250 likes | 374 Views
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.
E N D
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/behaviorsand the situationis 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
Low-LPC G R O U P P E R F O R M A N C E High Low Fiedler’s Contingency Model High-LPC Leader-Member Relations Task Structure Position Power GOOD BAD HIGH LOW HIGH LOW LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH MODERATE LOW HIGH 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 consideration and structuring • Standardization and formalization substitute for leader structuring • Organizational rigidity neutralizes leader structuring • Physical distance neutralizes leader consideration and structuring
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
Out-group In-Group F F F F F F F F F F F F F Follower Leader-Member Exchange LMX Leader
Testing and Assessment Stages of LMX Creation of Emotional Bond Development of Trust
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