(c) The managerial grid
(d) Contingency theories
Besides, the famous Theory X and Theory Y of McGregor has also been considered.
rait Approach
The trait theories of leadership focus on the individual characteristics of successful leaders.
carding to the theories, leaders possess a set of traits which make them distinct from
followers. n attempt must, therefore, be made to identify and measure these traits.
Attempts were indeed made in the past to identify such qualities. Ralph stogdill, for instance,
more than 5,000 leadership studies and concluded that successful leaders tend to
(i)
A strong desire for accomplishment
(ii) Persistent pursuit of goals
(iii) Creativity and intelligence used to solve problems
(iv) Initiative applied to social situations
(v) Self-assumed personality
(vi) Willingness to accept behavioural consequences
(vii) Low susceptibility to interpersonal stress
(viii) High tolerance of ambiguity
(ix) Ability to influence other people
(x) Ability to structure social interactions
Most of the research on leadership conducted till now concentrated mainly on the unique
ualities of successful leaders. There has been little systematic study of the personal traits of
successful leaders. Probably, ineffective leadership is associated with such qualities as poor
!nperament, self-centredness, inability to get along with others, lack of vision, lack of character Id
mental health problems such as aggression, depression, disorganisation, paranoia, neurosis
procrastination. In addition, some attitudinal factors seem to be associated with ineffective aders.
These include: (1) overconcern with morale, (2) failure to maintain an objective attitude, flack of
a sense of proportion, (4) practising "polarisation" or seeing others as either good or , (5) idealism
in decision making and (6) over-eagerness to do the "right" things.
Evaluation of the Trait Theory: The trait approach to leadership has been severely criticised many.
Some of the limitations of the theory are the following:
(i)
The list of personality traits of successful leaders is too long and there seems to be no
finality about it. Although hundreds of traits have been identified, no consistent pattern has
emerged.
(ii)
How much of which trait a successful leader must have is not clear. Furthermore, certain
traits, particularly psychological, cannot be quantified.
The theory assumes that a leader is born and not trained. This assumption is not
acceptable to the contemporary thinkers on the subject.
iii)
Contrary to what the theory assumes, leadership effectiveness does not depend upon
the personality of the leader alone. Other variables like the situation, the task, the Organisation
and the characteristics of followers will equally determine the effectiveness of leaders.
iv)
(v) It is well known that people who fail as leaders and people who never achieve
positions Of leadership often possess some of the same traits as successful leaders.
Thus, for
Chapter Seventeen •e Leadership - Influencing Others
499
It does not mean to say that the trait theory of leadership is irrelevant- With all its limi the theory
is still relevant because of certain merits.
One merit relates to the qualities of successful leaders. Focusing on personality traits
of studies carried out from 1900 to 1957 showed that leaders tend to be better adjusted,
more dominant, more extroverted, more masculine, and more conservatrve and have greater
interpersonal sensitivity than non-leaders.
The second merit relates to the influence of personality on one's effectiveness
person's
personality, what he fundamentally is as a person, is an ever present and massive influence cn
how and With what success, he functions as a manager'.
•The personality of man is his inner life, including such inner elements as background, life
history, beliefs, life experiences, attitudes, prejudices, self-image, fears, loves, hates, hopes
philosophy of life. In this sense, a man is like an iceberg: only a small fraction of appears above
the surface (his observable behaviour, what he does); the rest is his inner life, 7/7' of the
iceberg that lie, unobservable, below the surface.'
However, the manage(s inner personality causes or 'spills over' into his behaviout in
turn, affects others with whom he works, eliciting from them either co-operative or
reactions. And, therein lies the manager's fate: co-operative reactions from his people his
success, failure.resistance reactions, however irrational from the manager's viewpoint,
usually
"...It is clear that there is an influential relationship between a manage(s total
personality and his success as a manager on the job. I have submitted this precise concept
to sexen! thousand practising managers over the years and based on their experience
virtually all acknowledge its validity."
Third, the view that leaders are born, not made is in fact, still popular (though not
among researchers). After a lifetime of reading popular novels and viewing films and
television perhaps most of us believe, to some extent, that there are individuals who have
Chapter Seventeen
predisposititi to leadership, that they are naturally braver, more aggressive, more decisive
and more articuli than other people.
