Leadership Styles
-
Upload
manish-sharma -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Leadership Styles
INTRODUCTION
Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela... What is
common to all of them ? What is the first impression that strikes our
minds on hearing those names ? The answer is the obvious one
Leadership. Yes, they have been great leaders in their own times, in
their own parts of this world.
From organization behaviour point of view leadership means
ability of individuals to influence others and attain the goal(s) of the
organization or beyond them. There have been many giant
organizations, like Ford, IBM & General Motors, to name a few who
came back from behind and became quite successful once again. The
success and achievements would not have been possible but for the
great leadership and the individuals who matter to these organizations.
This report delves into various theories on leadership, Trait and
Contingency theories. It then looks at the contemporary models on
leadership. Leadership styles and determinants of such styles, and lastly
the graphical synthesis on various aspects such as Motivation,
Organizational Growth and Change vis-a-vis the Situational Leadership.
2. LEADERSHIP DEFINED
“There are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are
persons who have attempted to define the concept”.
Abraham Zaleznik of HBS argues that leaders and managers are
different kinds of people. They differ in
- motivation
- personal history
- low they think and act
Colleague of Zaleznik also argues that leadership and management are
two different things. Leaders establish direction a vision for the future;
then they align people by communicating this vision and inspiring them
to overcome hurdles. Managers bring about order and consistency by
drawing up plans and monitoring results against plans.
According to Robins, leadership is ability to influence a group
toward the achievement of goals.
The source of this influence may be formal, such as that provided
by possession of managerial position in an organization. It could also be
a non-sanctioned - that is, the ability to influence others that arises
outside the formal structure of the organization.
Leadership is a process and status. Directors, executives,
administrators, managers and bosses would generally fall into the
category called “leader”. According to George R. Terry, “Leadership is
the activity of influencing people to strive willingly for group objectives”
Keith Davis has defined leadership as follows
“Leadership is a part of management but not all of it. A manager is
required to plan and organise, for example, but all we ask of leaders is
that they influence others to follow...... Leadership is the ability to
persuade others to seek defined objectives enthusiastically. It is the
human factor which binds a group together and motivates it towards
goals. Management activities such as planning, organising, and decision
making are dormant cocoons until the leader triggers the power of
motivation and guides them towards goals.”
This connotation stresses the roles of leadership in eliciting
behavioral responses which are more than routine. It suggests the
“tapping” of latent human abilities in achieving group objectives.
3. STUDIES ON LEADERSHIP
In the preceding section, leadership has been defined as the
process of influencing the behaviour of others in a particular situation.
“In essence, leadership involves accomplishing goals with and through
people.” In the following section the various schools of thought regarding
leadership will be dealt with.
3.1 Frederick W. Taylor :
1. The basis for this severity in approach to management was
technological by nature.
2. Considered men as instruments or machines to be
manipulated by the leader.
3. The leader had to, therefore, set up performance criteria in
order to meet organisational objectives. The leader focussed all his
attention to the needs of the organisational rather than on the needs of
the individual.
3.2 Elton Mayo :
1. The emphasis in this movement was on human relations.
2. The real power centres in the organisation were the
interpersonal relationships.
3. The organisation was assumed to develop around the
worker and his feelings.
4. The leader was, therefore, to facilitate the attainment of
organisational goals while at the same time ensuring the atmosphere for
personal growth and development. The emphasis was no longer only on
organisational needs but on individual needs as well.
3.3 Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt
1. Differentiated between the democratic and authoritarian
approach. While the authoritarian approach dealt with telling people how
to do things, the democratic approach dealt with sharing responsibility
by involving workers in both planning and execution of tasks.
2. In the authoritarian style, all policies are decided by the
leader. In the democratic set up all policies are decided upon in
consultation with the workers.
3.4 Michigan Leadership Studies
1. These studies identified two concepts - employee
orientation and production orientation.
2. Employee-oriented leaders stress the relationship aspect of
jobs; the production oriented leaders stress the technical aspects of the
job.
3.5. Group-Dynamics Studies
1. Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander summarizing the
findings of numerous studies claim that leadership in organisations falls
into two categories (a) the achievement of specific group goals, and (b)
the maintenance or strengthening of the group itself.
2. In (a), the leader “initiates action - keeps members attention
on the goals... clarifies the issue and develops a procedural plan.” In (b)
the leader “keeps interpersonal relations pleasant... arbitrates dispute..
provides encouragement.. gives the minority a chance to be heard.....
stimulates self direction.... and increase the interdependence among
member.
