240 likes | 574 Views
Style Approach to Leadership. Comparison of Two Presidential Approaches Caroline O’Leary, Michael Leidig , Cate Kelly, Woosung Hwang and Kathleen DelPrete. Overview. Style approach description The results of research studies How the approach works Analysis of President’s Kennedy & Reagan
E N D
Style Approach to Leadership Comparison of Two Presidential Approaches Caroline O’Leary, Michael Leidig, Cate Kelly, Woosung Hwang and Kathleen DelPrete
Overview • Style approach description • The results of research studies • How the approach works • Analysis of President’s Kennedy & Reagan • Cultural perspective
Style Approach: Description • The Style approach emphasizes the behavior of the leader • The approach focuses on what the leaders do and how they act in situations
Studies / Research about the approach • Ohio State University (Stogdill, 1948, 1963) • University of Michigan (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Katz & Kahn, 1951; Likert, 1961, 1967) • Blake and Mouton (Blake & McCanse, 1991; Blake & Mouton, 1964, 1978, 1985)
Breakdown of the Style Approach • Task behavior - The leader is concerned about production, goal attainment • Relationship behavior - The leader is concerned that the group members are being comfortable with themselves and working with others • “Purpose of the approach is to explain how the leaders combine these two kinds of behaviors to influence subordinates in their efforts reach a goal.”
Style Approach: Studies Ohio State University Results University of Michigan Results • Initiating Structure: (task behaviors) organizing work, giving structure to the work context, defining role responsibilities, scheduling work activities. • Consideration:(relationship behaviors) building camaraderie, respect, trust, and liking between leaders and followers. • Product Orientation: (task behaviors) focus on technical and production aspects, workers viewed as the means to getting work accomplished. • Employee Orientation: (relationship behaviors) strong human relations emphasis, value individuality, interested in subordinates as human beings, pay attention to personal needs.
Relationship Task
Major Styles of Leadership Grid • Authority-Compliance (9,1) • Country Club Management (1,9) • Impoverished Management (1,1) • Middle-of-the-Road Management (5,5) • Team Management (9,9) • Paternalism/Maternalism (1, 9; 9,1) • Opportunism
Style Approach: Kennedy • Opportunistic: • Team Management Style • Foreign Policy: • Bay of Pigs • Cuban Missile Crisis • Alliance for Progress • Vietnam • Communism
Kennedy: Cuban Missile Crisis • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OOGA-xrLyg
Style Approach: Kennedy • Domestic Policy: • “New Frontier” • Civil Rights • Space Program
Reagan: Shared Vision • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur9RU
Style Approach: Regan • Opportunistic: • The Great Communicator • Team Management Style • Communism vs. The American Dream • Authority-Compliance Management • The “Teflon President” • Impoverished Management • Iran-Contra
Cultural Perspectives • How societal/cultural settings influence: • Leadership perception • Processes of followers • Ways perceived leadership effectiveness can be achieved • Two cultural dimensions: • Collectivism/individualism • Masculinity/femininity • Two types of leadership perception modes: • Recognition-based • Inference-based processes • Cultural settings insights
Crisis Management & Style • The Cuban missile crisis : Anatomy of a Controversy • Soviet invasion of Afghanistan : Superpower crisis &the second cold war
Kennedy & Cuban Missile Crisis • The Cuban Missile Crisis • Reaction of Kennedy's leadership to crisis • Russian: Before & After Stalin Era • Relationship between The United States and Latin America • South Korean: Cuban Missile Crisis & North Korean Missile Crisis • Communism vs. Capitalism
Reagan & the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan • The Soviet War in Afghanistan • Reaction of Reagan's leadership of The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: • Russian: USSR should admit we are loser of Cold war? • South Korean: South Korea and the US are strong allies?
Style Conclusion • Similarities between two administrations