Organisational Behaviour
finally, the theory has certain practical
implications
also. If
leadership
could be
genavioural Theories
Beginning in the late 1940s and continuing through the early 1960s, researchers moved away an
emphasis on traits and towards the study of leader behaviours. This new approach differed of from
personal the trait-oriented traits were the research main in focus. at least second, two ways. whereas
First, most actual trait leader studies behaviourssought to
separate leaders from non-leaders, leader behaviour studies wanted to determine how various kinds of
specific behaviour affect the performance and satisfaction of followers. Thus, the
non-leaders
The Ohio State University studies and the University of Michigan studies are the two important
behavioural theories.
Ohio State University Studies: These well publicised studies were started shortly after World
War ll. The main objective of the studies was to identify the major dimensions of leadership and to
investigate the effect of leader behaviour on employee performance and satisfaction. From a list of
leader behaviours in a wide variety of situations, two leadership dimensions were identified.
(i) The initiating structure, which refers to leader behaviour that defines and organises the group
tasks, assigns the tasks to employees and supervises their activities.
(ii) Consideration refers to leader behaviour that can be characterised by friendliness,
respect, supportiveness, openness, trust and concern for the welfare of the employees.
The main point in the study is that both consideration and initiating structure are not seen
being placed on a continuum. That's rather than a leader necessarily being low on one
imension when high on the other, the leader could be high on both, low on both, or high on
and low
the other
the quadrants
The findings of the Ohio State studies can be summarised as follows:
(i) Consideration was positively related to low absenteeism and grievance
negatively or neutrally related to performance.
(ii) Initiating structure was positively related to employee performance b associated
with such negative consequences as absenteeism and grievant%
(iii) When both consideration and structure were high, performance and to be high.
But in some cases, high productivity was accompanied by absent grievances.
The University of Michigan Studies: These studies were conducted during the as
those at Ohio State and resulted in identical conclusions. As in the Ohio State U studies,
researchers at the University of Michigan distinguished between two dimen .
leadership: production-centred and employee-centred. Production-centred leaders set
rigid standards, organised tasks down to the last detail, prescribed the work methods to
and closely supervised subordinates' performance. Employee-centred leaders, on
encouraged employee participation in goal-setting and in other work-related helped
ensure high performance by inspiring respect and trust.
At first the findings of Michigan studies seemed to refute the Ohio State research
they place leadership on a continuum such as the one shown in Fig. 17.5 and further to
the right the leaders go, the better-off they are. But a deeper analysis employee and work
orientation are two separate dimensions and that a leader can be high or low on one or
both. Thus, the two styles discovered by the Michigan researcheßwa similar to those of
the Ohio State people. The production-centred leadership factor initiating-leadership
structure factor both measured work orientation, while the oriented factor and the
consideration factor both measured people orientation.
Figure 17.5:
A Productioncentred/ ProductionEmployee-centred
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Continuum
Employee. centredcentred
Evaluation of Behavioural Theories: In leader behaviour theories, unlike in the trait theons
Chapter Seventeen
the focus was on what leaders did — how they delegated the tasks, how they
communicated with and tried to motivate their subordinates, how they carried out their
tasks and so on, theories underlined that the behaviours can be learnt and an individual
trained in the appropriatd leadership behaviours would be able to lead more effectively.
This is the main contributionci the leader behaviour theory.
Behavioural theorists, however, could not successfully identify a consistent
relationship between leadership behaviour and group performance. General statements
could not
because results would vary over different range of circumstances. What was
missing
consideration of the situational factors that influence success or failure.
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory: Also called the vertical dyad model, this
approad too focuses more on leader behaviours. A vertical dyad consists Of two persons
who are hierarchically, such as a supervisor and a subordinate. The leader behaviour
depends the subordinate is. The theory is advocated by George Graen and his associates.
The basic idea behind the LMX theory is that leaders form two groups, in-groups,
groups, of followers. In-group members tend to be similar to the leader, and get
responsibilities, more attention, and more rewards. They work within the leader's inner
factot
As a result, in-group members are more satisfied, have turnover, and commitment.
In contrast, out-group members are outside the circle attention and fewer rewards.
