tegsjdgjshdjsdug

Contingency Theories Of Leadership

What is leadership?Leadership has been defined as a social process that involves determining the groups objectives, motivating behavior in pursuit of the objectives, and influencing maintenance and culture (Lewis et al 1994:425).Similarly, Burns defines leadership as inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and motivations the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectation of both leaders and followers (Burns 1978).

How contingency theory is part of leadership?The contingency approach to leadership was influenced by two earlier research programs try to pinpoint effective leadership behavior. These research have given rise to multiple sets of leadership behavior which were originally identified based on the questionnaires, the researcher have seen that two types of behaviors proved to be especially typical of effective leaders:- Consideration leader behaviors that include building good rapport and interpersonal relationships and showing support and concern for subordinates.- Initiating structure leader behaviors that provided structure (e.g. role assignment. planning, scheduling) to ensure task completion and goal attainment.The research suggested that previous theories such as Webers bureaucracy and Taylor scientific management has failed because they omitted that management style and organizational structure were influenced by various aspects of the environment: the contingency factors.

What is contingency theory?Contingency Theory is a behavioral theory based on their views that there is no one best way to lead organisation, to set up a corporation or to make decision. Contingency theory states that these actions are dependant to the internal and external factors. Thus, it states that there is no single theory of contingency management.

Some important contingencies for organisations are:- Technology- Supplies and distributers- Customers and competitors- Consumer interest groups- Government- Unions

Aspects/Characteristics of Contingency Theory

Contingency theory focuses its spotlight on the company's external environment, giving priority to what happens outside the organization before digging into the internals of the organizational structure. This approach seeks a balance between the two contexts, where the organization gets the most out of their environmental circumstances to ensure its success as a company.

According to (Hall 1973), external factors can be divided into general and specific influences. The first variables are aspects such as technological, economic, legal and political, while the latter are composed of areas that particularly affect the organization, such as other organizations or key individuals.

The two most important elements of general influences are technology and environment (and Weihrich Koontz, 2004), whose exchange with the organization's internal factors makes this take certain forms of structure and behavior to adapt to the external environment.

The external aspects of the organization act as independent variables on the modes of internal organization of the company, which are dependent variables of the first. This relationship, however, is not established as a cause-effect, but as a decision making organization leaders on the choice of the most effective alternative to external circumstances

Definitely Contingency theory posits that there is a functional relationship between environmental conditions and appropriate management techniques to effectively achieve the objectives of the organization. In this functional relationship, the environmental variables are considered independent variables while management techniques are used as dependent variables.

FIEDLER CONTINGENCY THEORY

Fred Edward Fiedler is one of the leading researchers in Industrial and Organisational Psychology of the 20th Century. He studied the personality and characteristics of leaders and in the 1967, he introduced the Contingency modelling of leadership, with the famous Fiedler Contingency Model.The Fiedler model proposes that effective group performance depends upon the proper match between the leaders style of interacting with followers and the degree to which the situation allows the leader to control and influence.Thus, the model states that there is no one best style of leadership and postulates that the leader's effectiveness is based on situational contingency which is a result of interaction of two factors: 1. Leadership Style2. Situational Favourableness

Leadership StyleThe first major factor in Fiedlers theory is known as the leadership style. This is the consistent system of interaction that takes place between a leader and work group. "According to Fiedler, an individuals leadership style depends upon his or her personality and is, thus, fixed". In order to classify leadership styles, Fiedler has developed an index called the least-preferred co-worker (LPC) scale. The LPC scale asks a leader to think of all the persons with whom he or she has ever worked, and then to describe the one person with whom he or she worked the least well with. This person can be someone from the past or someone he or she is currently working with.The LPC scale asks a leader to think of all the people with whom they have ever worked and then describe the person, with whom they have worked least well, using a series of bipolar scales of 1 to 8, such as the following:

