Theory Of Leadership.docx

CHAPTER 2 THEORY OF LEADERSHIP 2.1

Trait Theory Trait theories can be described as a branch of the Great Man Theory. These theories

hypothesize that the specific traits of an individual give them better propensity to be a leader. These personality traits or behavioral characteristics are inherent in the family and passed on genetically. This theory emphasizes that leaders share many common traits and characteristics that make them successful. The theory was popularized in the 1937 by Gordon Alport and Hans Eysenck (1947). Trait theories of leadership differentiated leaders from nonleaders by focusing on personal qualities and characteristics. (Stephen P. Robbins, 2008). According to Eysenck (1947) this theory based primarily on physiology and genetics— interested in temperament (the aspect of personality that exists from birth). Divided personality into two biologically-based categories of temperament: Extraversion/Introversion a.

Extraversion characterized by being outgoing, talkative, and in need of external stimulation

b.

Eysenck's arousal theory of extraversion—everybody has certain optimal level of arousal at which he/she performs best 1.

extraverts chronically under-aroused and need external stimulation to bring them up to an optimal level of performance

2.

introverts chronically over-aroused and need peace and quiet to bring them to an optimal level of performance

Neuroticism/Stability a. Neuroticism or emotionality characterized by high levels of negative affect such as depression and anxiety. b. Neuroticism based on activation thresholds in the part of the brain responsible for the fight-or-flight response. 1. Activation can be measured by heart rate, blood pressure, cold hands, sweating, and muscular tension. 2. Neurotic people, who have low activation thresholds and are unable to control their emotional reactions, experience negative affect in the face of minor stressors. 3. Emotionally stable people, who have high activation thresholds and good emotional. The two dimensions (axes), extraversion-introversion and emotional stability instability, define four quadrants: a.

Stable extraverts (sanguine qualities such as outgoing, talkative, responsive, easygoing, lively, carefree, good leaders)

b.

Unstable extraverts (choleric qualities such as touchy, restless, excitable, changeable, impulsive, irresponsible)

c.

Stable introverts (phlegmatic qualities such as calm, even-tempered, reliable, controlled, peaceful, thoughtful, careful, passive)

d.

Unstable introverts (melancholic qualities such as quiet, reserved, pessimistic, sober, rigid, anxious, moody)

Psychoticism

Further research demonstrated the need for a third category of temperament is Psychoticism/Socialization. These are people with tendencies to psychosis, meaning that they are more likely to have problems dealing with reality.

Psychotic people sometimes have

hallucinations and often have delusions such as odd beliefs about being watched. (Hans and Sybil Eysenck, 1947). 2.2

Behavioral Theory Douglas McGregor (1906 - 1964) is one of the forefathers of management theory.

McGregor developed a philosophical view of humankind with his Theory X and Theory Y in 1960. His work is based upon Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, in that he grouped the hierarchy into lower-order needs (Theory X) and higher-order needs (Theory Y). He suggested that management could use either set of needs to motivate employees, but better results would be gained by the use of Theory Y, rather than Theory X. (McGregor, 1960). These two opposing perceptions theorized how people view human behavior at work and organizational life : a.

Theory X This is the authoritative and traditional style of management. Theory X managers

assume that people are lazy, don't want to work and it is the job of the manager to force or coerce them to work. People are viewed as a "cost" that must be monitored and controlled. It is based on three basic assumptions: 1. The average person inherently dislikes work and will avoid it if at all possible. 2. Most people have to be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened to get them to work towards organizational goals.

3. The average person prefers to be directed, avoids responsibility, isn't ambitious and simply seeks security. In practice Theory X managers tend to be autocratic and controlling, and feel it is up to them to ride people and make them do their work. These managers tend to micromanage, be extremely task oriented and not put much emphasis on building positive relationships. Little emphasis is shown towards developing a positive work environment, and recognition and appreciation would be rare. People working for these managers tend to be motivated by fear and feel unappreciated. b.

Theory Y This is a more dignified and enlightened management style. Theory Y managers

assume people will perform well if treated positively, and that higher order needs dominate most individuals. People are viewed as "assets" that should be valued and developed. It is based on six basic assumptions: 1. The physical and mental effort of work is as natural as play, so the average person does not inherently dislike work. 2. People will exercise self-direction and self-control in order to achieve objectives. 3. Rewards of satisfaction and self-actualization come from the effort to achieve objectives. 4. The average person learns not only to accept but to seek responsibility. 5. Most people have a capacity for imagination, ingenuity and creativity. 6. The intellectual potential of most people is only partially realized. In practice Theory Y managers tend to be participative when making decisions, and value both results and relationships. These managers tend to delegate and empower their

people because they trust them and feel they will do good work (i.e., managers are "coaches"). Priorities will be given to developing positive work environments, and expressing regular recognition and appreciation. These managers will also feel that people are important and worth developing. People working for these managers tend to feel appreciated and dignified, and will generally have good morale and feel motivated. 2.3

Contingency theory Because of the perceived failure by researchers to obtain consistent results from either the

behavioural or trait theories, researchers began to focus on situational influences. The goal was to match leadership style with work conditions in order to achieve leadership effectiveness. Isolating the situational conditions proved to be somewhat difficult. Three of the most successful contingency theories are presented here. 1) The Fiedler Contingency Model. One of the first models of this type was developed by Fred Fiedler. It proposes that effective group performance depends on the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader. a) Identifying Leadership Style. Fiedler created the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) questionnaire, which purports to measure whether a person is task- or relationshiporiented. High LPC scores indicate a relationship-oriented leader; low LPC scores indicate a task-oriented leader. Fiedler assumed that an individual’s leadership style is fixed. If the situation and style are not optimal, then the situation needs to be modified or the leader needs to be replaced. b) Defining the Situation. Fiedler identified three contingency dimensions that defined the key situational factors that will determine the appropriate leadership style.