They are managed by f6rmal rules and policies.
of model is leadership can be understood better by dyads of made up
of leader and member (a vertical relationship) concentrating on what one might call the
average leadership style. Graen and his
radical, a leader divides the subordinates into in*roup and out-groups and behaves
each group. (See Fig. 17.6).
View
Traditional View
Leader
of LeaderLeader
Figure 17.6:
Contrasting Views
Subordinate
In-group
Subordinates
Subordinates
Out-group
Panel (a)
) and
Panel (b) e the employee.
Source•.RobertP.Vecctio, Organisational Behaviour, p. 375.) in Fig.17.6 portrays the traditional
view of how leaders and subordinates are perceived. subordinates are treated equally — they have
equal access to the leader, equal influence in decision making, equal sharing of information, and
equal social distance from the
Employee.
panel (b) however, reflects the vertical dyad linkage perspective, wherein the in-group
) centred \ader. with the leader than the out-group members. The differing Leadership members enjoy a better relationship
distances of the subordinates from the leader reflect differences in the equality of working te\ationships, and therefore,
differences in influence, authority, and access to information.
is the model called the leader-Member Exchange theory? The theory emphasises the ke
that takes place between leader and followers. The social exchange view states
w
COmmunicated ; tidgroup members make contributions at a cost to themselves and receive rewards accordingly.
ir tasks and so
Interaction continues because members find the social exchange mutually rewarding.
ined in the appropriated
Ihe OviY\ model has its applications in any situation where the leader is required to influence
he main contribution of
executivethat in-
whether it is the Vice-chancellor bound to of a university, out-groups. director of There a B-School, is no doubt or
an otganisauon, there are
be in-groups and
a consistent relationship members are mote close to the boss than those belonging to the out-group. But the ments could not
be made I the model relates to the categorisation of subordinates into in-group and outwas missing was the ate the criteria is
with to categorise in-group an and employee who is with into out-group? one group Is or group other? alignment These are
permanent? difficult questionsWhat ure. which no easy answers are available.
dyad model, this approach The Managerial Grid: A graphic depiction of a two-dimensional view of leadership style has evvo
persons who are linked behaviour depends •oncern for people" by Blake and and "concern Mouton. They for production"
proposed a which Managerial correspond Grid based to the on the Ohio styles Stateof his associates. dimensions of
consideration and initiating structure or the Michigan dimensions of employeeo groups, in-groups. and production-centred.
Fig. 17.7 shows a diagram of the Managerial Grid. the leader, and get greater
Nithin the leade€s inner circle
503
Chapter Seventeen
Chapter Seventeen
Leadership - Influencing Others
ed on direction with compliance or 5,5 bas comfort through convenience, or on
acquiescence and complacency or but corrupt relationships produced by facades or
by debilitating paternalism are at
the belief that one leadership style is inherently superior managemeltl to others is clearly
alipsr'opriaitehostthto
me contingency idea of leadership. It seems unlikely that the
style is
oßanisations experiencing different growth rates, labour relations, competition and a'
sUCCESSFUL
Leading by Example
You don't have a choice as you have accepted the leadership role.
3. Show your tough side, when necessary.
4. Be visible.
5. Broaden your audience.
setting an example is not the main means of influencing another, it is the only means.
ontingency Theories of Leadership
It became increasingly clear for people studying the leadership phenomenon that predicting
Idership effectiveness was more complex than identifying a few traits or preferable behaviours. e
failure to obtain consistent results led to a focus on situational or contingency theories of dership. As
the name itself implies, contingency theories of leadership are derived from the proposition that the
most effective behaviour for leaders to engage in is contingent upon racteristics of the situation in
which the leaders find themselves. Thus, the types of questions must ask ourselves regarding
leadership range from those such as "is an employee-oriented dership more effective than a
production-oriented one"? to new questions such as, "under conditions (in what type of situation) will
employee-oriented leadership be effective, and er what different types of conditions will productionoriented leadership be effective"? Fiedler's contingency model, the path-goal theory and the
situational leadership theory are three most popular contingency theories of leadership.
