SBenegaL

Blog

  • Leaders-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

    In the last byte, we looked at what the meaning of each of the quadrants. In today’s byte, we look at the concept of leaders-member exchange (LMX) theory.

    LMX theory recognizes that leaders may form different relationships with followers. The idea emerges from the observation that, leaders could have two groups of followers – those who are in-group and those out-group. 

    In-group followers are generally similar to the leader and are given greater responsibilities, mode rewards, and more attention. They are seen to be working on the leader’s inner circle of communications. Given this level of comfort, in-group members could be more satisfied, have a lower level of turn-over, and have higher organizational commitment. On the other hand, the out-group members are outside the circle, and are seen to receive less attention and fewer rewards. They are generally managed by formal rules and policies. 

    Employees who have frequent contact with the boss also have a better understanding of what the boss’s expectations are, and this agreement leads to better performance by the employee and reduces misunderstanding between employer and employee. 

    Recent research indicates that in-group members are more likely to support the values of the reorganization and tend to become models of appropriate behavior.

  • Situational Leadership Model 2

    In the last byte, we began our discussion about the situational leadership model. We continue this discussion in today’s byte.

    The model uses two dimensions of leadership behavior that were used in the Ohio studies – task oriented and relationship oriented. Follower readiness is determined by the four levels indicated.

    According to the model, a leader shout use a telling style (s1) when a follower is unable and unwilling to do a certain tasks – instructions and monitoring are crucial here. When a follower is unable but willing and confident of doing the task – in such a case the leader can use a selling style (s2). In case a follower is able to complete a task but may be unwilling or insecure of doing so, then a participatory style (s3) might be suited. In case the follower is able and willing, the leader could use delegating style (s4).

    A key limitation of this model is the absence of a central hypothesis that could be tested, which would make it a more valid, reliable theory of leadership.  However, given its intuitive appeal, this model is widely used an accepted in corporative training and development.

  • Situational Leadership Model

    In the last byte, we looked at the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model of Normative Decision moving. In today’s byte, we move ahead to discuss about the Situational Leadership Model.

    The situational leadership model was developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard and suggests that leader’s behavior should be adjusted to the maturity level of the followers.
    We could simply visualize the model in the diagram below:

  • Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model 2

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model. We continue the same in today’s byte.

    We mentioned that the key to normative decision model is that a manager should use the decision method that is most appropriate for a given decision situation.  We could find a more detailed discussion on the model at the following link:
    http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_91.htm
     
    The following figure is an indication of how a manager could choose the decision suitable for the scenario.

  • Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model

    In the last byte, we were discussing about path-goal theory. In today’s byte, we begin looking at Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model.

    The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model helps leaders and managers known use employees participating in decision making process. This model helps recognize appropriate decision making strategy to use.

    Following are the decision making described in the model:
    • Decide: The manager makes the decision alone either announces it or “sells” it to the group
    • Consult Individually: The manager presents the problem to the group members individually, gets their inputs, and then makes the decision
    • Consult Group: The manager presents the problem to the group members in meeting, gets their inputs, and then makes the decision
    • Facilitate: The manager presents the problem to the group in meeting and acts as a facilitator, defining the problem and the boundaries that surround the decision. The manager’s ideas are not given more weight than any other group member’s ideas. The objective in this approach is really concurrence.
    • Delegate: The manager permits the group to make the decision within the prescribed limits, providing needed resources and encouragement.
    (Points from reference book)

  • Path-Goal Theory 3

    In the last byte, we looked at which of the leadership style would be appropriate according to the Path-Goal Theory, based on the follower’s aspiration. In today’s byte, we continue the discussion further.

    In addition to the consideration that the leader should provide to the follower in deciding his/her leader behavior; the work environment is also to be included. The workplace characteristics like – task structure, work group, authority system; combined with the follower characteristics like – ability level, authoritarianism, locus of control; are to be considered in adopting a leadership behavior.
     
