Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
PART FOUR – LEADERSHIP AND INFLUENCE PROCESSES IN
ORGANIZATIONS
Chapter Eleven – Traditional Leadership Approaches
Chapter Overview
Recall that our underlying question in this book is what makes managers and organizations effective and
how effectiveness is influenced by performance behaviors, commitment and engagement, citizenship
behaviors, and dysfunctional behaviors. In Part 3 we examined the impact of various forms of social
behaviors on these questions. We discussed groups and teams in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 focused on
decision making and problem solving. We looked at communication in Chapter 9. And in Chapter 10 we
discussed conflict and negotiation in organizations.
In Part 4 we ask a different but related question: why does leadership matter? Chapter 11 looks at
traditional leadership approaches, while modern leadership approaches are covered in detail in Chapter
12. Chapter 13 concludes Part 4 by examining power, influence, and politics in organizations. At the end
of the part you should have a strong understanding of how leadership affects employee performance
behaviors, employee commitment and engagement, citizenship behaviors, and dysfunctional behaviors.
The mystique of leadership makes it one of the most widely debated, studied, and sought-after properties
of organizational life. While leadership is among the most widely studied concepts in the entire field of
management, many unanswered questions remain. Why, then, should we continue to study leadership?
First, leadership is of great practical importance to organizations. Second, in spite of many remaining
mysteries, researchers have isolated and verified some key variables that influence leadership
effectiveness.
This chapter, the first of two devoted to leadership, introduces the fundamental traditional models that are
commonly used as a basis for understanding leadership. We start with a discussion of the meaning of
leadership, including its definition and the distinctions between leadership and management.
Then we turn to historical views of leadership, focusing on the trait and behavioral approaches. Next, we
examine three contemporary leadership theories that have formed the basis for most leadership research:
the LPC theory developed by Fiedler, the path-goal theory, and Vroom’s decision tree approach to
leadership. In our next chapter, we explore several contemporary and emerging views of leadership.
Learning Outcomes
After studying this chapter, students should be able to:
1. Characterize the nature of leadership.
2. Trace the early approaches to leadership.
3. Discuss the emergence of situational theories and models of leadership including the LPC and
path-goal theories.
4. Describe Vroom’s decision tree approach to leadership.
Real World Challenge: Leadership Pinball
Summary: A few of corporate America’s veteran leaders have some tips for those who still want to
follow in their increasingly treacherous footsteps. If you think you’re being overworked, odds are you’re
right. Most top corporate leaders work 80 to 100 hours a week, and a lot of them have found that
regimens that allow them to refuel and refresh make it possible for them to keep up the pace.
Real World Challenge: Suppose someone you know is taking a leadership role in a large organization
and asks your advice on how to deal with the increase in workload. After reading this chapter you should
have some useful information to share.
Real World Response: Many leaders report that playing racquetball, running marathons, practicing
yoga, or just getting regular exercise helps them to recover from overwork. Effective leaders also take
control of information flow—which means managing it, not reducing the flow until it’s as close to a
trickle as they can get it. Many use assistants to filter the incoming information.
Chapter Outline
I. THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP
Like several other key organizational behavior terms such as “personality” and “motivation,”
“leadership” is used in a variety of ways.
A. The Meaning of Leadership
We will define leadership in terms of both process and property.
As a process, leadership is the use of noncoercive influence to direct and coordinate the
activities of group members to meet a goal.
As a property, leadership is the set of characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to
use such influence successfully.
Influence, a common element of both perspectives, is the ability to affect the perceptions,
beliefs, attitudes, motivation, and/or behaviors of others.
From an organizational viewpoint, leadership is vital because it has such a powerful influence
on individual and group behavior.
Leadership involves neither force nor coercion. A manager or supervisor may or may not also
be a leader.
It is also important to note that on one hand, a leader may actually possess the characteristics
attributed to him or her; on the other, the leader may merely be perceived as possessing them.
B. Leadership versus Management
From these definitions, it should be clear that leadership and management are related, but they
are not the same.
A person can be a manager, a leader, both, or neither.
Some of the basic distinctions between the two are summarized in Table 11.1.
A leadership position can also be formal, as when someone appointed to head a group has
leadership qualities, or informal, as when a leader emerges from the ranks of the group
according to a consensus of the members.
Organizations need both management and leadership if they are to be effective.
Management in conjunction with leadership can help achieve planned orderly change, and
leadership in conjunction with management can keep the organization properly aligned with its
environment.
