PPA 577 - Leadership

1. PPA 577 - Leadership Lecture 2 – Contingency Theory

2. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness

3. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness • Fred Fiedler (1967) – Leadership is primarily the exercise of social influence, therefore, the ease with which a leader influences his or her followers should make a big difference in how “favorable” the leadership situation is for the leader.

4. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness • Situational favorableness. • Quality of interpersonal relations (good or poor) – primary consideration. • The clarity and structure of the task (high or low) – secondary consideration. • Authority available from the formal position of the leader (strong or weak) – tertiary consideration. • Fiedler developed eight-fold scale from the combinations of these variables ranging from I (favorable situation) to VIII (unfavorable situation).

5. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness • Situational favorableness measured against group performance controlling for LPC (least preferred coworker scale). • In very favorable or unfavorable situations, low LPC leaders were more effective in achieving high group productivity. • In moderate situations, high LPC leaders were more effective.

6. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness • Validity of model. • Criticism on complexity of model. • Criticism of post-hoc nature of model – accommodates limited data and make capitalize on chance. • Meta-analysis of many studies confirms model. • Subsequent studies confirm analysis.

7. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness • Validity of model. • Meaning of LPC. • Psychological distance – unclear. • Value-attitude interpretation. • Low LPC – Value task accomplishment. Make more complex, accurate, favorable, and optimistic evaluations of people and activities that accomplish the task. • High LPC – Value interpersonal accomplishment. Make more complex, accurate, favorable, and optimistic evaluations of people and activities that maximize interpersonal relations.

8. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness • Causal explanations of contingency effects. • High control situations. • High performance expectations gives great rein to task-oriented leader. • Relationship-oriented leader may be bored and distracted and engage in irrelevant activity.

9. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness • Causal explanations of contingency effects. • Moderate control situations. • Clear task with uncooperative group may benefit from morale building activities of relationship-oriented leader. • Task-oriented leader may rush judgment. • Low control situations. • Chaotic situations can be marginally improved by strong structures of task-oriented leaders.

10. Cognitive Resource Theory • What are the roles of intelligence and experience in predicting successful performance? • No clear results in straightforward experiments. • Fiedler (1970) concluded that the major moderating influence was the level of stress.

11. Cognitive Resource Theory • Intelligence • If leaders are under a high level of stress, leader intelligence bears no relationship to unit success. • Under low levels of stress, leader intelligence is positively related to unit success. • Experience • If leaders are under a high level of stress, experience is positively related to unit success. • If leaders are under a low level of stress, experience has no relationship to unit success.

12. Cognitive Resource Theory • Stress and anxiety interfere with careful and thoughtful analysis and creativity. • Prior training provides a fallback point for the experienced.

13. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership • The contingency theory fails describe the processes by which the leader’s motivational orientation affects group processes and outcomes. • One obvious path for leadership effects is through the psychological states of the followers.

14. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership • Path-goal instrumentality. • The motivation to engage in a behavior was a function of the product of the person’s perception of the probability that the behavior would lead to goal and the perceived importance of the goal.

15. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership • Evans (1970) - Considerate and participative supervision enhanced the subordinate’s perceptions of the availability of goals associate with higher order needs (self-esteem, feelings of accomplishment), but did nothing to make the subordinate feel more certain about how to go about attaining those goals.

16. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership • House (1971) integrated situational variables as moderators of the model – follower’s ability and personality (locus of control and authoritarianism) and environmental factors (the task, the formal authority system, and the nature of the primary work group). • When task structure is low, subordinates will respond to a leader’s structuring behavior, which clarifies the goal and identifies the path.

17. Path-goal Theory of Leadership • When task structure is high, structuring behavior by the leader is redundant and the behavior would be perceived as interfering.

18. Path-goal Theory of Leadership • Consideration behavior would have the most effect when the task is boring or repetitive (when structure is high). Consideration will have no effect if the task is complex and interesting. • Overall, tests of the model have been inconsistent. • The model relies too heavily on perceived behavior. • Characteristics of the subordinate tend to be ignored.

19. Contingency Approach to Decision Making • Two principles of normative decision-making model. • High levels of subordinate participation in decision making increase commitment, but are costly in time and effort. • The quality of the information that contributes to the decision.

20. Contingency Approach to Decision Making • Decision strategies. • Autocratic. • Consultative. • Democratic.

21. Contingency Approach to Decision Making • Decision models (groups). • Autocratic I – leader makes decision alone using available information. • Autocratic II – leader obtains information from subordinates but makes decision alone. • Consultative I – leader shares the problem with each subordinate separately, seeking information and advice, but reserving decision authority. • Consultative II – same pattern, but subordinates are consulted as a group. • Group II – leader shares the problem with subordinates in a group and invites them to participate fully in decision making.

22. Contingency Approach to Decision Making • Decision models (individuals). • Autocratic I – leader makes decision alone using available information. • Autocratic II – leader obtains information from subordinates but makes decision alone. • Consultative I – leader shares the problem with each subordinate separately, seeking information and advice, but reserving decision authority. • Group I – participative decision making with a single subordinate.

23. Contingency Approach to Decision Making • Situational questions. • Whether the leader or subordinates have the necessary information to make a high quality decision. • Whether the subordinates are likely to be supportive of the decision and committed to its successful execution. • Whether there is conflict among the subordinates about the most desirable solution.

24. Contingency Approach to Decision Making • Six base principles of decision making. • If you do not have enough information to make a good decision, you must get the information from somewhere. • If the information that you have is not sufficiently structured to facilitate a clear decision, you need to seek to help and advice to clarify and structure the problem. • If you need the acceptance and commitment of followers to implement the decision and you’re not sure that you have that acceptance, you must involve the followers in participative decision making to enlist acceptance.

25. Contingency Approach to Decision Making • Six base principles of decision making. • If followers are not committed to the organizational goals embedded in the problem, they cannot be allowed to make the decision, although their advice should be sought and considered. • If followers are in conflict over the most desirable solution, they must be brought together to allow them to air their opinions before a decision is made. • Followers should be represented, that is, solicited and heard, about decisions that affect them.

26. The Multiple Influence Model of Leadership • Contingency model with discretionary leadership behavior added as a modifying factor. • Recognition that hierarchical-level, environmental complexity, technological complexity, organizational structure constrain leadership behavior. • Leader’s job is to bridge the gap between expectations and reality. Greater complexity increases the gap and reduces flexibility.

27. Multiple Linkage Model • Develops intervening variables linking behavioral, situational, and outcome variables. • Subordinate effort. • Role clarity and task skills. • Work organization. • Cohesiveness and cooperation. • Resources and support services. • External coordination.

28. Situational Leadership Theory • Most contingency theories do not take time into account. • Dimensions. • Psychological maturity. • Commitment. • Motivation. • Willingness to accept responsibility. • Job maturity. • Experience. • Knowledge. • Understanding of task requirements.

29. Situational Leadership Theory • Scale of overall maturity. • Unwilling and unable. • Willing but unable. • Able but unwilling. • Willing and able.

30. Situational Leadership Theory • Leader responses to each category. • High directive – low participative (telling). • High directive – high participative (selling). • High participative – low directive (participative). • Low participative – low task (delegative). • As the follower matures, leader moves from telling to selling to participative to delegative.

31. Summary – Contingency Theory