1. So What Is It, this Leadership Thing? And How Can I Get Me Some? The Paradox: Leaders are necessary for teamwork but their very existence often threatens teamwork (and vice versa)

2. First Research Great Person Theory Leaders are born with something special; they either have it or don’t. If they have, there must be some universal traits. So what are they?

3. Is it that leaders are endowed with these certain traits or attributes and those who can’t lead, are not?, e.g., perseverance, dynamism, aggressiveness? This is one of the earliest approaches in the study of leadership (and the least productive). After lots of attempts to specify the traits, >1500 studies found little connection between traits and leadership. Despite this, we often talk about our leaders using trait language, especially political leaders and often in selection and recruitment discussions about candidates.

4. Few Consistent Findings from Trait Studies: Here are some about which there is limited agreement These come from exhaustive review of literature >1,500 Studies (Stodgdill, 1975) Strong drive for responsibility and task completion Persistence in pursuit of goals Venturesomeness and originality in problem solving Drive to exercise initiative in social situations Self-confidence and sense of personal identity. Willingness to accept consequences of decision and action

5. Traits (continued): Readiness to absorb interpersonal stress Willingness to tolerate frustration and delay (Stodgdill, 1974 Handbook of Leadership)

6. Status of Trait Approach Massive research failed to find traits that guarantee leadership success A major reason: lack of attention to intervening variables in the causal chain: Traits Intervening Variables Outcomes

7. Summary of Trait Studies Hindered by methodological problems Problem connecting abstract trait and how it “shows up in behavior” Can’t examined traits one-at a-time If traits matter, it is probably a constellation of interacting traits which can’t be reduced to single traits, thus very difficult to study.

8. Late 1940’s and into 1950’s Research shifted to the question “What is effective leadership? What do good leaders actually do?” e.g., listen skillfully, are interpersonal competence, clarify tasks, have group facilitation skills, promote goals

10. Summary of Leadership Styles Research: The Two Clusters of Behavior: Task and People Autocratic Initiating Structure Job Center Task Centered Concern for People Task Oriented Directive Behavior Manager Makes Decision Participative Consideration Employee Centered People Centered Concern for Productivity Relationship Centered Supportive Behavior Group Makes the Decision Task People

12. 1 1 9 9 Task-Centered Leadership People-Centered Leadership 9, 9 Team Manager, 9 Authoritarian Manager 1, 9 Authoritarian Manager 5, 5 Bureaucratic Manager 5, 5 Bureaucratic Manager 9, 1 Country Club Manager 1, 1 Impoverished Manager 1, 1 Impoverished Manager Blake & Mouton’s Managerial Grid Blake & Mouton’s Managerial Grid

13. Buy now http://www.teleometrics.com/frontEnd/cm_catalogPage.jsp?categoryID=21 http://www.teleometrics.com/frontEnd/cm_catalogPage.jsp?categoryID=21

14. NO CONTINGENCIES or SITUATIONAL FACTORS IDENTIFIED

15. Why Trait and Behavior Approaches Fall Short Behavioral approaches attempt to specify which kinds of leader behaviors are necessary for effective leadership. Behavioral approaches attempt to specify which kinds of leader behaviors are necessary for effective leadership. Trait approaches consider personal characteristics of the leader that may be important in achieving success in a leadership role. Trait approaches consider personal characteristics of the leader that may be important in achieving success in a leadership role. Fail to take into account the interaction between: 1. leaders behavior, and 2. tasks, and The situation, the “contingencies ” Fail to take into account the interaction between: 1. leaders behavior, and 2. tasks, and The situation, the “contingencies ”

16. Leadership as a Contingency:“It Depends on the Situation” Leadership as a Contingency:“It Depends on the Situation”

17. The First Major Contingency Model of Leadership: Leader Match Theory: Fred Fiedler

18. Pleasant Friendly Rejecting Helpful Total Unenthusiastic Tense Distant Cold Cooperative Supportive Boring Quarrelsome Self-Assured Efficient Gloomy Open Unpleasant Unfriendly Accepting Frustrating Enthusiastic Relaxed Close Warm Uncooperative Hostile Interesting Harmonious Hesitant Inefficient Cheerful Guarded 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 LPC

19. Situations According to Fiedler’s Contingency Model. Leader-Member Relations Task Structure Position Power Cell Number GoodBad High Low WeakStrongWeak Strong 12345678 Very Favorable Very Unfavorable Situational Favorableness

20. RESULTS FROM CONTINGENCY MODEL RESEARCH 1 Good High High 2 Good High Low 3 Good Low High 4 Good Low Low 5 Poor High High 6 Poor High Low 7 Poor Low High 8 Poor Low Low Ldr-Mem. Relations Task Structure Position Power Correlation between LPC and Performance 1.00 00 Situational Favorability Source: Adapted from Fred Fiedler, 1967. Positive correlations: Relationship-centered leader (High LPC) does best Negative correlations: Task-oriented leader (Low LPC) does best