In addition, managers and leaders also play a major role in establishing the moral climate of the
organization and in determining the role of ethics in its culture.
II. EARLY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP
Early studies focused on the traits, or personal characteristics, of leaders. Later research shifted to
examine actual leader behaviors.
A. Trait Approaches to Leadership
Early researchers believed that leaders had some unique set of qualities or traits that
distinguished them from their peers. Moreover, these traits were presumed to be relatively
stable and enduring.
Following this trait approach, these researchers focused on identifying leadership traits,
developing methods for measuring them, and using the methods to select leaders.
The list of leadership traits quickly became so long that it lost any semblance of practical value.
In addition, the results of many studies were inconsistent.
The trait approach also had a significant theoretical problem in that it could neither specify nor
prove how presumed leadership traits are connected to leadership per se.
For these and other reasons, the trait approach was all but abandoned several decades ago.
In recent years, however, the trait approach has received renewed interest.
For example, some researchers have sought to reintroduce a limited set of traits into the
leadership literature. These traits include emotional intelligence, drive, motivation, honesty and
integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, knowledge of the business, and charisma.
And unfortunately, traits may even play a role in people not having opportunities to engage in
leadership activities.
Regardless of the reasons (including prejudice, stereotypes, or other factors), women, African
Americans, and Hispanics are still significantly underrepresented among top management
teams and boards of directors in the largest American businesses.
B. Behavioral Approaches to Leadership
In the late 1940s, most researchers began to shift away from the trait approach and started to
look at leadership as an observable process or activity.
The goal of the so-called behavioral approach was to determine what behaviors are associated
with effective leadership.
The researchers assumed that the behaviors of effective leaders differed somehow from the
behaviors of less effective leaders and that the behaviors of effective leaders would be the same
across all situations.
The behavioral approach to the study of leadership included the Michigan studies, the Ohio
State studies, and the leadership grid.
CASE STUDY: Getting on Board with Diversity
Summary: According to Marc H. Morial, CEO of the National Urban League, which promotes
economic empowerment for African Americans, a minority presence on corporate boards is necessary to
protect the interests of minority consumers and other stakeholders. “African American voices and
perspectives are needed on corporate boards to ensure that business decisions affecting Black America are
both responsible and sensitive to the needs of our communities.” Citing a recent study by the Executive
Leadership Council, Morial points out that the number of blacks on Fortune 500 boards has actually
declined in recent years: Even though blacks comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population, representation
on corporate boards stands at “a meager 7 percent.” The same trend was confirmed for minority and
women representation.
Women comprise 18 percent of all board members and just under 20 percent of executive
team members though comprising 50 percent of the population.
Minorities comprise 14.5 percent of all directors and an even smaller percentage of
executive team members and comprise 35 percent of the population.
African Americans boast the highest minority representation on boards at 8.8 percent and
represent 4.2 percent of executive teams.
Hispanics fared worse than any other minority. Although they represent 15 percent of the
population, they comprise only 3.3 percent of board members and 3 percent of executive
team members.
1. The Michigan Studies
The Michigan leadership studies were a program of research conducted at the University
of Michigan.
The goal of this work was to determine the pattern of leadership behaviors that result in
effective group performance.
The researchers collected and analyzed descriptions of supervisory behavior to determine
how effective supervisors differed from ineffective ones.
Two basic forms of leader behavior were identified—job-centered and employee-centered
—as shown in the top portion of Figure 11.1.
The leader who exhibits job-centered leader behavior pays close attention to the work of
subordinates, explains work procedures, and is mainly interested in performance.
The leader’s primary concern is efficient completion of the task.
The leader who engages in employee-centered leader behavior attempts to build effective
work groups with high performance goals.
The leader’s main concern is with high performance, but that is to be achieved by paying
attention to the human aspects of the group.
These two styles of leader behavior were presumed to be at opposite ends of a single
dimension.
The Michigan researchers suggested that a leader could exhibit either behavior but not both
at the same time. They also suggested that employee-centered leader behavior was more
likely to result in effective group performance.
2. The Ohio State Studies
The Ohio State leadership studies were conducted at about the same time as the Michigan
studies, in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Ohio State University developed a questionnaire, which they administered in both military
and industrial settings, to assess subordinates’ perceptions of their leaders’ behavior.
The Ohio State studies identified several forms of leader behavior but tended to focus on
the two most common ones: consideration and initiating-structure.