This method reveals an individuals emotional reaction to people with whom he or she cannot work. It is also stressed that is not always an accurate measurement."According to Fiedler, the effectiveness of a leader is determined by the degree of match between a dominant trait of the leader and the favourableness of the situation for the leader.... The dominant trait is a personality factor causing the leader to either relationship-orientated or task-orientated.Leaders who describe their preferred co-worker in favourable terms, with a high LPC, are purported to derive major satisfaction from establishing close relationships with fellow workers. High LPC leaders are said to be relationship-orientated. These leaders see that good interpersonal relations as a requirement for task accomplishment. Leaders who describe their least preferred co-worker unfavourable terms, with a low LPC, are derived major satisfaction by successfully completing a task. These leaders are said to be task-orientated. They are more concerned with successful task accomplishment and worry about interpersonal relations later.Situational FavourablenessThe second major factor in Fiedlers theory is known as situational favorableness or environmental variable. This basically is defined as the degree a situation enables a leader to exert influence over a group. Fiedler then extends his analysis by focusing on three key situational factors, which are: Leader Member RelationIt is measured through the degree of liking and acceptance of the leader by the group members. Fiedler maintains that the leader will have more influence if they maintain good relationships with group members who like, respect, and trust them, than if they do not.

Task StructureIt is the extent to which the task is structured and defined, with clear goals and procedures. Fiedler explains that task structure is the second most important factor in determining structural favourableness. He contends that highly structured tasks, which specify how a job is to be done in detail, provide a leader with more influences over group actions than do unstructured tasks. Position PowerThe ability of a leader to control subordinates through rewards and punishment. Finally, as for position power, leads who have the power to hire and fire, discipline and reward, have more power than those who do not. Application of Fiedler Contingency ModelRelationship between Leadership style and Situational FavourablenessGraphic representation:Fiedlers Contingency Theory shows the relationship between the leaders orientation or style and group performance under differing situational conditions.

The theory is based on determining the orientation of the leader (relationship or task), the elements of the situation (leader-member relations, task structure, and leader position power), and the leader orientation that was found to be most effective as the situation changed from low to moderate to high control.

Fiedler found that task oriented leaders were more effective in low and moderate control situations and relationship oriented leaders were more effective in moderate control situations.

Relationship Orientated

High LPC leaders are more concerned with personal relations, more sensitive to the feelings of others, and better off at heading off conflict. They use their good relations with the group to get the job done. They are better able to deal with the complex issues in making decisions.

In high control situations, they tend to become bored and are no longer challenged. They may seek approval from their superiors ignoring their subordinates, or they may try to reorganize the task. As a result, they often become inconsiderate toward their subordinates, more punishing, and more concerned with performance of the task.

In moderate control situations, they focus on group relations. They reduce the anxiety and tension of group members, and thus reduce conflict. They handle creative decision making groups well. They see this situation as challenging and interesting and perform well in it.

In low control situations, they become absorbed in obtaining group support often at the expense of the task. Under extremely stressful situations, they may also withdraw from the leadership role, failing to direct the groups work.

Task Orientated

Low LPC leaders are more concerned with the task, and less dependent on group support. They tend to be eager and impatient to get on with the work. They quickly organize the job and have a no-nonsense attitude about getting the work done.

In moderate control situations, they tend to be anxious and less effective. This situation is often characterized by group conflict, which low LPC leaders do not like to handle. They become absorbed in the task and pay little attention to personal relations in the group. They tend to be insensitive to the feelings of their group members, and the group resents the lack of concern.

In high control situations, they tend to relax and to develop pleasant relations with subordinates. They are easy to get along with. As the work gets done, they do not interfere with the group or expect interference from their superiors.

In low control situations, they devote themselves to their challenging task. They organize and drive the group to task completion. They also tend to control the group tightly and maintain strict discipline. Group members often respect low LPC leaders for enabling them to reach the groups goals in difficult situations.

With knowledge of an individuals LPC score and assessment of the 3 contingency dimension, the Fiedlers model matching them up, to achieve maximum leadership effectiveness.

He concluded that task oriented leader tend to perform better in situation that are very favourable to them instead of unfavourable condition so, Fiedler predict that when task oriented leader faced with category I,II,III,VII,VIII situation perform better.

Relationship oriented leader however perform better in moderately favourable situation with category IV,V,VI. Thus we can say task-oriented leader perform best in situation of high and low control while relationship oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situation.

Examples of Fiedler Contingency Model Task-oriented leadership would be advisable in natural disaster, like a flood or fire. In an uncertain situation the leader-member relations are usually poor, the task is unstructured, and the position power is weak. The task-oriented leader who gets things accomplished proves to be the most successful. If the leader is considerate (relationship-oriented), he or she may waste so much time in the disaster, which may lead things to get out of control and lives might get lost.