Fiedler's Theory: iedler's model postulates that effectiveness of a leader depends upon: s
motivational style, and (2) the favourableness of the situation. Leaders are motivated by
interpersonal relations or task-goal accomplishment. The situational favourableness is tent to
which the leader has control over the situation.
eader's Motivationa/ Traits: Leaders differ in their motivational styles. Some believe in getting
6k done and are naturally task-oriented. They are essentially authoritarian in their approach.
•s are relations-motivated leaders and they believe in getting along with others. These leaders
in a participative style. Table 17.4 summarises the features of these two styles.
Chapter Seventeen
ESSENTIALS OF RELATION-ORIENTED AND TASK-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP
Relations-oriented
on task accomplishment
Emphasis
Good
interpersonal relations
power
Use of
Sensitive to
the needs and feelings of others
structure
Task
Consultation with subordinates
Open communication with subordinates
with subordinates
No consultations
Fedler measured leadership style on a scale that indicated "the degree to which a man described favourably or
unfavourably his least preferred co-worker (LPC)" — the employee With whom the person could work least well lhis
measure locates an individual on the style continuum. According to Fiedler's findings, aperson who describes his LPC
in a relatively favourable manner tends to be relations-oriented leader. But a person who describes his in an
unfavourable manner tends to follow task-oriented style
According to Fiedler high-LPC managers want to have warm personal relations with their co-workers and will
regar close ties with employees as important to their overall effectiveness Low LPC managers, on the other hand,
want to get the job done. The reaction of employees to their leadership style is of far lower priority than the need to
maintain production. Low_lPc managers feel that a harsh style is necessary to maintain
production will not hesitate to use it
Situational Factors: According to Fiedler, the situation is favourable to the leader when
he has influence and control over his subordinates' performance. Three factors are
hypothesised to determine situational favourability: (1) leader-member relations, (2) task
structure, and
(3) position power.
Leader-Member Relations: When the relationship between the leader and the
subordinates is good and the leader can count on the loyalty of his subordinates, the leader's
influence and control are high. Poor leader member relations, on the other hand, impair the
leader's control and contribute to an unfavourable situation to the leader.
Task Structure: This factor describes the extent to which the task has a well-defined goal, has methods of operation
that can be easily defined, whose accomplishment can be easily measured, and also leads to a unique solution. A high
degree of task structure contributes to a favourable situation for the leader as it enables him to influence and control
the behaviour of a subordinate on a structured task. When the task is unstructured, the situation is not favourable to
the leader who is less likely to have any infl uence and control over his subordinate's behaviour.
Position Power: Position power comprises formal authority and reward power. Authority
exists to command needed resources for task accomplishment and reward power to award a
reward for good performance and punishment for laxity on the part of subordinates. The
greater the power, the greater the leader's control over subordinates and the more favourable
the situation is to the leader.
Overall, ituational avourableness is determined by the combination of these three
situational factors. A high control situation occurs where the leader has good leader-member
relations, highly structured tasks and strong position power. A low control situation exists
when the leader has poor relationships with subordinates, unstructured tasks and weak
position power. Between these two situations exists a moderate control situation.
Leadership Match: What types of leaders are most effective under all these variables?
According to the theory, task-oriented (low LPC) leaders are superior to relations-oriented
(h igh LPC) leaders when situational control is either very low or very high. In contrast, high
Chapter Seventeen
relations oriented (high LPC) leaders have an edge when situational control is moderate
(See Fig. 17.8).
506
Organisational Behaviour v•
are the reasons for such phenomena? Why does a task motivated leader perform well high
control and low control situations? Similarly, why does relations
in
Situation: Since task performance is controlled in
situations leaders should be
able to relax and even belcome considerate towards their
ubordinates. By doing so, they can meet the needs of both the
and its members.
on the other hand, relation-oriented leaders, who pride themselves on being able to solve with
interpersonal skills, do not find much challenge in this situation. Since their' are willing to
comply with their wishes, the managers do not have much opportunity
High
Low LPC High LPC Figure 17.8: leaders are Low [PC Leadership
leaders are highly
effective highly under low under
Theory control
situational
htgh/y leaders are
Effectiveness in effective
effective the Contingency situationa/ moderate under high
situational control control
LOW LPc
(concern for
production)
High I—PC
(concern for
people)
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Situational Control
rce: Jerald Greenberg, Behaviour in Organisation, PHI, 2013, p. 464.)