When engaging in consideration behavior, the leader is concerned with the subordinates’
feelings and respects subordinates’ ideas. The leader-subordinate relationship is
characterized by mutual trust, respect, and two-way communication.
When using initiating-structure behavior, on the other hand, the leader clearly defines the
leader-subordinate roles so that subordinates know what is expected of them. The leader
also establishes channels of communication and determines the methods for accomplishing
the group’s task.
Unlike the employee-centered and job-centered leader behaviors, consideration and
initiating structure were not thought to be on the same continuum. Instead, as shown in the
bottom portion of Figure 11.1, they were seen as independent dimensions of the leader’s
behavioral repertoire.
As a result, a leader could exhibit various degrees of each behavior simultaneously.
The Ohio State researchers also investigated the stability of leader behaviors over time.
They found that a given individual’s leadership pattern appeared to change little as long as
the situation remained fairly constant.
3. Leadership Grid
Yet another behavioral approach to leadership is the Leadership Grid (originally called the
Managerial Grid).
The Leadership Grid provides a means for evaluating leadership styles and then training
managers to move toward an ideal style of behavior.
The most current version of the Leadership Grid is shown in Figure 11.2.
The horizontal axis represents concern for production and the vertical axis represents
concern for people.
Note the five extremes of leadership behavior:
the 1,1 manager (impoverished management), who exhibits minimal concern for both
production and people;
the 9,1 manager (authority-compliance), who is highly concerned about production but
exhibits little concern for people;
the 1,9 manager (country club management), who has the exact opposite concerns from
the 9,1 manager;
the 5,5 manager (middle of the road management), who maintains adequate concern for
both people and production;
and the 9,9 manager (team management), who exhibits maximum concern for both
people and production.
According to this approach, the ideal style of leadership is 9,9. The developers of this
model thus created a multiphase training and development program to assist managers in
achieving this style of behavior.
However, there is little published scientific evidence regarding its true effectiveness and the
extent to which it applies to all managers or to all settings.
III. THE EMERGENCE OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODELS
The leader-behavior theories urge us not to be so preoccupied with what properties may be
possessed by leaders (the trait approach), but to instead concentrate on what leaders actually do
(their behaviors).
The behavior theorists tried to identify consistent relationships between leader behaviors and
employee responses in the hope of finding a dependable prescription for effective leadership. As we
might expect, they often failed.
Other approaches to understanding leadership were therefore needed. The next step in the
evolution of leadership theory was the creation of situational models.
Situational models assume that appropriate leader behavior varies from one situation to another.
The goal of a situational theory, then, is to identify key situational factors and to specify how they
interact to determine appropriate leader behavior.
An important early model must be discussed as it laid the foundation for later situational models.
In a seminal article about the decision-making process, Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt
proposed a continuum of leadership behavior. Their model is much like the original Michigan
framework.
Besides purely job-centered and employee-centered behavior, they identified several intermediate
behaviors that a manager might consider. Shown in Figure 11.3.
This continuum of behavior ranges from the one extreme of having the manager make the decision
alone to the other extreme of having the employees make the decision with minimal guidance from
the leader.
Each point on the continuum is influenced by characteristics of the manager, subordinates, and the
situation.
The leadership continuum acknowledged for the first time that leader behaviors represent a
continuum rather than discrete extremes, and that various characteristics and elements of any given
situation would affect the success of any given leadership style. It was, however, only speculative.
In the following sections, we describe three of the most important and widely accepted situational
theories of leadership: the LPC theory, the path-goal theory, and Vroom’s decision tree approach.
IV. THE LPC THEORY OF LEADERSHIP
Fred Fiedler developed the LPC theory of leadership. The LPC theory attempts to explain and
reconcile both the leader’s personality and the complexities of the situation. This theory was
originally called the “contingency theory of leadership.”
The LPC theory contends that a leader’s effectiveness depends on the situation and, as a result,
some leaders may be effective in one situation or organization but not in another.
The theory also explains why this discrepancy may occur and identifies leader-situation matches
that should result in effective performance.
A. Task versus Relationship Motivation
Fiedler devised special terms to describe a leader’s basic personality traits in relation to
leadership: “task motivation” versus “relationship motivation.”
He also conceptualized the situational context in terms of its favorableness for the leader,
ranging from highly favorable to highly unfavorable.
In some respects, the ideas of task and relationship motivation resemble the basic concepts
identified in the behavioral approaches.