Blue-collar workers generally want to know exactly what they are supposed to do. Therefore, their work environment is usually highly structured. The leader's position power is strong if management backs his or her decision. Finally, even though the leader may not be relationship-oriented, leader-member relations may be extremely strong if he or she is able to gain promotions and salary increases for subordinates. Under these situations is the task-oriented style of leadership is preferred over the (considerate) relationship-oriented style.

The considerate (relationship-oriented) style of leadership can be appropriate in an environment where the situation is moderately favourable or certain. For example, when (1) leader-member relations are good, (2) the task is unstructured, and (3) position power is weak. Situations, like this exists with research scientists, who do not like superiors to structure the task for them. They prefer to follow their own creative leads in order to solve problems. In a situation like this a considerate style of leadership is preferred over the task-oriented.

Strengths of Fiedler Contingency Model One of the biggest strengths of this approach is the amount of research that has backed the theory. It is also the first major approach that emphasized the impact of the situation on leaders, it is predictive of effectiveness, it allows leaders to not be effective in all situations, and it can provide useful leadership profile data.

Weaknesses of Fiedler Contingency Model This approach stem from some lags in information and explanation. For example, the theory does not provide an adequate link between styles and situations. Also, it relies too heavily on the LPC measure, which has been criticized for its face validity, and workability, as it does not correlate well with another leadership measures. It also fails to explain what to do in case there is mismatch between the leader and the situation in the workplace.Overview of the Fiedler Contingency ModelDespite all the criticism, Fiedler's contingency theory is an important theory because it established a brand new perspective for the study of leadership. Many approaches after Fiedler's theory have adopted the contingency perspective.Fred Fiedler's situational contingency theory holds that group effectiveness depends on an appropriate match between a leader's style (essentially a trait measure) and the demands of the situation. Fiedler considers situational control the extent to which a leader can determine what his or her group is going to do to be the primary contingency factor in determining the effectiveness of leader behaviour.

Hersley and Blanchard leadership theoryHersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership TheoryThe Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory was created by Dr Paul Hersey, a professor and author of "The Situational Leader," and Ken Blanchard, author of the best selling "One-Minute Manager," among others.The theory states that instead of using just one style, successful leaders should change their leadership styles based on the maturity of the people they're leading and the details of the task. Using this theory, leaders should be able to place more or less emphasis on the task, and more or less emphasis on the relationships with the people they're leading, depending on what's needed to get the job done successfully.Assumptions of Situational Leadership

Leaders should adapt their style to follower maturity, based on how ready and willing the follower is to perform required tasks (that is, their competence and motivation). There are four leadership styles that match the four combinations of high/low readiness and willingness. The four styles suggest that leaders should put greater or less focus on the task in question and/or the relationship between the leader and the follower. Presumes that leadership is about how the boss makes decisions.

Leadership Styles

According to Hersey and Blanchard, there are four main leadership styles:Telling (S1) Leaders tell their people what to do and how to do it.

Selling (S2) Leaders provide information and direction, but there's more communication with followers. Leaders "sell" their message to get people on board.

Participating (S3) Leaders focus more on the relationship and less on direction. The leader works with the team, and shares decision-making responsibilities.

Delegating (S4) Leaders pass most of the responsibility onto the follower or group. The leaders still monitor progress, but they're less involved in decisions.As you can see, styles S1 and S2 are focused on getting the task done. Styles S3 and S4 are more concerned with developing team members' abilities to work independently.

Maturity LevelsAccording to Hersey and Blanchard, knowing when to use each style is largely dependent on the maturity of the person or group you're leading. They break maturity down into four different levels: M1 People at this level of maturity are at the bottom level of the scale. They lack the knowledge, skills, or confidence to work on their own, and they often need to be pushed to take the task on. M2 at this level, followers might be willing to work on the task, but they still don't have the skills to complete it successfully. M3 Here, followers are ready and willing to help with the task. They have more skills than the M2 group, but they're still not confident in their abilities. M4 These followers are able to work on their own. They have high confidence and strong skills, and they're committed to the task.

The Hersey-Blanchard model maps each leadership style to each maturity level, as shown below.

