1. Grid & Contingency Approaches to Leadership
“It Depends”—
Grid & Contingency Approaches to Leadership
Housekeeping/Papers
News
Contingency approaches
Task-Relationship; Scale construction– how do you measure something
Ohio & Michigan State leadership studies
Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid
Hersey-Blanchard Contingency Model
Fiedler’s Leadership Contingency
Team discussion: MBTI & leadership style
Next week: Contingency theories cont’d

2. Measuring attributes
Research consistently shows that leadership can be described across the two dimensions of task and social orientation.
If you wanted to more clearly and precisely identify Task and Relationship styles of leadership, how would you go about it?
What kind of observations/questionnaire items would you have for each factor?
Team-Process Leadership Questionnaire
Auto Scoring of T-PQ

3. Scale Development– when you want to be inventive
Clearly identify the domains to be measured (e.g., task & relationship)
Generate a list of items for each
Decide on a response format (e.g., Likert rating)
Clean items (throw the poor ones) & finish form
Administer to representative sample (3-4 x as many Ss as items)
Conduct Cronbach alpha to determine internal reliability & homogeneity of scale
Revise scale to highest alpha
Final scale– additive items provide the most stable and accurate measure of the domain
Test against other measures for validity and test-retest reliability

4. Items
<

5. The leadership continuum– locate yourself on one dimension!
The most important question: Under what circumstances would you use each?

6. Relationship
Task Orientation

8. Country Club
Team Management
Middle of Road
Authority Compliance
Impoverished

11. Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership: Situational Factors
Task structure
Goal clarity
Path simplicity/multiplicity
Solution singularity/multiplicity
Solution verifiability
Position power
Appointed by authority
Direct/recommend action
Affect promotion/demotion, hire/fire
Leader expertise/knowledge
Conduct performance evaluation
Formal title
Leader-member relations
Co-worker cooperation/conflict
Reliability, trustworthiness
Harmonious climate
Leader-worker cooperation/conflict
Initiative by workers
Fred E. Fiedler

12. Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale
Pleasant
Friendly
Rejecting
Tense
Distant
Cold
Supportive
Boring
Quarrelsome
Gloomy
Open
Backbiting
Untrustworthy
Considerate
Nasty
Agreeable
Insincere
Kind
Unpleasant
Unfriendly
Accepting
Relaxed
Close
Warm
Hostile
Interesting
Harmonious
Cheerful
Guarded
Loyal
Trustworthy
Inconsiderate
Nice
Disagreeable
Sincere
Unkind
Scoring
>72 Relationship
65-71 Mixed
<64 Task

13. What are the factors that determine fit between style & situation?
Relationship-oriented
Task-oriented
Task-oriented

14. STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE SITUATION
FIEDLER'S LEADERSHIP CONTINGENCY MODEL:
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE SITUATION
To Improve Leader-Member Relations:
Clearly understand group problems and try to alleviate them.
Become more available to workers (e.g. consultation, feedback).
Provide accurate information on the organization so their confidence and trust is earned.
Hold feedback (and gripe) sessions.
Hold regular meetings to keep people more informed and involved.
Promote brown bag lunches, socials, leisure activities.
Provide celebrations for task completion.
Accept assignments to work with more difficult individuals ("problem people," motivation, etc.)
Organize off-work activities such as picnics, softball, excursions.
Request particular individuals to work on projects.
Suggest or effect transfers in/out of unit.
Raise morale by obtaining positive outcomes for subordinates (e.g. special bonuses, time off, attractive jokes, etc.)

15. Changes to Task Structure
To Increase Task Structure:
Request more structured tasks or more detailed instructions.
Request more tasks; learn all you can through training and experience about the task so you can develop more detailed plans.
Break a task into smaller subtasks.
Volunteer for structured tasks; avoid unstructured ones.
Develop procedures, guidelines, SOP, diagrams, outlines, descriptions of previous jobs.
Keep records, systematic observations, note patterns, cycles.
To Reduce Task Structure:
Request new, unusual problems with permission to figure out how to do solve them.
Involve the group in problem solving and decision making on the task or problems.
Leave the task in vague form.
Increase the time horizon (which usually increases ambiguity or complexity).
Volunteer for unstructured tasks and avoid structured ones.
Involve people with different viewpoints.
Work on tasks that have path multiplicity (multiple ways of approaching or solving them).

16. Structural changes to position power
To Decrease Position Power:
Be one of the gang, socialize, joke, self disclosure, play down trappings and rank.
Share decision making by involving others in planning.
Give others access to your boss.
Let information from the organization quickly reach all group members.
Delegate and distribute power.
Promote team and individual development and expertise.
To Increase Position Power:
Demonstrate authority by exercising full authorized powers.
Quickly become an expert.
Evaluate subordinates' performance.
No not depend on others to assert yourself in informing, planning, and organizing.
Arrange for information to be channeled through you.
Use the cultural trappings of power (desk, secretary, wardrobe, etc.)

17. Evaluation of Fiedler’s Contingency Model
Weaknesses
Difficult to understand and use LPC test
Questionable whether LPC measures T/R, motivation, or cognitive complexity
LPC measure is unstable, with low validity & reliability coefficients
Other important contingencies are left out
Fiedler believed you had to change the situation and not style because style was not changeable– he has moderated– all factors can change
None of correlations between LPC and group performance were statistically significant, although 34 of 45 groups tested (76%) were in the predicted direction
Wide variations in the specification of situational favorableness
Fiedler proposed that L-MR, TS, & PP should be on 4:2:1 ratio, but no experimental evidence to support this

18. Strengths
Considers interaction of different styles and different contingencies
Emphasizes change or “engineering” the situation and suggests specifics
Recognizes changing/dynamic nature of situations
Recognizes leader success is a function of style-situation match
Unique idea on combination of factors producing favorability
Conclusion
OK for simple situations (clear extreme & middle)
Important starting point for learning about and experimenting with contingencies, but should consider other variables present
Don’t use LPC scale
Emphasize leader change as much as situational change

19. Team Task
Identify a leadership situation that was working well or poorly. Use Hersey & Blanchard’s or Fiedler’s model:
Describe it using terms of that theory
Explain why the leadership did or did not work well
Make recommendations for changes in the leader and/or situation according to the theory