A major difference, however, is that Fiedler viewed task versus relationship motivation as being
grounded in personality in a way that is basically constant for any given leader.
The degree of task or relationship motivation in a given leader is measured by the least-
preferred coworker (LPC) scale.
The LPC instructions ask leaders to select their least-preferred coworker and describe this
coworker by marking a series of sixteen scales anchored at each end by a positive or negative
quality or attribute.
Fiedler assumed that the descriptions in the LPC scale actually say more about the leader than
about the least-preferred coworker.
Fiedler contended that high-LPC leaders are basically more concerned with interpersonal
relations whereas low-LPC leaders are more concerned with task-relevant problems.
Not surprisingly, controversy has always surrounded the LPC scale.
Researchers have offered several interpretations of the LPC score and the LPC measure and its
interpretation have long been among the most debated aspects of this theory.
B. Situational Favorableness
Fiedler also identified three factors that determine the favorableness of the situation. In order
of importance (from most to least important), these factors are leader-member relations, task
structure, and leader position power.
Leader-member relations refer to the personal relationship that exists between subordinates and
their leader.
Task structure is the second most important determinant of situational favorableness. A
structured task is routine, simple, easily understood, and unambiguous.
Finally, leader position power is the power inherent in the leader’s role itself.
1. Leader Motivation and Situational Favorableness
Table 11.2 summarizes the results of Fiedler’s studies on relationships among leader
motivation, situational favorableness, and group performance.
To begin interpreting the results, let’s first examine the situational favorableness
dimensions shown in the table.
The various combinations of these three dimensions result in eight different situations, as
arrayed across the first three lines of the table.
These situations in turn define a continuum ranging from very favorable to very
unfavorable situations from the leader’s perspective.
Favorableness is noted in the fourth line of the table.
The table also identifies the leadership approach that is supposed to achieve high group
performance in each of the eight situations. These linkages are shown in the bottom line of
the table.
2. Leader-Situation Match
What happens if a person-oriented leader faces a very favorable or very unfavorable
situation? Fiedler considers this leader-situation combination a “mismatch.”
Fiedler contends that when a leader’s style and the situation do not match, the only
available course of action is to change the situation through “job engineering.”
Fiedler and his associates have also developed a widely used training program for
supervisors on how to assess situational favorableness and to change the situation, if
necessary, to achieve a better match.
C. Evaluation and Implications
The validity of Fiedler’s LPC theory has been heatedly debated because of the inconsistency of
the research results.
Apparent shortcomings of the theory are that the LPC measure lacks validity, the theory is not
always supported by research, and Fiedler’s assumptions about the inflexibility of leader
behavior are unrealistic.
The theory itself, however, does represent an important contribution because it returned the
field to a study of the situation and explicitly considered the organizational context and its role
in effective leadership.
V. THE PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP
Developed jointly by Martin Evans and Robert House, the path-goal theory focuses on the situation
and leader behaviors rather than on fixed traits of the leader.
In contrast to the LPC theory, the path-goal theory suggests that leaders can readily adapt to
different situations.
A. Basic Premises
The path-goal theory has roots in the expectancy theory of motivation discussed in Chapter 5.
The path-goal theory of leadership argues that subordinates are motivated by their leader to the
extent that the behaviors of that leader influence their expectancies.
Path-goal theory also suggests that a leader may behave in different ways in different situations.
Global Issues: The Role of Leaders Across Cultures
Summary: “It is important for a manager to have at hand precise answers to most of the questions that
subordinates may raise about their work.” The percentage of workers from six different countries that
strongly agreed with this statement are shown in a pie chart in the text. The percentages are: Japan with
78%, Italy at 66%, Germany at 46%, Great Britain at 27%, the U.S. at 18%, and Sweden at 10%. Clearly,
leaders in Italy and Japan are expected to know all of the answers their subordinates may ask, while
leaders in Sweden and the U.S. may more comfortably indicate that they don’t know the answer or that
they need to check before answering.
1. Leader Behaviors
As Figure 11.4 shows, path-goal theory identifies four kinds of leader behavior: directive,
supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented.
Directive leaders let subordinates know what is expected of them, give specific task
guidance, schedule work to be done, and maintain definitive standards of performance for
subordinates.
A leader exhibiting supportive leadership is friendly and shows concern for subordinates’
status, well-being, and needs.
With participative leadership, the leader consults with subordinates about issues and takes
their suggestions into account before making a decision.