Maturity LevelMost Appropriate Leadership Style

M1: Low maturityS1: Telling/directing

M2: Medium maturity, limited skillsS2: Selling/coaching

M3: Medium maturity, higher skills but lacking confidenceS3: Participating/supporting

M4: High maturityS4: Delegating

Development Level of the Follower D4 High Competence, High Commitment Experienced at the job, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. May even be more skilled than the leader. D3 High Competence, Variable Commitment Experienced and capable, but may lack the confidence to go it alone, or the motivation to do it well / quickly. D2 Some Competence, Low Commitment May have some relevant skills, but wont be able to do the job without help. The task or the situation may be new to them. D1 Low Competence, High Commitment Generally lacking the specific skills required for the job in hand, but has the confidence and / or motivation to tackle it.Similar to the leadership styles, the development levels are also situational. A person could be skilled, confident and motivated for one part of his his job, but could be less competent for another part of the job.Blanchard and Hersey said that the Leadership Style (S1 S4) of the leader must correspond to the Development level (D1 D4) of the follower and its the leader who adapts. By adopting the right style to suit the followers development level, work gets done, relationships are built up, and most importantly, the followers development level will rise to D4, to everyones benefit.

Steps in Situational Leadership. Process1. Make an overview per employee of his/her tasks2. Assess the employee on each task (D1D4)3. Decide on the leadership (management) style per task (S1S4)4. Discuss the situation with the employee5. Make a joint plan6. Follow-up, check and correct

Pro's The simplicity of the theory makes it easy to apply. The theory has simple scales that a leader can use to give a "thumb in the wind" assessment of what leadership style to use. Maturity and competence of the group are often overlooked factors in good leadership and it helps to focus on these.Con's The theory may not be applicable to managers as administrators or those with limited power but in structurally in a leadership position. There are situations in which the theory may be less applicable such as those involving time constraints and task complexity. Testing of the theory doesn't seem to bear out the predictions

Leadership Style Examples1. You're about to leave for an extended holiday, and your tasks will be handled by an experienced colleague. He's very familiar with your responsibilities, and he's excited to do the job.Instead of trusting his knowledge and skills to do the work, you spend hours creating a detailed list of tasks for which he'll be responsible, and give full instructions on how to do them.The result? Your work gets done, but you've damaged the relationship with your colleague by your lack of trust. He was an M4 in maturity, and yet you used an S1 leadership style instead of an S4, which would have been more appropriate.2. You've just been put in charge of leading a new team. It's your first time working with these people. As far as you can tell, they have some of the necessary skills to reach the department's goals, but not all of them. The good news is that they're excited and willing to do the work.You estimate they're at an M3 maturity level, so you use the matching S3 leadership style. You coach them through the project's goals, pushing and teaching where necessary, but largely leaving them to make their own decisions. As a result, their relationship with you is strengthened, and the team is successful.

Victor vroom and Philip Yetton decision model Victor H. Vroom is a business school professor at theYale School of Management. He holds a PhD fromUniversity of Michigan. Vroom's primary research was on theexpectancy theoryofmotivation, which attempts to explain why individuals choose to follow certain courses of action in organizations, particularly in decision-making and leadership. His most well-known books areWork and Motivation,Leadership and Decision MakingandThe New Leadership. Vroom has also been a consultant to a number of corporations such asGEandAmerican Express.Vroom's second major model, as developed with Philip Yetton, shows how different leadership styles can be effectively harnessed in solving different types of problems. According to this model, the effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a number of aspects of the situation: the importance of the decision quality and acceptance the amount of relevant information possessed by the leader and subordinates; the likelihood that subordinates will accept an autocratic decision or cooperate in trying to make a good decision if allowed to participate; The amount of disagreement among subordinates with respect to their preferred alternatives.Vroom and Yetton developed a set of rules which can be used to determine the level and form of participation in the decision-making process which will support the best solution in different problem-solving situations. New managers may think they must make decisions alone, but according to this model but this model clearly believes that this is not the case. It outlines types of decision-making involved in both group problems that affect a manager's workgroup, and in individual problems that affect only the manager. VroomYetton contingency modelTheVroomYetton contingency modelis asituational leadership theoryofindustrial and organizational psychologydeveloped byVictor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988). The situational theory argues the best style of leadership is contingent to the situation. This model suggests the selection a leadership style forgroup decision making.