21. MANAGER ACTIONS THAT CAN CHANGE SITUATIONS AS DEFINED BY FIEDLER MODIFYING LEADER-MEMBER RELATIONS 1. Spend more – or less – informal time with your subordinates (e.g., lunch, leisure activities, etc.). 2. Organize some off-work group activities which include your subordinates (e.g., picnics, bowling, softball teams, excursions, etc. 3. Request particular people for work in your group. 4. Volunteer to direct difficult or troublesome subordinates. 5. Suggest or effect transfers of particular subordinates into or out of your unit. 6. Raise morale by obtaining positive outcomes for subordinates 9e.g., special bonuses, time off, attractive jobs). 7. Increase or decrease your availability to subordinates (e.g., open door policy, special gripe sessions, time available for personal consultation>

22. To raise your position power, you can: 1.Show your subordinates “who’s boss” by exercising fully the powers which the organization provides. 2. Become, as quickly as possible, an expert on the job (e.g., through training). 3. Make sure that information to your group gets channeled through you. To lower your position power, you can: 1.Try to be “one of the gang” by socializing, by playing down any trappings of power and rank the organization may have given you. 2.Call on members of your group to participate in planning and decision-making functions.. 3.Inform group members quickly of higher level decisions and permit them to have easy access to your boss. 4. Let your assistants exercise relatively more power. MODIFYING POSITION POWER

23. MODIFYING TASK STRUCTURE If you wish to work with a less structured task, you can: 1. Ask your boss, whenever possible, to give you the new or unusual problems and let you figure out how to get them done. 2. Bring the problems and tasks to your group member and invite them to work with you on the planning and decision-making phases of the task. 3. Where possible, leave the task in relatively vague form. If you wish to work with a more highly structured task, you can: 1. Ask your superior to give you, whenever possible, the tasks which are more structured or to give you more detailed instructions. 2. Learn all you can about the task, so that you can prepare a detailed plan for performing the job, and get additional instruction and expert guidance if needed. 3. Break the job down into smaller subtasks which can be more highly structured.

24. A Very Popular Contingency “Theory” –in its day- Hersey-Blanchard’s Situational Leadership

25. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard Leadership style you choose is dependent on a number of situational factors. Directing: the leader provides clear instructions and closely supervises the work of the follower(s); Selling: the leader explains decisions and provides opportunities for clarity and buy-in through negotiating, influencing and consulting with follower(s); Participating: the leader provides support and facilitates problem solving and decision making through a joint approach, to support and develop the followers' confidence in their abilities; Delegating: the leader turns over responsibility for task implementation to the follower. The style the leader chooses, depends on the level of readiness of the follower. This readiness is composed of two dimensions: Willingness to perform the task (psychological readiness or motivation); Ability to perform the task (knowledge, skills and availability of resources). http://www.situational.com/

26. Situational Leadership II® and SLII are the registered trademarks of The Ken Blanchard Companies.

27. Participation in Decision Making: Vroom et. al. http://mba.yale.edu/framesets/faculty.asp?/faculty/professors/vroom.htm http://mba.yale.edu/framesets/faculty.asp?/faculty/professors/vroom.htm

28. FIVE DECISION STYLES A MANAGER CAN CHOOSE DECISION STYLEDEFINITION AIManager makes the decision alone. Manager asks for information from subordinates but makes the decision alone. Subordinates may or may not be informed about what the problem is. Manager shares the problems with subordinates and asks for information and evaluations. Meetings take place as dyads, not as a group, and the manager then goes off alone and makes the decision. Manager and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the problem, but the manager makes the decision. Manager and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the problem, and the group makes the decision. NOTE: A = Autocratic; C = Consultation; G Group Source: Victor H. Vroom and Phillip W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973). AII CI CII GII

29. G. Is conflict among subordinates likely in preferred solutions? B. Do I have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision? A. Does the problem possess a quality requirement? C. Is the problem structured? D. Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates important for effective implementation E. If I were to make the decision by myself, am I reasonably certain that it would be accepted by my subordinates? F. Do subordinates share the organizational goals to be attained in solving this problem? HOW MUCH SUBORDINATE PARTICIPATION? QUESTIONS THAT DEFINE THE SITUATIONAL CONSTRAINTS-THE CONTINGENCIES

30. A B C D E F G State the Problem No Yes No Yes 1: AI, AII, CI, CII, GII 2: GII 3: AI, AII, CI, CII, GII 4: AI, AII, CI, CII 5: GII 6a: CII 6b: CII 7: AII, CI, CII 8: AII, CI, CII, GII 9: CII 10: CII, GII 11: GII 12: CII GII

31. Summary Examples of Contingencies Studied Quality of leader-member relations. Willingness of follower to perform the task (psychological readiness or motivation). Ability of follower to perform the task (knowledge, skills and availability of resources). Quality Requirement: One best way to make decision/do the job? Does leader have enough information about the problem? Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates important? Task Structure: little/lot Position power of leader: Strong/ weak Do subordinates share goals? Is conflict among subordinate probable?

32. 1980’s-90’s: Transactional vs. Transformational Models of Leadership

33. Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership Laissez-faire Leadership Idealized Influence or Charisma Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Contingent Reward Management by Exception