followers; and, as we will show, lead within the constraints and opportunities of specific organizational contexts, situations, and relationships.

As you read this chapter, notice how the simplicity and relevance of leadership theories (as conceptual frameworks but also as tools) advances to higher levels of complexity with regard to both leaders and followers. Parts of all these theories are still in use in one form or another. The evolution of the theories from leadership style and behavioral approaches, to situational and contingency approaches, and finishing with individualized leadership and dyad exchange theory tell not only a historical story of how leadership theory changed, but also offers insight into how some leaders, managers, and followers still view themselves and organizations today. Note, again, the holistic roadmap in Figure 1.1, Persons, Processes, and Systems, from Chapter 1 as you read the text, assessments, and methods moving from leadership as persons to include processes. Also keep in mind questions each theory raises about Hsieh’s bold lead- ership decisions with the organizational structure and changes at Zappos.

4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches Style and behavioral approaches focus on leaders’ behavior rather than their personality characteristics, just as trait and personality approaches do. Specifically, theorists look at how leaders approach tasks and deal with followers. We will examine two contributions to the style and behavioral approaches: (1) early studies conducted at the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University, and (2) Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid.

Michigan and Ohio State Studies

The research at the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University began in the late 1940s. The Michigan and Ohio leadership studies were critical in the development of style and behavioral leadership theory. The studies at these two institutions were actually

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 75 9/2/15 2:00 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

performed separately, but because the two groups reached very similar conclusions, we will discuss them together in this text.

Researchers eventually pinpointed two types of behavior in leaders: Leaders were either task oriented, focusing on achieving goals and organization, or people oriented, focusing on followers and interpersonal relationships (Stogdill, 1948). The Michigan and Ohio State researchers argued that different leadership styles were more effective in different situations.

Task-oriented leadership involves assigning tasks, specifying procedures, defining work schedules, and helping followers set goals—in other words, focusing more on getting work done than on showing consideration to people. Michigan researchers called this a production orientation, while Ohio State researchers termed it an initiating structure style. This style is needed when tasks call for a lot of structure but little need to show followers consideration. In these situations, one-way, top-down communication and decision making are necessary.

Consider this example: In 2005, Hewlett-Packard (HP) was at a crossroads. The company could either continue to give ground to the competition or regain its former glory as a leading computer manufacturer. The company needed a leader who would drive hard, give direction, expect high performance, set high standards, and ask tough questions. Mark Hurd took the job. Some questioned his tough, numbers-driven, task-oriented style, but by the end of 2009 he had succeeded in turning HP around. He was the right leader at the right time for HP: more task oriented rather than people oriented. More recently Meg Whitman, former CEO at eBay, has served as HP’s top-level leader. She seems to balance the people-to-task orientation effectively:

Blunt, folksy, and persistent, Meg Whitman is the leader that Hewlett-Packard desperately needs. She’s decisive without being abrasive, persuasive without being slick. She’s a team builder who knows that turnarounds call for repair- ing hundreds of small failings rather than betting everything on a miracle cure that might be a mirage. In the words of HP director Marc Andreessen, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capitalists, ‘She’s the best CEO the company has had since its founders.’” (Anders, 2013)

A people-oriented leadership style creates a supportive, friendly, and trusting environment for followers, working to satisfy needs and develop relationships. Michigan researchers said these leaders possessed an employee orientation, while Ohio State researchers called this style a con- sideration style. A people-oriented leadership style is often most effective when less structure but more consideration is needed. In these situations, two-way, participative communication and decision making are needed (Likert, 1961). Take, for example, a university that recently com- pleted a physical building project in which 15% of the campus was either rebuilt or restored. The new president recruited at the start of the project was a retired corporate executive known for his command and control. He had successfully managed the building transformation but alienated many faculty and staff members who felt he did not understand their work or needs. Although the president’s task-oriented style was appropriate at the start of the project— everything was on time, almost within budget, and according to specifications—at the end of the project the board of trustees decided it was time for a different leadership style. They hired a former aca- demic with 15 years of successful university administration and fund-raising experience who was able to inspire, motivate, and align faculty; rejuvenate and rebuild a collaborative commu- nity; provide emotional as well as academic leadership support; and promote the principles and

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 76 9/2/15 2:00 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

values of scholarship. The more people- oriented approach fit the organization at the right time in its life cycle.