The three main factors needed while making decisions: The decision quality-The decision quality means simply that if the decision has a rational or objectively determinable better or worse alternative, the leader should select the better alternative. Vroom and Yetton intended quality in their model to apply when the decision could result in an objectively or measurably better outcome for the group or organization. In the for-profit sector, this criterion can be assessed in several ways, but perhaps the easiest to understand is, how important is it to come up with the "right" solution? The higher the quality of the decision needed, the more you should involve other people in the decision. Subordinate Commitment-How important is it that your team and others buy into the decision? When teammates need to embrace the decision you should increase the participation levels. Time Constraints - How much time do you have to make the decision? The more time you have, the more you have the luxury of including others, and of using the decision as an opportunity for teambuilding.

The way that these factors impact on you helps you determine the best leadership and decision-making style to use. Vroom-Jago distinguishes three styles of leadership, and five different processes of decision-making that you can consider using:Vroom-Jago distinguishes three styles of leadership, and five different processes of decision-making that you can consider using:Style:Autocratic you make the decision and inform others of it.There are two separate processes for decision making in an autocratic style:

Processes:Autocratic 1(A1) you use the information you already have and make the decision

Autocratic 2 (A2) you ask team members for specific information and once you have it, you make the decision. Here you don't necessarily tell them what the information is needed for.

Style:Consultative you gather information from the team and other and then make the decision.

Processes:Consultative 1 (C1) you inform team members of what you're doing and may individually ask opinions, however, the group is not brought together for discussion. You make the decision.

Consultative 2 (C2) you are responsible for making the decision, however, you get together as a group to discuss the situation, hear other perspectives, and solicit suggestions.

Style:Collaborative you and your team work together to reach a consensus.

Process:Group (G2) The team makes a decision together. Your role is mostly facilitative and you help the team come to a final decision that everyone agrees on.

In order to determine which of these styles and processes is most appropriate, there is a series of yes/no questions that you ask yourself about the situation, and building a decision tree based on the responses. There are seven questions in total: Is the technical quality of the decision very important? Meaning, are the consequences of failure significant? Does a successful outcome depend on your team members' commitment to the decision? Must there be buy-in for the solution to work? Do you have sufficient information to be able to make the decision on your own? Is the problem well-structured so that you can easily understand what needs to be addressed and what defines a good solution? Are you reasonably sure that your team will accept your decision even if you make it yourself? Are the goals of the team consistent with the goals the organization has set to define a successful solution? Will there likely be conflict among the team as to which solution is best?

The decision tree:

In general, a consultative or collaborative style is most appropriate when: You need information from others to solve a problem. The problem definition isn't clear. Team members' buy-in to the decision is important. You have enough time to manage a group decision.

An autocratic style is most efficient when: You have more expertise on the subject than others. You are confident about acting alone. The team will accept your decision. There is little time available.

Effectiveness of the vroom decision making model of leadership:

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-making Model of Leadership is highly flexible with respect to the choices a leader can make in effecting decisions. The range is from highly dictatorial to democratic. The method has a mechanical procedure to arrive at a decision making process.The idea of a procedure like this can be seen as "objective", that the results were not arrived at by a non-specific method. The central focus of the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-making Model of Leadership is to assess how the nature of the group, leader, and situation determine the degree to which the group is to be included in the decision-making process

The critiques of the model

The Decision-making Model of Leadership is quite mechanical, so mechanical that it may overlook subtleties, such as the psychological make-up of the leader, complexity of tasks, emotions of the group, vagueness of the terms (such as "importance" and "quality"), and dynamics. There is an issue with the validity of the model; it hasn't been tested adequately. The force of decision maker is leader-oriented and there is inadequate attention paid to leader-led interactions. While there is a provision for decision-making ultimately for democratic participation, the emphasis is on decision-making and emanating initially from the leader.

While the model gives a specified decision-making procedure, there are situations in which there may not be enough time to apply the model, such as in emergencies or where there are other situations that constrain time. Further, not every leader is predisposed or wanting to have a decision-making method thrust upon them.