3.6 Ohio State Leadership Studies
1. These studies were initiated by the Bureau of Business
Research at Ohio State University in 1945.
2. The study of leadership was divided into the following
categories. (a) Initiating structure (b) Consideration.
3. (a) refers to “the leader’s behaviour in delineating the
relationship between himself and members of the work group and in
endeavouring to establish well-defined patterns of organisation channels
of communication, and methods of procedure.
4. (b) refers to “behaviour indicative of friendship, mutual trust,
respect, and warmth in the relationship between the leader and the
members of his staff.”
3.7 Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton
1. The findings of the Ohio State Studies as well as of
Cartwright and Zander were further developed and pupularised by Blake
and Mouton in the new approach called the “Managerial Grid.”
According to this approach, there are five leadership styles.
4. INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF LEADERSHIP
More recently, researchers have focused specifically on
contingency aspects that influence effective leadership. These
approaches have particularly important implications for comparative
management, which by definition concerns leadership in different
situations. A general integrative model of leadership appears in Figure
1.
This model shows show leaders’ behaviour is affected by
situational, leader, and subordinate characteristics and how such
behavior affects performance outcomes. The model also easily captures
the role of culture. Leader characteristics, subordinate characteristics,
and the nature of the situation are all culturally determined. Differences
in these dimensions across cultures will yield different bahaviors and
different performance outcomes. Although this model is a general one,
there are more specific contingency models as well. Three well-known
situational theories are Fielder’s Contingency Theory (1967), Vroom and
Yetton’s Normative Model (1973) and the Path-Goals theory of
leadership (House & Mitchell, 1974).
Fiedler’s model of leadership, one of the best-known models, has
generated a considerable amount of research. This is a contingency
model because the situation is considered along with the leader’s
personality as a determinant of the leader’s effectiveness. According to
Fiedler, this model can help predict which leaders would be most
effective in which situations. The model, thus, has many implications for
recruiting selecting, and placing leaders. A central aspect of this theory
is that leader differ in a personality variable (called LPC) that indicates
the extent of their social responsiveness. The LPC score measures and
leader’s feelings about an individual with whom they work least
effectively.
Leaders with low LPC scores are their least-preferred co-worker in
negative terms, whereas the high LPC leaders do not impute negative
attributes to those with whom they have difficulty working. The
correlation between a leader’s LPC score and group effectiveness is
highly related to the favourableness of the situation. A very favorable
situation is one in which the task is structured, the leader has high
position power, and leader-member relations are good).
The basic thesis is that low LPC leaders do well in extremely
favourable and unfavourable situations whereas high LPC leaders do
well in moderately favorable situations. It is unclear exactly what the
LPC scale measures and whether such differences would also be
apparent in non-Western societies. However, this line of research has
clearly demonstrated the importance of the situation in determining
leader effectiveness.
From a cross-cultural perspective, a contingency theory seems
appealing. Conditions vary across cultures; a theory that has some
applicability in one culture may be irrelevant in another. For example,
Bennett (1977) found that high-performing bank managers in the
Philippines are low in Fiedler’s LPC scale, whereas comparable
manages in Hong Kong score was high on it. Just as contingencies vary
across culture, so does the relationship between LPC scores and
performances.
5. PATH-GOAL THEORY
The path-goal theory is another contingency theory that seeks to
explain the leadership style most conducive to group satisfaction and
effectiveness. Figure 2 summarizes the various path-goal relationships.
In recent years, Evan (1970) and House (1971) have popularized
this theory. It postulates that leaders most try to influence their
subordinates’ perception of the paths for achieving goals and of the
goals’ desirability. The leadership style most appropriate for increasing
motivation depends as well on the subordinates personal characteristics
and on the native of the task demands.
The leadership model (see Figure 2) shows the nature of the
various leadership styles - instrumental, supportive, participative and
achievement oriented. It also shows how subordinates’ characteristics
and the nature of the work environment influence these styles. A cultural
dimension exists within this theory : after all, cultures are likely to differ
in terms of subordinates’ and leaders’ personal characteristics, thus
implying that different managerial styles will be appropriate in dealing
with them.
The path-goal theory is not explicitly normative, but because the
optimal style depends on the nature of the contingency. it does have
normative implications. Vroom and Yetton’s model (1973), on the other
hand, is prescriptive and is based on the assumption that no single
leadership style is applicable to all situations.