The timeliness of the people-oriented focus is noteworthy. A recent survey found that 66% of employees reported appreciation as a factor that motivated them most at work (Akst, 2007). A recent review of 160 studies showed that followers of leaders who were high in consideration were more moti- vated and satisfied with their job and had more respect for their leaders (Robbins & Judge, 2011).

Some scholars argue that leaders are either more concerned with people or more concerned with tasks; they can- not be both. Other scholars consider the two styles to be complementary rather than opposed, as shown in Figure 4.1. The figure illustrates that leaders can possess varying quantities of

Cultura Limited/Superstock

Leaders of the consideration style use a people-oriented leadership style that often is most effective when less structure but more consideration is needed.

High

Low

C o

n si

d er

at io

n

Low Structure

&

High Consideration

High Structure

&

High Consideration

Low Structure

&

Low Consideration

High Structure

&

Low Consideration

HighLow Initiating Structure

High

Low

C o

n si

d er

at io

n

Low Structure

&

High Consideration

High Structure

&

High Consideration

Low Structure

&

Low Consideration

High Structure

&

Low Consideration

HighLow Initiating Structure

Figure 4.1: Four leadership styles

Source: Based on Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 77 9/2/15 2:00 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

both styles. The people-oriented leader’s style is reflected in the upper left quadrant; the task-oriented leader’s style is shown in the bottom right quadrant. However, according to this visualization, leaders can also be both task oriented and people oriented; arguably, the new university president in the earlier example actually fits into the upper right quadrant because he or she was able to engage the community while maintaining the structured environment that was needed. A leader may also be neither task oriented nor people oriented, as seen in the bottom left quadrant. As we will discuss later, a “country club” leadership style has and shows little concern for people and and for skill in getting work done. This has also been referred to as an impoverished leadership style. How do such leaders keep their jobs? We dis- cuss this and other related styles later in this chapter.

We should note that even though a leader may prefer or tend to use one of these four leader- ship styles, that does not mean he or she cannot change or adapt. (We will discuss this further in the context of contingency theory.) For example, some observers said Jack Welch was more of a task-oriented leader when he joined General Electric (GE): He fired unproductive work- ers and focused on streamlining GE to compete in only the top two businesses they entered. However, as he matured in his leadership role and as GE excelled, he adopted a people orien- tation as well.

Take Assessment 4.1 to identify your leadership style based on this model. If you score high on a task focus (structure and production) and low on a people focus (consideration and employee orientation), you tend to make more decisions yourself rather than delegating tasks, and you might communicate using one-way communication with followers instead of asking for their feedback. If you score high on a people focus (consideration) and low on a task (structure) focus, you tend to be a more open communicator and share decision making to solve problems. Do you agree with your results? As you continue to read this book, you will gain awareness and knowledge about how to become more effective in different leadership skills (e.g., communicating, influencing others, using power effectively). You will also become more aware of different types of organizational cultures and situations that best suit your interests and skills.

Assessment 4.1: Initiating Structure Versus Consideration

Instructions

The items below relate to your personal leadership orientation. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or understandable.

1. Read each item carefully. 2. Think about how frequently you engage in the behavior described by the item. 3. Draw a circle around one of the five numerical response codes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) following

each question that reflects the frequency of this behavior.

(continued)

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 78 9/2/15 2:00 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

Assessment 4.1: Initiating Structure Versus Consideration (continued)

1. Pit suggestions made by people in the work-group operation. Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never

1 2 3 4 5 2. Treat all people in the work group as equal.

Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 5

3. Back up what people under you do. Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never

1 2 3 4 5 4. Reject suggestions for change.

Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 5

5. Talk about how much should be done.

A Great Deal Fairly Much To Some Degree Comparatively

Little Not at All 1 2 3 4 5

6. Assign people in the work group to particular tasks.

A Great Deal Fairly Much To Some Degree Comparatively

Little Not at All 1 2 3 4 5

7. Offer new approaches to problems.

A Great Deal Fairly Much To Some Degree Comparatively

Little Not at All 1 2 3 4 5

8. Emphasize meeting deadlines.

A Great Deal Fairly Much To Some Degree Comparatively

Little Not at All 1 2 3 4 5

Scoring

Consideration behavior: Subtract your scores to questions 1, 2, and 3 from 6. Next, sum these adjusted scores and your score to question 4 and divide by 4.

Enter your consideration score here: .

Initiating structure behavior: Subtract your scores to questions 5, 6, 7, and 8 from 6. Next, sum these adjusted scores and divide by 4.

Enter your initiating structure score here: .

