A Leadership Analysis

7/28/2019 A Leadership Analysis

1/6

Denise Bieniek December 4, 2006

IST 661Leadership Paper

Leadership, in its many styles and applications, is ever-evolving. We have come

a long way from the time before 1945 when the most common approach to leadership

study was that of leader traits. Although many studies were conducted, these

investigations have never been fully supported. The biggest concerns of these theories

were the fact that some leaders who were considered successful did not possess all the

listed traits and some leaders had other traits that were not on the list. Ralph Stodgills

work showed that one could link clusters of personality traits to success in different

situations. And, Gary Yukl found there are certain traits and skills that have been found

to be characteristic of effective leaders, including, adaptability to situations, self-

confidence and creativity (1).

Studies began shifting their focus from leader traits to leader attitudes and

behavior after 1945. This is when Robert R. Blakes and Jane S. Moutons Managerial

Grid and Douglas McGregors X-Y Theory were formulated. In McGregors work,

manager attitudes are divided into two opposite approaches: Theory X, in which the

managers authoritative style is based on workers negative attitude toward work, and

Theory Y, in which the managersparticipative style is based on workers positive

attitude toward work. Comparing the Managerial Grid with McGregors X and Y styles,

one can see that the grids two axes, concern for people and concern for task, result in

four possible leadership styles: country club management, impoverished management,

authority-obedience and team management. The Managerial Grid complements

McGregors work because it gives one a continuum upon which to move from a Theory


2/6

X attitude toward workers to a Theory Y attitude; progress can be seen as a leader moves

on the continuum, and not just a jumping-off point and a finish as in Theory X-Y.

The problem with attitude and behavior models is the fact that neither look at the

setting in which the leader and followers are working. Contingency, or situational

models take into account the leader, the group, and the situation. Fred Fiedlers model

says that leadership style (task motivation and relationship motivation) and situational

favorableness (or situational control) are based on three issues: leader-member relations,

task structure, and leader position power. When there are high levels of all three factors,

the situation is considered favorable and when levels are low, unfavorable. A task-

motivated leadership style works best in either situation. For moderate levels, a

relationship-motivated leadership style is called for. Fiedler warns that it may be

impossible for some leaders to change their style. A leader may find out what type of

style s/he possesses by taking a Least Preferred Coworker assessment. If a leader scores

a worker with whom s/he did not work well high, s/he is considered relationship-

motivated. If a leader scores that worker low, s/he is considered task-motivated.

While followers and situation are also key to Hersey-Blanchards Situational

Leadership Model, they have devised four leadership styles that they say leaders may use

regardless of their style orientation. Based on a subordinates job and psychological

maturity, leaders can adopt the style that best fits that subordinates situation. Four styles

of leadership are offered in this model, from the lowest maturity level - telling

subordinates what to do, to the highest level - delegating work to them based on their

high level of maturity. Selling the idea of the goal to subordinates and participating with

them in their work are the middle ground styles.


3/6

The House-Mitchell Path-Goal Theory is another contingency model in which

leadership style can be adapted according to the situation. In this model, the various

styles of leadership and how they are based on follower and task concerns are similar to

Hersey-Blanchard: if the followers are inexperienced or the task is complexdirective

leadership is used; if the task is boring or tedious, stressful or dangeroussupportive

leadership is called for; if the task is unstructured, clear and follower autonomy is high

participative leadership can be used; and if follower effort and satisfaction is high when

the task is complex or unstructuredachievement-oriented leadership is the choice.

One last contingency model is the Vroom-Yetton Normative Decision Model. It

is different from Fiedler, Hersey-Blanchard and Path-Goal theories in that leadership

style is dependent on a series of questions which guide a leader toward a decision

procedure. The questions range from whether or not subordinates should have a say in

the decision, to whether or not the decision would create conflict among subordinates.

The questions and answers form a kind of tree, the branches of which end in a number.

As a leader travels along the tree branches according to the yes or no answers being

given, s/he will reach a number at the end of the last branch upon which s/he lands. This

number indicates the leadership style needed to make the decision. Two of those styles

are autocratic, two are consultative, and one is a group effort.