1) Leader-member relations: the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members have in their leader. Measured as good or poor. 2) Task structure: the degree to which the job assignments are structured or unstructured. Measured as high or low. 3) Position power: the degree of influence a leader has over hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases. Measured as strong or weak. c) Eight Potential Situations. The combination of the measurements of these three dimensions creates eight potential situations (“octets”) that a leader might face. d) Matching Leaders and Situations. 1) Task-oriented leaders tend to perform better in situations that are either very favorable to them or which are very unfavorable (category I, II, III, VII, or VIII). 2) Relationship-oriented leaders perform better in moderately favorable situations (categories IV through VI). 3) Recently Fiedler has condensed these eight situations down to three based on the degree of control: task-oriented leaders perform best in situations of high and low control while relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situations. e) Using the Model to Improve Leadership Effectiveness. Because Fiedler believes an individual’s leadership style is fixed, there are really only two ways to improve leader effectiveness: 1) Change the leader to fit the situation.

2) Change the situation to fit the leader. This can be done by restructuring tasks or increasing/decreasing the power the leader has to control factors such as salary increases, promotions, and disciplinary actions. f) Fiedler Contingency Model Summary. Considerable evidence supports substantial parts of Fiedler's model. In the more recent and simplified version of the model, there is even stronger evidence to support its conclusions. However, the LPC questionnaire is problematic and the contingency variables are complex and difficult for practitioners to assess, making this a difficult model to use on a practical basis. 2) Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory. Unlike the other leadership theories mentioned thus far, the LMX theory does not assume that managers treat all workers the same way. a) Grouping. Because of time pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small group of their followers: the in-group. These individuals receive a disproportionate amount of the leader’s attention and are more likely to receive special privileges. Out-group members get less of the leader’s time, fewer of the preferred rewards and have leader-follower relations based on formal authority interactions. b) Group Selection. While the selection process is unclear, leaders tend to choose in-group members (high LMX) because they have attitude and personality characteristics that are similar to the leader or a higher level of competence than do the out-group members (low LMX). While the leader does the choosing, it is the followers’ characteristics the drive the leader’s categorizing decision. The selections appear to be relatively stable over time.

c) Maintaining LMX. Leaders induce LMX by rewarding those employees with whom they want a closer linkage and punishing those with whom they do not. High LMX employees are allowed to communicate frequently with the supervisor, while low LMX employees are discouraged from doing so. d) LMX Theory Summary. Research has been generally supportive and may be tied to the concept of the selffulfilling prophecy: when leaders expect the best from a set of employees, they tend to get it. In general, research has shown the following:  Leaders do differentiate among followers.  The in-group and out-group disparities are not random.  In-group members will have higher performance ratings, lower turnover intentions, greater satisfaction with their superior, and higher overall satisfaction. 3) The Path-Goal Theory. Developed by Robert House, this theory extracts elements from the Ohio State leadership research as well as the expectancy theory of motivation. a) The Leader’s Purpose. In Path-Goal theory, the leader's job is to provide followers with information, support, or other resources necessary for them to achieve their goals. Effective leaders clarify the path to goal achievement and remove any roadblocks the workers encounter along the path. b) Leader Behaviors. Unlike Fiedler, House assumes leaders are flexible and that the same leader can display any or all of the necessary behaviours for effectiveness in a given situation. There are four identified leadership behaviors in this theory:

1) Directive: these leadership behaviors include letting followers know what is expected of them, scheduling work to be done, and giving specific guidance as to how to accomplish tasks. 2) Supportive: these behaviors include being friendly and showing concern for the needs of followers. 3) Participative: the leader consults with followers and uses their suggestions before making a decision. 4) Achievement-Oriented: the behaviors for this type of leader include setting challenging goals and expecting followers to perform at their highest level. c) Contingency Variables. This theory proposes two classes of contingency variables that moderate leadership behavior: 1) Environmental Variables: factors that are outside the control of the employee such as task structure, the formal authority system, and the worker. These variables determine the type of leader behavior required for outcomes to be maximized. 2) Employee Characteristics: variables such as locus of control, experience, and perceived ability, which are the interpersonal characteristics of the employee. These variables determine how the environment and leader behavior are interpreted. d) Path-Goal Theory Predictions. The theory proposes the leader behaviour will be ineffective when it is redundant with the sources of environmental structure or incongruent with employee characteristics. Specific predictions (i.e., effective matches between leadership behaviors and contingency variables) include:

1) Directive leadership behaviors are more appropriate when tasks are ambiguous or stressful. 2) Supportive leadership is more effective when employees are performing structured tasks. 3) Directive leadership is inappropriate when employees have high perceived ability or considerable experience. 4) Participative leadership behaviors are more appropriate for employees with internal locus of control. 5) Achievement-oriented behaviors are appropriate when tasks are ambiguously structured. e) Path-Goal Theory Summary. The theory itself, due its complexity, has received mixed support. While this theory is attractive, it may be quite a while before we can safely say that it has practical uses in the workplace.