Interpretation

A high consideration score (4 or greater) suggests a relatively strong orientation toward consideration-oriented behavior. A low score (2 or less) suggests a relatively weak consideration orientation.

A high initiating structure score (4 or greater) suggests a relatively strong orientation toward initiating structure behavior. A low score (2 or less) suggests a relatively weak initiating structure orientation. Source: Fleishman, E.A. The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(3), June 1953, 153-158. Published by American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 79 9/2/15 3:31 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

High

Low

C o

n ce

rn fo

r P

eo p

le

Country Club Management

Thoughtful attention to the

needs of people for satisfying

relationships leads to a

comfortable, friendly organization

atmosphere and work tempo.

Middle-of-the-Road Management

Adequate organization

performance is possible

through balancing the

necessity to get out work with

maintaining morale of people

at a satisfactory level.

Team Management

Work accomplishment is

from committed people:

interdependence through

a “common stake” in

organization purpose leads

to relationships of trust and

respect.

High 987654321

Low Concern for Results

9,9

5,5

1,9

Impoverished Management

Exertion of minimum effort

to get required work done

is appropriate to sustain

organization membership

1,1

Authority-Compliance

Management

Efficiency in operations

results from arranging

conditions of work in

such a way that human

elements interfere to a

minimum degree.

9,1

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

The Leadership Grid

The most well-known of the behavioral approaches is the leadership grid, which builds on the Michigan and Ohio State studies and also depicts leadership style as a blend of two dif- ferent approaches. Originally published by Blake and Mouton as the Managerial Grid in 1964, the grid identifies five leadership styles plotted on two axes. As shown in Figure 4.2, the hori- zontal axis represents concern for production or results, and the vertical axis represents con- cern for people. Each axis is on a 9-point scale; a score of 1 represents least or lowest concern and 9 represents the most concern. Individual leaders’ scores can be plotted anywhere on the graph. As you read the descriptions of the following five leadership styles in this model,

High

Low

C o

n ce

rn fo

r P

eo p

le

Country Club Management

Thoughtful attention to the

needs of people for satisfying

relationships leads to a

comfortable, friendly organization

atmosphere and work tempo.

Middle-of-the-Road Management

Adequate organization

performance is possible

through balancing the

necessity to get out work with

maintaining morale of people

at a satisfactory level.

Team Management

Work accomplishment is

from committed people:

interdependence through

a “common stake” in

organization purpose leads

to relationships of trust and

respect.

High 987654321

Low Concern for Results

9,9

5,5

1,9

Impoverished Management

Exertion of minimum effort

to get required work done

is appropriate to sustain

organization membership

1,1

Authority-Compliance

Management

Efficiency in operations

results from arranging

conditions of work in

such a way that human

elements interfere to a

minimum degree.

9,1

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Figure 4.2: The leadership grid(r)

Source: The Leadership Grid® figure from Leadership Dilemmas—Grid Solutions, by Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse (Formerly the Managerial Grid by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton). Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, (Grid Figure: P. 29). Copyright 1991 by Scientific Methods, Inc. Reproduced by permission of the owners.

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 80 9/2/15 2:00 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 4.1 Style and Behavioral Approaches

consider this: Is there a leader that fits a 9,9 (most optimum classification on this model)? Think about which of the following profiles might best describe your style.

The team leader (9,9) has high concern for tasks, followers, and peer relationships. This leader is highly results driven while being very engaged and concerned with followers and peers. Some might say that Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson is an example of a 9.9 team leader. The business tycoon began his entrepreneurial career at 15 years old selling discount records. This business turned into Virgin Records, which he sold for $973 million before starting Virgin Atlantic Airways. Branson is also an environmentalist, an explorer, a philanthropist, and the fifth richest person in the United Kingdom. He said in an interview, “Business is giving people in their lifetime what they need and what they want” (Byrnes & Kiley, 2000).

The authority-compliance leader (9,1) focuses on getting the job done with no concern for followers or perhaps peers. The emphasis of this style is more on operational efficiency than on meeting the social and personal needs of followers. Some leaders who are closer to the 9,1 scale on this style may be characterized as bulldozers: over controlling, results driven, and insensitive to others’ needs. The 9,1 leader may be productive in the short term, but at the cost of getting the necessary help and support from teammates and followers. Again, not every leader with this, or the other styles, may act in the same or expected ways.