This model’s focus is the degree of subordinate participation that
is appropriate in a given situation. Vroom and Yetton have developed a
series of problem attributes that together determine the appropriate
managerial style, ranging from no subordinate participation to group
decision making. Again, it is questionable whether these problem
attributes are transferable to non-Western cultures; however, the
significant conclusion (from a comparative management point of view) is
that styles ranging from highly autocratic to highly democratic can be
effective in particular situations. They clearly implies that managers
must fit the decision-making process to a particular situation and that a
leadership style that is effective is one culture may be ineffective in
another.
Although all these theories are useful in emphasizing the various
important facets to leadership, we must remember that much of the
underlying research took place within a particular country. Moreover,
reporting of cultural differences in leadership in the business literature
before 1966 was almost entirely anecdotal. The formal study of such
differences had been the domain of cultural anthropologists ; it was
hardly considered an area of legitimate concern for international
business research. The systematic study of cross-cultural variations in
leadership began with the publications of major research findings by
Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter in 1966. Since the publication of their book,
Managerial Thinking - An International Study, the volume of research in
cross-cultural leadership has increased dramatically ; as a result, more
is now understood regarding both similarities and differences in
leadership styles across cultures (in particular, see Bass, 1981 : Heller &
Wilpert, 1981 : Tannenbaum, 1980 : Bass & Burger, 1979; and Barrett &
Bass, 1976).
6. SITUATIONAL VERSUS TRAIT APPROACH TO THE STUDY
OF LEADERSHIP
In the past there were various approaches to the study of
leadership. Some of these graphology, the analysis of handwriting;
phrenology, the study of the shapes of the skulls; and sometimes
biography, the study of the lives of the leaders; demography, the study
of the family background of leaders. However, all these approaches
failed to give much insight into the causes of leadership.
More recently the study of leadership has been concentrated on
leadership per se. This suggests that there are certain characteristics
essential for leadership. This is known as the “trait approach.” The trait
approach to leadership was very popular during the period of 1930 to
1950. A review of the literature dealing with the trait approach to
leadership scarcely reveals any consistent findings. Eugene. E.
Jennings concludes. “Fifty years of study have failed to produce one
personally trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate
leaders and non-leaders”. Trait study has not produced the clear results
because it doe snot consider the whole leadership environment.
Personal characteristics or traits are only one part of the whole
environment. Although a certain trait may exist in an individual it will
continue to remain dormant unless activated by the environment.
Empirical studies have shown that leadership is a dynamic process,
which varies from one situation to another, depending on the change in
leaders, the followers and the situations. Today, therefore, the tendency
is towards situational rather than the trait approach to leadership.
On the other hand, in the situational approach, the focus is on the
observed behavior - not on any hypothetical ability or inborn trait of the
leader. The emphasised is on the behaviour and his group in any given
situation. It is therefore encouraging to note that with the emphasis on
the behavior rather than or traits, it’s possible to train individuals to
become leaders. By observing the behavior of individual in certain
situations, models or patterns of behavior in particular situation can be
evolved which in their turn can help leaders.
7. LEADERSHIP STYLES
7.1 Spectrum of ways to influence
“The leadership style of an individual is the behavior pattern that
person exhibits when attempting to influence the activities of others as
perceived by those others.. A person’s leadership style involves some
combination of either task behavior or relationship behaviour. In the
following figure, a spectrum of ways to influence behavior is indicated.
Several distinct means are identified-emulation, suggestion, persuasion
and coercion - ranging from indirect or subtle approaches to very
forceful method.
Emulation : Striving to equal or excel;
Imitating with effort to equal or surpass;
Approaching or attaining equality.
Suggestion : Placing or bringing an idea, proposition or plan before
a person’s mind for consideration or possible action.
Persuasion : To prevail on a person by advice, inducements,
cajoling, urging.
Coercion : Constrain, force, compel - to the extent of using
physical pressure.
In discussion leadership styles, it becomes essential to
differentiate between power and authority. Power and/or authority
underlie and entire spectrum of ways of influence behaviour.
Power : Power is the ability to induce psychological or
behavioral change. Power is latent force which even when remaining
latent can influence behaviour.
Authority : Authority is generally defined as “institutional power.”
It is special subclass of power. It is the institutionalised right of an
individual to induce psychological or behavioural change in another.