There has been some concern over these contingency theories that they are

culturally biased toward a North American viewpoint (2). Leadership styles are based

only on concern for people and concern for the task. Sometimes a leaders culture

influences the way s/he will make a decision or approach a situation. Some cultures are

highly individualistic; others value family over bureaucratic models. Some have very


4/6

different views on how to address and talk to leaders and followers. Another bias issue is

that of gender. Though it has not been proven, contrasts between how men and women

lead, and how they follow, varies according to their gender. A last point of concern

some models focus solely on the relationship between leaders and subordinates and do

not take into account the issues of structure, politics, or symbols. Perhaps a theory such

as William Ouchis Theory Z and others like it could pave the way toward more diverse

leadership styles. Ouchis model is a combination of McGregors Theory Y and modern

Japanese management, which assumes a strong loyalty and interest in team-work and the

organization (3).

Transactional and transformational leadership are two very different styles from

what has been discussed so far. For a leader to be considered truly transformational, s/he

must have charisma, motivate followers inspirationally, stimulate followers intellectually,

and treat each follower as an individual. Morality and selflessness are important

attributes of the transforming leader. Bernard Bass and Paul Steidlmeier compare and

contrast the authentic transformational leader with the pseudotransformational leader.

The authentic leader will espouse universal brotherhood, the pseudo leader will set up a

we-they dichotomy. Authentic leaders persuade others based on issues, pseudo leaders

manipulate their followers. Authentic leaders are genuinely concerned about developing

their followers into leaders while pseudo leaders are concerned with maintaining the

dependency of their followers (4). Transactional leadership has a clear chain of

command and motivates people through punishment and reward. This style is much like

the telling style in Hersey-Blanchards Situational Leadership Theory.


5/6

For many of these leader and leadership theories, there is an underlying concept

of looking in the mirror instead of looking out the window. Leaders must depend on

themselves and those they assess to be capable of assisting them to make the sometimes

difficult decisions, create goals, or change the direction of their organizations. They must

be creative and have vision in order to resist looking out the window to see what others

have accomplished with their resources, knowing they do not have the same resources

and must make do with what is available to them. True leaders are able to look out the

window to see what is happening in the world outside their organizations, then look in the

mirror and decide how best to move forward.

If I were to become a manager within the next five years, one of my goals would

be to find the best ways to motivate my workers. I would use Maslows Hierarchy of

Needs to discover what they needed and how I could help them move up to the self-

actualization phase. I would incorporate David McClellands Needs-Based Motivational

Model into my repertoire of employee assessment to make the best fit between person

and task. Hersey-Blanchards Situational Leadership model could guide me through the

various circumstances that occur within organizations. I would use Vrooms Decision

Tree in my decision-making and force-field analyses to analyze driving and restraining

forces that might influence any changes I wished to make. I like 360 Degree Feedback

because it incorporates many different perspectives of one persons job, aids in the

growth of workers by offering specific developmental goals, and is a more informative

process for both the worker and the leader. I would strive to grow as a leader in style and

innovation and never believe that I have reached the pinnacle; there is always room for

improvement.


6/6

End Notes

1. Hersey, Paul, Blanchard, Kenneth H., and Johnson, Dewey E. Management ofOrganizational Behavior Leading Human Resources. 8th ed. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall, 2001, p. 90, Table 4-2.

2. Doyle, M.E. and Smith, M.K. Classical Leadership, the encyclopedia ofinformal education, 2001, p. 8. Retrieved December 1, 2006 from

http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htm

3. Chapman, Alan, reviewer. Douglas McGregor original XY Theory model,(1995-2005). Retrieved December 1, 2006 from

http://www.businessballs.com/mcgregor.htm

4. Bass, Bernard M. and Steidlmeier, Paul. Authentic VersusPseudotransformational Leadership,Ethics, Character, and Authentic

Transformational Leadership, revised September 24, 1998. Retrieved December

1, 2006 fromhttp://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.htm
http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htmhttp://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htmhttp://www.businessballs.com/mcgregor.htmhttp://www.businessballs.com/mcgregor.htmhttp://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.htmhttp://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.htmhttp://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.htmhttp://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.htmhttp://www.businessballs.com/mcgregor.htmhttp://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htm

A Leadership Analysis

Documents

Transcript of A Leadership Analysis