SBenegaL

Blog

  • 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.

  • Contingency Theories of Leadership 2

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on Fiedler’s Contingency Theory. In today’s byte, we explore it a bit deeper in this attempt.

    Fiedler classifies leaders using the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale. This scale asks the leader to describe the least preferred coworker using a sixteen eight point scale bipolar adjective sets. The leader would mark the bank that is most descriptive of the least preferred coworker.

    The leaders are then classified – one who describes their least preferred coworker in positive terms (ex: pleasant, efficient, cheerful etc) is classified as high LPC, or relationship oriented; and those who describe their least preferred coworker in negative terms (ex: unpleasant, inefficient, gloomy etc) are said to be having a low LPC, or task-oriented, leaders.

    Note that, this technique is a projective technique which asks a leader to think about the person whom he or she can work least well (the least preferred coworker or LPC). This itself makes the score controversial element of the theory as the projective technique would have an extremely low measurement reliability

  • Contingency Theories of Leadership

    In the last byte, we looked at a comparison between the leadership grid and the Ohio State Research. In today’s byte, we begin our discussion on the Contingency Theories of Leadership.

    The roots of Contingency Theory of Leadership arises from the belief that leadership style must be appropriate to a particular situation. The way one could interpret these theories is – “IF the situation is ____, then the appropriate leadership behavior is _____ “. We shall begin our discussion on these theories with an introduction to Fiedler’s Contingency Theory in this byte and continue this further.

    Fiedler’s Contingency Theory assumes that leaders are either task-oriented or relationship oriented, depending on how the leaders obtain their major gratification. The theory thus, proposes the fit between the leader’s need structure and the favorableness of the leader’s situation determine the team’s effectiveness in work accomplishment.

    Task-oriented leaders are primarily gratified by accomplishing tasks and getting work done, while relationship-oriented leaders are primarily gratified by developing good, comfortable interpersonal relationships. Thus, the effectiveness of the type of leaders depends on the favorableness of the situation.
    The favorableness of the situation has three components:
    • Leader’s position power.
    • Structure of the team’s task
    • Quality of the leader-follower relationship.

  • Leadership Grid 3

    In the last byte, we looked at the leadership grid and understood what each of the points on the grid meant. In today’s byte, we look at how the classification according to this leadership grid varies from the classifications of the earlier studies.

    The leadership varies from the original Ohio State research in two ways –
    1. It has attitudinal overtones that are not present in the original research. (While LBDQ aims to describe behavior, the grid addresses both behavior and attitude of the leader!)
    2. The Ohio state approach is fundamentally descriptive and non-evaluative, whereas the grid is normative and prescriptive.
    The grid assumes that the Team manager (9,9) is the best style of managerial behavior, and, based on identifying the current location on the grid and then potentially train oneself to become the coveted – team manager. Thus, the grid is also prescriptive in nature.

  • Leadership Grid 2

    In the last byte, we looked at the leadership grid. Today’s session we describe the various points on the grid.

    • (5,5) – Organization Man Manager:    A middle of the road manager
    • (9,1) – Authority compliance Manager:     A leader who emphasizes production
    • (1,9) – Country Club Manager:        A leader who creates a happy, comfortable work environment
    • (9,9) – Team Manager:            A leader who builds a highly productive team of committed people
    • (1,1) – Impoverished Manager:         A leader who exerts just enough efforts to get by

    Two new leadership styles have been added to these five:
    • (9+9) – Paternalistic Manager:        A leader who promises reward and threatens punishment
    • (Opp) – Opportunistic Manager:        A leader whose style aims to maximize self-benefit

  • Leadership Grid

    In the last byte, we looked at Michigan Studies. In today’s byte, we extend the discussion on classification and look at the following leadership grid.

    Robert Blake and Jane Mouton’s developed the managerial grid which later was known as Leadership grid, focuses on attitudes of leaders. The two underlying dimensions of the grid are – concern for results, concern for people. 

    The grid could be shown as follows.
     
    We shall describe the various points shown in the next byte.

  • Leadership: Michigan Studies

    In the last byte, we looked at the Ohio State studies and classified leadership styles. In today’s byte, we look at another attempt to classify the leadership behavior – the Michigan Studies
    Given the implications that leadership has on the emotional atmosphere, the Michigan studies identified two styles of leadership – employee oriented and production oriented.
    A production-oriented style leads to a work environment characterized by constant influence attempts on the part of the leader, either through direct, close supervision or through the use of many written unwritten rules and regulations for behavior. The emphasis is on getting the work done.
    An employee oriented leadership style leads to a work environment that focused on relationships. The leader in these situations would avoid a lot of direct or close supervision and establishes fewer written or unwritten rules and regulations for behavior. These leaders have a higher concern for people and their needs.
    Looking back at all the three classifications, one could observe that there has been two broad dimensions emphasized – one focusing and tasks and the other on people!

  • Leadership: Ohio State Studies

    In the last byte, we looked at a influence tactics used by people. In today’s byte, we discuss about Ohio State Studies, which attempted to measure specific leadership behaviors.
    The Ohio State Studies developed a questionnaire – Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) which labeled two important dimensions – Initiating Structure and Consideration.
    Initiation structure is a leadership behavior aimed at defining and organizing work relationships and roles as well as establishing clear patterns of organization, communication, and ways of getting things done.
    Consideration refers to the leader behavior aimed at nurturing friendly, warm working relationship as well as encouraging mutual truest and interpersonal respect within the work unit.
    These two behaviors are independent of each other and a leader could lie on any of the four quadrants that could be created on these dimensions. Note, this study is really an attempt to describe leadership behavior and doesn’t evaluate or judge the behavior.