Authority is generally described in terms of three basic categories :
1. Charismatic - Leaders who are charismatic usually possess
‘magical’ qualities. Charismatic authority evolves into institutionalised
authority over a period of time through a process of stabilisation.
2. Traditional authority evolves into rational authority through formal
legitimisation.
3. Rational authority is formal, institutional authority that has the
sanction of the governed.
The power of authority, depends on the consent of the governed.
Authority gives a person power to act officially. However, this power
becomes meaningless unless those governed accept it and respond to
it.
Although there are several power classifications, the most widely
used is the schedule of power developed by French and Raven.
According to them there are five different basis of power :
1. Coercive Power - this is based on fear and therefore the change
in the behaviour of the governed is only temporary of short lived. As long
as the fear of punishment is there - the change is there.
2. Legitimate Power - is legalised power. The governed comply by
virtue of the position of the leader in the organisation.
3. Expert Power - is dependent on the leader’s skill or expertise. The
respect those governed have for the leader’s expertise entitles him to
their compliance.
4. Reward Power - is based on the leader’s ability to provide
rewards to those he governs.
5. Referrent Power - personal traits of the leader. He is generally
liked by his subordinates and hence able to influence them.
Later Raven in collaboration with Kruglanksi identified a sixth
power - information power.
6. Information Power - is dependent on the leader’s access to
information that is considered valuable by subordinates.
7. Connection Power - is based on the leader’s “connections” with
influential or important persons. More powerful the connection, more
powerful the power.
7.2 Determinants of style.
The style of leaders is the behaviour patterns they consistently
use when working with other people. These patterns are “perceived” by
others and the patterns emerge over a period of time. Tannenbaum and
Schmidt suggest that those internal forces influence are individual’s
leadership style :
The individual’s value system.
The degree of confidence in his subordinates.
His personal inclinations
His feelings of security in situations of uncertainty.
It is important to note that leadership style has nothing to do with
what leaders think or do in a situation - but rather how their followers
perceive their behaviour. It is therefore important for a leader to know
whether he is “reaching out” to others. People are often not honest
about this in their relationship with one another.
A common method is T-Group Training. This method was
developed by Leland P. Brandfod and Kenneth D. Berge at Bathel,
Maine, in 1947. It is based on the assumption that individuals who meet
in an informal open group will develop working conditions that will help
them learn about themselves as perceived by others.
The training process relates primarily and almost exclusively to
the behaviour experienced by the participant... In short, the participants
learn to analyse and become more sensitive to the process of human
interaction and acquire concepts to order and control these phenomena.
What are the basic leadership styles ? How does each style differ
from the other ? These questions are answered in the following table.
Leadership Styles.
------------------------------------Authoritarian Democratic Laissez-faire
------------------------------------
1. Policy All policies are Policies are a matter Complete freedom
by the leader of discussion of the for policy making
group, encouraged with a minimum of
and assisted by the leader participation
2. Techniques Techniques dictated Technique result of Leader supplies
by leader, gradually group discussion and information only
or one at a group perception when asked. Does
time so that future taken into not take an active
remains uncertain consideration, the part in the
leader may only discussion
suggest alternative
procedures.
3. Involve- The leader dictates The division of tasks Total non-participa-
ment the quantum of work and the manner of tion of leader
and the manner of execution left to the
carrying it out. group.
4. Obser- The leader tends to be The leader is both Spontaneous thou-
vation “aloof” from the group objective, yet invol- gh infrequent
There is scarcely and ved with the group comments and
and personal contact makes no attempt
to regulate the
course of events
---------------------------------------
8. SYNTHESIZING MANAGEMENT THEORY : A HOLISTIC
APPROACH
8.1 SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MOTIVATION
One way classifying high strength motives is Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs, goals that tend to satisfy these needs can be described by
Herzberg’s hygiene factors and motivators. Both these framework can
be integrated in Situational Leadership in terms of their relation to
various maturity levels and appropriate leadership styles that have a
high probability of satisfying these needs or providing the corresponding
goals, as illustrated in Figure 3.
It should be stressed that the relationship of theories (Maslow and
Herzberg) to maturity levels in Situational Leadership are not
necessarily absolute, direct correlations; they are integrative bench
marks for practitioners to use in attempting to make better decisions for
managing human resources. As a result, styles suggested as
appropriate for one concept might not be exclusively for that concept;
other styles may also satisfy these needs or goals to some degree. This
caution will hold true throughout our discussion in this chapter.