Finally, achievement-oriented leadership involves setting challenging goals, expecting
subordinates to perform at their highest level, and showing strong confidence that
subordinates will put forth effort and accomplish the goals.
Path-goal theory assumes that leaders can change their behavior and exhibit any or all of
these leadership styles. The theory also predicts that the appropriate combination of
leadership styles depends on situational factors.
2. Situational Factors
The path-goal theory proposes two types of situational factors that influence how leader
behavior relates to subordinate satisfaction: the personal characteristics of the subordinates
and the characteristics of the environment (see Figure 11.4).
Two important personal characteristics of subordinates are locus of control and perceived
ability.
Research indicates that individuals who attribute outcomes to their own behavior may be
more satisfied with a participative leader whereas individuals who attribute outcomes to
external causes may respond more favorably to a directive leader.
Perceived ability pertains to how people view their own ability with respect to the task.
Employees who rate their own ability relatively highly are less likely to feel a need for
directive leadership whereas those who perceive their own ability to be relatively low may
prefer directive leadership.
Important environmental characteristics are task structure, the formal authority system, and
the primary work group.
The extent to which leader behavior matches the people and environment in the situation is
presumed to influence subordinates’ motivation to perform.
B. Evaluation and Implications
The intention of the path-goal theorists was to stimulate research on the theory’s major
propositions, not to offer definitive answers.
Further work actually has supported the theory’s major predictions, but it has not validated the
entire model.
VI. VROOM’S DECISION TREE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
The third major contemporary approach to leadership is Vroom’s decision tree approach. Proposed
by Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton, later revised and expanded by Vroom and Arthur Jago, and still
later, Vroom developed yet another refinement of the original model.
Like the path-goal theory, this approach attempts to prescribe a leadership style appropriate to a
given situation. It also assumes that the same leader may display different leadership styles.
But Vroom’s approach concerns itself with only a single aspect of leader behavior: subordinate
participation in decision making.
A. Basic Premises
Vroom’s decision tree approach assumes that the degree to which subordinates should be
encouraged to participate in decision making depends on the characteristics of the situation. In
other words, no one decision-making process is best for all situations.
After evaluating a variety of problem attributes the leader determines an appropriate decision
style that specifies the amount of subordinate participation.
Vroom’s current formulation suggests that managers should use one of two different decision
trees.
To do so, the manager first assesses whether the given factor is “high” or “low” for the decision
that is to be made. This assessment guides the manager through the paths of the decision tree to
a recommended course of action.
One decision tree is to be used when the manager is primarily interested in making the fastest
possible decision; the other is to be used when time is less critical and the manager wishes to
help subordinates improve and develop their own decision-making skills.
The two decision trees are shown in Figures 11.5 and 11.6. The various decision styles
reflected at the ends of the tree branches represent different levels of subordinate participation
that the manager should attempt to adopt in a given situation.
The five styles are defined as follows:
Decide: The manager makes the decision alone and then announces or “sells” it to the
group.
Delegate: The manager allows the group to define for itself the exact nature and parameters
of the problem and then develop a solution.
Consult (Individually): The manager presents the program to group members individually,
obtains their suggestions, and then makes the decision.
Consult (Group): The manager presents the problems to group members at a meeting, gets
their suggestions, and then makes the decision.
Facilitate: The manager presents the problems to the group at a meeting, defines the
problem and its boundaries, and then facilitates group member discussion as members
make the decision.
Vroom’s decision tree approach represents a very focused but quite complex perspective on
leadership.
To compensate for this difficulty, Vroom has developed elaborate expert system software to
help managers assess a situation accurately and quickly and then make an appropriate decision
regarding employee participation.
B. Evaluation and Implications
Because Vroom’s current approach is relatively new, it has not been fully scientifically tested.
The original model and its subsequent refinement, however, attracted a great deal of attention
and were generally supported by research.
Summary and Applications
Leadership is both a process and a property. Leadership and management are related but distinct
phenomena.
Early leadership research primarily attempted to identify important traits and behaviors of leaders.
Newer situational theories of leadership attempt to identify appropriate leadership styles on the basis of
the situation.
Fiedler’s LPC theory states that leadership effectiveness depends on a match between the leader’s style
(viewed as a trait of the leader) and the favorableness of the situation.
The path-goal theory focuses on appropriate leader behavior for various situations.
Vroom’s decision tree approach suggests appropriate decision-making styles based on situation
characteristics.