Examples of companies using the vroom contingency model of leadership:

NBC Entertainment

A manager named Jeff Zucker at NBC Entertainment. He primarily conceptual style, which makes him well suited to the television industry. He consulted with dozens of programmers about possible new shows and likes to consider many broad alternatives before decision making.

Halliburton company

Halliburton Companyis an American multinational corporation and currently one of the world's largest oil field services companies with operations in more than 80 countries. It owns hundreds of subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, brands, and divisions worldwide and employs over 100,000 people.

Litton company The company which started in 1953 as anelectronicscompany buildingnavigation,communicationsandelectronic warfare equipment. They diversified and became a much bigger business, with majorshipyards, etc., and even manufacturingmicrowave ovens. These two companies have provided their managers with training in how to use the various versions of the model.

Path goal leadership styleThe theory was developed by Robert House and has its roots in the expectancy theory of motivation. The theory is based on the premise that an employees perception of expectancies between his effort and performance is greatly affected by a leaders behavior. The leaders help group members in attaining rewards by clarifying the paths to goals and removing obstacles to performance. They do so by providing the information, support, and other resources which are required by employees to complete the task.Houses theory advocatesservant leadership. As per servant leadership theory, leadership is not viewed as a position of power. Rather, leaders act as coaches and facilitators to their subordinates. According to Houses path-goal theory, a leaders effectiveness depends on several employee and environmental contingent factors and certain leadership styles. All these are explained as followed

House identified four leadership behaviors1. The directive leaderThe directive leader tells employees what is expected of them, schedules work, andgives specific guidance as to how to accomplish tasks. It parallels initiating structure.2. The supportive leaderThe supportive leaderis friendly and shows concern for the needs of employees. It isessentially synonymous with the dimension of consideration.3. The participative leaderThe participative leaderconsults with employees and uses their suggestions beforemaking a decision.4. The achievement-oriented leaderThe achievement-oriented leadersets challenging goals and expects employees toperform at their highest levels. The leader believes that employees are responsible enough to accomplish challenging goalsContingencies/characteristics:1. Employee CharacteristicsEmployees interpret their leader's behavior based on their needs, such as the degree of structure they need, affiliation, perceived level of ability, and desire for control. For example, if a leader provides more structure than what they need, they become less motivated. Thus a leader needs to understand their employees so they know how to best motivate them.2. Task and Environmental Characteristics/contingenciesOvercoming obstacles is a special focus of path-goal theory. If they become too strong, then the leader needs to step in. Some of the more difficult task characteristics that often arise are: Design of the task - The design of the task might call for the leader's support. For example, if the task is ambiguous, then the leader might have to give it more structure or an extremely difficult task might call for leader support. Formal authority system - Depending upon the task authority, the leader can provide clear goals and/or give the employee some or all control. Work group - If the team is non-supportive, then the leader needs to be cohesiveness and esprit-de-corps that provides comradeship, enthusiasm, and devotionto all team members.Leader EffectivenessThe theory has been subjected to empirical testing in several studies and has received considerable research support. This theory consistently reminds the leaders that their main role as a leader is to assist the subordinates in defining their goals and then to assist them in accomplishing those goals in the most efficient and effective manner. This theory gives a guide map to the leaders about how to increase subordinates satisfaction, performance level, and employee motivation and leader acceptance.

Pros &cons of path-goal theoryPros of Path-Goal Theory Helps understand how leader behavior effects subordinates satisfaction and work performance Deals directly with motivation- one of the only theories to address this. Provides a very practical model-make a clear path and follow it.Cons of Path-Goal Theory This is a very complex theory that incorporates many aspects of leadership Research only partially supports the theory. Fails to explain adequately the relationship between leader behaviors and subordinates motivation. Treats leadership as a one way street, places a majority of the responsibility o the leader.

Overview of path-goal theoryThe path-goal theory, path-goal theory of leader effectiveness, or path-goal model can be considered as a variant on Transactional Leadership Theory, where the leader clearly is directing activity and the only factor that varies is the manner in which this is done. There are some aspects of Contingency Theory, as well, where various means of application vary with the situation. The leader sees a path that needs to be tread, one leading to the accomplishment of a goal and she or he attempts to clear it and get the group members to tread on it. The leader may cajole command, reward or punish, get suggestions from the group, or sugar coat the tasks, if necessary, but it is clear that democracy is not the hallmark of this method.

16 | Page