Upon examining Figure 3, one can begin to plot the styles that
tend to be appropriate for working with people motivated by the various
high strength needs described by Maslow. At the same time, leadership
styles S1, S2, S3 tend to provide goals consistent with satisfying
hygiene factors, where styles S3 and S4 seem to facilitate the
occurrence of the motivators.
8.2 SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ORGANISATIONAL
GROWTH
Organizations might be able to grow and develop over time
without the crisis of revolutionary phases. This could occur if after the
phase of creativity managers moved their organization through the
growth phases in an order consistent with Situational Leadership.
An illustrated in Figure 4 the crisps of leadership might be averted
by moving from the phase of creativity right into the phase of direction;
the crisis of autonomy, control, and red tape might be averted by moving
from the direction phase right into the coordination, phase, then into the
collaboration phase, and finally into delegation.
8.3 SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE
Whenever we talk about initiating change a first step is
determining the maturity level of the people with whom we are working.
If they are low in maturity - dependent and unwilling to take
responsibility for the change - they will tend to require more unfreezing
than if you are working with people who are moderate or high on
maturity. As illustrated in Figure 5, leadership styles S1 and S2 tend to
play a major role in terms of unfreezing; the emphasis in S2 and S3
styles is on the change process; and S3 and S4 stress the refreezing
process.
One of the techniques used to increase maturity is behavior
modification as illustrated in Figure 6. When working with immature
people, at first leader tend to cut back on structure, giving individuals an
opportunity to take some responsibility. When leaders get the smallest
approximation of mature behaviour, they must immediately increase the
socioemotional support as positive reinforcement. This starlike process
(cut back on structure and then increase socioemotional support)
continues until the change or changes start to become a habit as the
people mature. At that point, leaders tend also to cut back on
reinforcement as they move toward S4 and a low relationship/low task
style. If done earlier, this cutback on socioemotional support would have
appeared as punishment to low or moderately mature people. But to
people of high maturity, the fact that their leader tends to leave them
alone is positive reinforcement not only in terms of the task but also in
terms of socioemotional support. Concept of contingency contracting
illustrates the gradual development movement (associated with
behaviour modification) from leader control (S1) to partial control by
follower (S2) to equal control (S2 and S3) to partial control by leader
(S3) and finally to follower control (S4).
An illustrated in Figure 7, S1 and S2 styles seem to be consistent
with the behaviours associated with a directive change cycle, while S3
and S4 are more representative of a participative change cycle. In a
participative change cycle, the change beings at the knowledge level
and eventually moves to the organization level, while the directive
change cycle starts with changes in the organization and gradually
moves toward changes in knowledge and attitudes.
An also shown in Figure 7 S1 and S2 styles tend to be
appropriate for building on strong driving forces; S3 and S4 styles seem
appropriate for attempting to overcome restraining forces. In increasing
the driving forces, the emphasis seems to be on short-term output; when
attempting to eliminate restraining forces, the concern is more with
building intervening variables and concentrating on long-term goals. It
should be emphasized that these are only tendencies and bench-marks,
and it should be recognized that under certain conditions other styles
might be appropriate.
REFERENCE
1. Mercy Anselm, Organizational Behaviour : Towards an integrated
Organization ; Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay PP. 134-137.
2. Ronen Simcha, Comparative & Multinational Management, Wiley
Series International Business,1986, New York pp. 194-197.
3. Heeley Paul Blanchard Ken, Management of Organization
Behaviour : Utilizing Human Resources. 4th edition, Prentice Hall of
India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. 1985.
LEADERSHIP
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION1
2. LEADERSHIP DEFINED2
3. STUDIES ON LEADERSHIP3
3.1 Frederich W.Taylor4
3.2 Fulton Mayo4
3.3 Robert Tannenbaum and Waven H. Schmidt5
3.4 Machigan Leadership Studies5
3.5 Group - Dynamics Studies6
3.6 Ohio State Ledearship Studies6
3.7 Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton7
4. INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF LEADERSHIP8
5. PATH-GOAL THEORY10
6. SITUATIONAL VS TRAIT APPROACH13
7. LEADERSHIP STYLES.15
7.1 Spectrum of ways to Influence15
7.2 Determinants of Leadership Style18
8. SYNTHESIZING MANAGEMENT THEORY :
A HOLISTIC APPROACH21
8.1 Situational Leadership and Motivation21
8.2 Situational Leadership and Organizational Growth22
8.3 Situational Leadership and Change.22
REFERENCE