Moderate-control Situation: Relation motivated leaders perform best in this situation
because / are able to accomplish task goals by using their interpersonal skills. They are
sensitive to needs of group members, encourage others to participate in the group process,
and jrporate different viewpoint in solving complex problems. On the other hand, taskmotivated ers are so engrossed in accomplishing the task that they are not able to deal
patently with personal conflicts and pay little attention to the needs and feelings of their
workgroup )bers.
Chapter Seventeen
.ow-contro/ Situation: In this situation, task motivated leaders should be able to provide the tion that
the employees want. When the situation is chaotic, people will be more concerned direction and
leadership than with interpersonal likes or dislikes. Although leaders may e subordinates at times by
being directive, they can quickly achieve task-oriented goals by uring and monitoring the group tasks.
On the other hand, relation motivated leaders are incerned with interpersonal relationships, that they
feel uneasy about making decisions ut consulting others. Their hesitation to make decisions can be
seen as poor leadership.
•4' Leadership - Influencing Others
507
Evaluation attention of the to Model: the three Meritsimportant : one merit components:
of Fiedler's the contingency leader, the model situation is that and it th
explicit subordinates. It does not suggest that one trait or one behaviour is suitable for all
situations rather it specifies a variety of situations in which a particular trait or style can be
effective.
The second merit of the model is that, because of its flexibility, it represents over
much of the earlier, more naive work in the leadership field and providing a usefan
improvement framework for further research.
ul theoretical
programmes trains basic Third, ideas leaders one of that the to of try the modify contingency
to practical change situations applications model. the leader's to fit Leader their of personality
Fiedler's match personality. wide is variety theory a to programmed fit This is of the a
situations, training contrasts situations. learning programme with such The technique most as
leader the using trainingpolicematchthatthe
programme has been used to train leaders in a middle managers, public health
managers, many personnel and military colleges.
Demerits: First, the meanings of some of the variables included in the model are not
clear. For eGö-I@, it is difficult to classify tasks as "structured" or "unstructured" in an
absolute sense, since these are relative concepts. What this means in a practical sense is that
a given task could be labelled "unstructured" in one study and "structured" in another study.
This obviously introduces error into the measurement of this variable.
Second, some scholars argue that the contingency model lacks a theoretical orientation.
Since it has been developed from research data rather than being based on a theoretical
scheme, it has a predictive power but lacks an explanatory power. It does not adequately
explain how and why one particular leadership trait is more desirable than others in a
particular situation.
Third, there is the question of what the LPC scale measures. It does not satisfactorily explain
how and why leaders who describe least preferred co-workers in negative terms are considered
to be task-motivated and those who describe them in positive terms are considered
relationmotivated. Therefore, the theory generally lacks explanatory power.
Fourth, the LPC score instrument is itself criticised. It is said that the score does not reveal the
leader behaviour but suggest only his feelings towards his least preferred co-worker.
Fifth, no attention is given to the actual technical competence of the leader or the
subordinates. The theory assumes adequate technical competence both in the leader and in the
followers.
In conclusion, it may be stated that Fiedler has clearly made an important contribution
towards understanding leadership effectiveness. His model has been the object of much
controversy and probably will continue to be so. Field studies fall short of providing full
support and the model could benefit by including additional moderating variables. But
Fiedler's work continues to be a dominant input in the development of a contingency
explanation of leadership effectiveness.
Path-goal Theory of Leadership: One of the most respected approaches to the study Of
leadership currently discussed is the path-goal theory developed by Robert House.
The essence of the theory is that the leader's job is to use structure, support and rewards
to create a work environment that helps employees reach the organisation's goals. According to
the theory, the leader must clarify goals for the subordinates and clear the path for realising the
goals. The theory is called path-goal because its major concern is how the leader influences the
subordinates' perceptions of their work goals, personal goals and paths to goal attainment. The
theory suggests that a leader's behaviour is motivating or satisfying to the degree that the
behaviour increases subordinate goal attainment and clarifies the paths to these goals.
The path-goal theory is closely related to the expectancy theory of motivation discussed in
Chapter 10. The expectancy theory holds that motivation is the product of a desire fo r an
Chapter Seventeen