    An example would help make this point clear – If the followers are highly trained professionals, and the task is difficult, yet achievable one – an achievement oriented style adopted by the leader would be more appropriate than any of the other ones.
     
    Given that this theory assumes that leaders adapt their behavior and style to fit the characteristics of their follower and the environment in which they work – it is evident that there would be a lot of variety to be taken note of. Researchers today are focusing on what style works best in specific situations by including factors like – organization size, the leader style – visionary/transactional etc  to be able to help strengthen the theory.

  • Path-Goal Theory 2

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. We continue the discussion further in today’s byte. 

    If we carefully observe the path-goal theory, we note that Robert House has based the leadership effectiveness theory on the Expectancy theory of Motivation. The basic role of the leader is thus, to clear the follower’s path to the goal and he/she may use one of the four leadership behavior styles as appropriate – with the primary motive of helping followers clarify the path that paths that lead them to work and personal goals.
     
    The leader selects of the four leadership behavior style as shown, one that is most helpful to the follower at a given time.
    1. Directive style is used when the leader must give specific guidance about work tasks, schedule work and let followers know what is expected
    2. Supportive style is used when the leader needs to show concern for the follower’s wellbeing and social status
    3. The Participative Style is used when the leader must engage in joint decision-making activities with followers.
    4. Achievement oriented style would be used when the leader must set a challenging goal for followers and show a strong confidence in them.

  • Path-Goal Theory

    In the last byte, we discussed about the leader’s effectiveness based on the situation. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion on The Path-Goal Theory proposed by Robert House.
     
    We could better understand the Path-Goal Theory by looking at the key concepts shown in the diagram below:

  • Leadership Effectiveness

    In the last byte, we looked at the favorableness of a situation and its role in determining the leadership style. In today’s byte, we look at how leadership effectiveness varies with situation.

    Contingency theories claim that leader’s effectiveness is influenced by the right situation. Studies indicate that, Low LPC (task-oriented) leaders are found to be more effective in situations that are very favorable or very unfavorable. On the other hand, leaders who have high LPC (relationship-oriented) leaders are found to be more effective in the intermediate range of situational favorableness.
     
    Other researchers have also indicated that – relationship oriented leaders are found to be encouraging the team learning and innovativeness, which helps the product reach the market faster. An important cue in the role a relationship oriented leader could play in a new product development teams!
     
    Very often, it’s possible that a misfit occurs – the leader’s style might not suite the situation at hand. It is unlikely that the leader can be changed as the leader’s need structure is considered an enduring trait according to the theory. In such situations, Fiedler recommends that the leader’s situation would be reengineered to suit the leader’s style.
     
    In summary: The primary contribution of Fiedler’s theory is the attention drawn towards the leadership situation.

  • Contingency Theories of Leadership 3

    In the last byte, we looked at the concept of Least Preferred Coworker and the scale used. In today’s byte, we look at the situations factor’s influence in Fiedler’s Contingency Theory.

    In the beginning of our discussion on Fielder’s Contingency Theory, we had mentioned that there are three dimensions that influence the leader’s style of leadership. These are:
    1. Task Structure: The degree of clarity, or ambiguity, in the work activities assigned to the group. This includes the number and clarity of rules and regulations and procedures for getting the work done.
    2. Position Power: The authority associated with the leader’s formal position in the organization. This includes the leader’s legitimate authority to evaluate and reward performance, punish errors, and demote group members.
    3. Leader-Member Relations: The quality of interpersonal relationships among a leader and the graph members. The quality of leader-member relationships is measured by the Group-Atmosphere Scale, composed of nine eight-point bipolar adjective sets.
    A favorable leadership situation is one with a structured task for the work group, strong position power for the leader, and a good leader-member relation. An unfavorable leadership situation is one with an unstructured task, weak position power for the leader and a moderately poor leader-member relationship. Between these two extremes, the leadership situation has varying degrees of moderate favorableness for the leader.