Early Theories: The Foundations of Modern Leadership Chapter Three Early Theories: The Foundations of Modern Leadership

Three Eras of Modern Leadership Research The trait Era – 1800s to mid 1940s The behavior era – mid 1940s to 1970s The contingency era – early 1960s to present

The Trait Era Leaders are born; they have special characteristics and traits Some traits are related to leadership No one trait defines leaders or effective leaders Although traits play a role, they are not the dominant factor in leadership

The Behavior Era Behaviors can be learned Two key categories of behavior: Task and Relationship Orientations Behaviors alone do not determine effective leadership Not clear which behaviors are most effective

Examples of Major Leadership Behaviors Structuring/Task Set goals Clarify expectations Set schedules Assign tasks Relationship/Consideration Show empathy and understanding Be friendly and approachable Allow participation Nurture followers

Contingency Era No one best way to lead Simple traits or behaviors alone do not fully explain leadership success Understanding both leader traits/behaviors and the situation is critical Personal and situational factors affect leadership effectiveness

Elements of Fiedler’s Contingency Model The leader’s style: Task or relationship motivation measured by the LPC scale Situational control: Leader-member relations Task structure Position power

Task- and Relationship-Motivated Leaders Task-Motivated (Low-LPC) Draws self-esteem from task completion Focuses on task first Can be harsh with failing followers Considers competence to be key employee trait Enjoys details Relationship-Motivated (High-LPC) Draws self-esteem from interpersonal relationships Focuses on people first Likes to please others Considers loyalty to be key employee trait Gets bored with details

Fiedler’s Contingency Model U P E F M A N C High Low Low-LPC High-LPC Leader-Member Relations Task Structure Position Power GOOD BAD HIGH LOW HIGH LOW LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH HIGH MODERATE LOW SITUATIONAL CONTROL

Implications of Fiedler’s Contingency Model Leaders must understand their own style (Task vs. Relationship) and their leadership situation (Sit Con) Leaders should focus on changing the situation to match their style Leaders can’t change their leadership style Leaders can seek training to compensate for task ambiguity

Elements of the Normative Decision Model The leader’s decision-making style: Autocratic Consultative Group Delegation Contingency factors

Contingency Factors in the Normative Decision Model Quality requirement (QR) How important is the quality of the decision? Commitment requirement (CR) How important is employee commitment to the decision? Leader information (LI) Does leader have enough information to make a decision? Structure of the problem (ST) Is the problem clear?

Contingency Factors in the Normative Decision Model Commitment probability (CP) How likely is employee commitment if leader makes the decision alone? Goal congruence (GC) Do employees agree with organizational goals? Employee conflict (CO) Is there conflict among employees over the solution? Subordinate information (SI) Do employees have enough information to make a high-quality decision?

Implications of the Normative Decision Model Leaders must understand the situation and how to use different decision styles Leaders can change leadership styles Participation can waste time and is not always desirable Leaders must pay attention to their followers’ needs and reactions when making decisions

Path-Goal Theory Leader structuring and consideration Leader’s Actions: Focus on obstacle removal Employ task and consideration behaviors Understand followers’ needs Effectiveness: Employee satisfaction and motivation Situational contingencies: Task structure Employee need for autonomy

Implications of Path-Goal Theory Leaders must understand their followers’ perception of the task Leaders must take their followers’ need for challenge and autonomy into account When followers need challenge or the task is challenging, leaders must avoid being directive When the task is routine, boring, or stressful, leaders must be supportive to motivate their followers

Attributional Models Employees Are More Likely To Be Held Responsible When: The consequences of their actions are severe When they have a mediocre track record in other similar situations When other employees are successful in similar situations The employee is defensive The manager’s success depends on the employee’s good performance

Implications of Attributional Models Leaders must be aware of their biases Collecting objective data from multiple sources helps in evaluating subordinates Considering both situational and personal causes of employee actions is essential

Leadership Substitutes: Follower Characteristics Experience and training substitute for leader structuring Professionalism substitutes for leader consideration and structuring Lack of agreement with leader’s goals neutralizes leader consideration and structuring

Leadership Substitutes: Task Characteristics Unambiguous tasks substitute for leader structuring Direct feedback from the task substitutes for leader consideration and structuring Challenging task substitutes for leader consideration

Leadership Substitutes: Organizational Characteristics A cohesive team substitutes for leader consideration and structuring Leader’s lack of power neutralizes leader Standardization and formalization substitute for leader structuring Organizational rigidity neutralizes leader structuring Physical distance neutralizes leader

Implications of Leadership Substitutes Leaders can use various substitutes to free up their time for other activities or develop and empower followers Technology can support the development of substitutes Teams and autonomous work groups can use substitutes positively

Leader-Member Exchange LMX Out-group F In-Group F Leader F Follower

Stages of LMX Creation of Emotional Bond Development of Trust Testing and Assessment

Implications of LMX In order to use in-groups effectively, leaders should: Base in-group membership on current performance and/or future potential Review criteria for in-group membership Set clear performance-related guidelines for in-group membership Keep membership fluid and dynamic Maintain different in-groups for different activities