The middle-of-the-road leader (5,5) is partly concerned about task accomplishment and somewhat concerned about followers and peers. This “average” leader produces enough to get by and shows enough concern to be acceptable to followers and peers. This leader may have to compromise and find a balance between work requirements and follower concerns. The middle-of-the-road leader performs at “good enough” levels; he or she is neither a star nor a laggard. This leader may avoid conflict.

The country club leader (1,9) shows high concern for people and task accomplishment and is involved in interpersonal relationships with followers and peers. This leader focuses on fol- lowers’ social and individual needs, with a low task orientation. This leader may create a com- fortable working environment, but may find productivity, work-related problem solving, and the handling of difficult conflicts problematic. It is important to note that on the Leadership Grid, this type of leadership may deemphasize production while emphasizing the attitudes, personal and social needs of followers.

The impoverished leader (1,1) is uninvolved and disconnected from followers, peers, and work tasks, putting forth minimal effort. This leader may appear alienated, distant, indiffer- ent, and uncommitted to the organization and to others. A word of caution about offering examples of this type of leadership: The question arises “From whose point of view?”. There seems to be consensus on the failed leadership of the Enron Corporation under Ken Lay (now deceased) and Jeff Skilling (serving a prison term).

The leadership grid has been widely used by corporate and organizational training programs. It was updated and changed in 1978, 1985, and 1991. Blake and McCanse (1991) added opportunist to the leadership grid. An opportunist is a leader who uses any of the styles combined to promote his or her own advancement. The opportunist is not located in any one style on the grid; he or she is able to move across styles according to his or her needs and

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 81 9/2/15 2:00 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

http://abc.com.au/foreign/interv/branson.htm
http://abc.com.au/foreign/interv/branson.htm
Section 4.2 Situational Approaches

interests. Many politicians are skillful opportunists. They read the polls, check out the chang- ing situation with their competition, and act accordingly. It is debatable whether or not the opportunist leaders are adaptable and strategic or, as some have argued, ruthless, cunning, and self-motivated (Northouse, 2016, in press).

Like trait theory, the behavioral and style approaches are based on decades of empirical research. They are straightforward, simple, and appealing to practitioners and researchers. However, they are not without their issues. First, no optimal leadership style can be applied to all situations. The 9,9 score in the leadership grid model, or the “high–high” in the Michigan and Ohio State approaches, seems optimal and desirable, but these styles may not be the most effective in all or in particular situations. Goleman (2000) concluded, after studying 3,000 executives, that leaders who get the best results in their organizations use several different styles in any given week. More research is needed to investigate this question.

Second, it may not be possible for some leaders to be a 9,9 or a high–high. Not all leaders and managers can be all things to all people and organizations. For example, a leader may be highly effective in his or her particular organization but not have the capacity to master both production-oriented and people skills.

Third, leadership styles in these approaches were studied like traits, that is, stable properties of the individual leader that were unaffected by organizational or work influences. Complex interactions and forces in organizations affect leadership styles, and styles affect people and tasks. The situational theory attempted to address this by examining a leader’s situational context.

4.2 Situational Approaches The Hersey and Blanchard original situational approach added another important dimen- sion to the leadership grid by taking into account follower and task characteristics. In this theory (Situational Leadership Theory, or SLT) originally developed in 1969, leaders observe, change, and adapt to the situation at hand, and leadership effectiveness is determined by the extent to which leaders can match their styles to their followers’ styles to meet organizational goals. The understanding that one leadership size does not fit all organizational requirements is central to this approach. Those being lead, for the first time in leadership studies, became the most important element of the organizational context (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). See “Take the Lead: Managing Volunteers.” The model has evolved and several versions have developed from it. One important situational model developed by Blanchard and colleagues is called the Situational Leadership II® Model (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985).

Development Level

The Situational Leadership II® Model is based on the premise that leaders will match their directive and supportive styles—how they give instruction and meet needs—to meet indi- vidual subordinates’ level of development relative to a specific task. The individuals’ needs and styles are determined by their level of development, or their readiness to take on various tasks. Development is understood from the degree of competence and commitment they show or how able and motivated they are to take on a specific task or tasks. An individual may

wei82445_04_c04_073-098.indd 82 9/2/15 2:00 PM

© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 4.2 Situational Approaches

be highly skilled—very competent—but unmotivated or unwilling to perform assigned tasks; that person is not committed. In the same way, someone may not have the necessary skills and may require much training, but may show enthusiasm about the work. For a leader to be effective, she or he must first determine—by listening, observing, and asking questions— where subordinates are on the development continuum.