The level three theories

Theory "X" - Theory "Y"

Douglas McGregor was interested in improving organizational effectiveness by applying knowledge

from the behavioral sciences to management practices. His now classic concepts regarding the nature
of people who work were basic to this pursuit. His work and his ideas regarding managerial
approaches to subordinate motivation are relevant for any organization in which individuals work
together for common goals.

McGregor proposed that all management practices stem from managers' personal "theories"
regarding the basic nature of people. McGregor proposed that the way in which a manager
interacts with superiors, peers and especially subordinates depends on the manager's philosophy
regarding cause and effect relationships in human behavior.

For example, the manager who assumes that subordinates generally cannot be trusted will select a
cluster of management practices which, in that manager's thinking, will best compensate for, or
capitalize on those perceived characteristics of subordinates. This manager may attempt to maintain
control through close supervision, demands for strict adherence to rules, and threats of punishment.
Such external controls seem clearly appropriate to the manger who believes human beings are
basically unreliable and irresponsible.

Theory X

McGregor summarized that the kinds of managerial practices described above can be derived only
from a set of assumptions about human nature which he labled Theory X, which assumes:

• Work is inherently distasteful to the average employee.

• Employees have little desire for responsibility, are not ambitious and prefer direction.
• Employees have low capacities for creativity in solving organizational problems.
• Employees are motivated by "creature comfort" and security needs.
• People work toward the organization's objectives or goals only if coerced and closely
controlled.

Theory Y

Theory "Y" suggests that people are motivated to obtain mastery over their world and to experience
feelings of self-respect, self-fulfillment and self-actualization in addition to their search for external
gratification. Theory "Y" assumptions include:

• The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play and rest.
• Employees are self-directed and do not require external control and the threat of punishment.
• Employees what to achieve.
• Employees seek responsibility.
• Employees have the capacity to exercise a high degree of imagination, ingenuity and
creativity.

Theory "X" and "Y" beliefs are the foundation of management values. These values effect how
managers and leaders interact with employees and are a driving factor in policy and decision making.
Management by objectives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (January 2008)

Management by Objectives (MBO) is a process of agreeing upon objectives within an

organization so that management and employees agree to the objectives and understand what
they are in the organization.

The term "management by objectives" was first popularized by Peter Drucker in his 1954 book
'The Practice of Management'.[1]

The essence of MBO is participative goal setting, choosing course of actions and decision
making. An important part of the MBO is the measurement and the comparison of the
employee’s actual performance with the standards set. Ideally, when employees themselves have
been involved with the goal setting and the choosing the course of action to be followed by them,
they are more likely to fulfill their responsibilities.

Features and Advantages

Unique features and advantage of the MBO process

The principle behind Management by Objectives (MBO) is to create empowered employees who
have clarity of the roles and responsibilities expected from them, understand their objectives to
be achieved and thus help in the achievement of organizational as well as personal goals.

Some of the important features and advantages of MBO are:

1. Motivation – Involving employees in the whole process of goal setting and increasing
employee empowerment increases employee job satisfaction and commitment.
2. Better communication and Coordination – Frequent reviews and interactions between
superiors and subordinates helps to maintain harmonious relationships within the
enterprise and also solve many problems faced during the period.
3. Clarity of goals – With MBO, came the concept of SMART goals[2] i.e. goals that are:
1. Specific
2. Measurable
3. Achievable
4. Relevant, and
5. Time bound.
The goals thus set are clear, motivating and there is a linkage between organizational goals and
performance targets of the employees.

The focus is on future rather than on past. Goals and standards are set for the performance for the
future with periodic reviews and feedback.

In some sectors (Healthcare, Finance etc.) many add ER to make SMARTER, The ER can have
many meanings including

• E=End-minded R=Ritualistic[3]
• E=Energizing, Exciting and Ethical Goals or E=Evaluate R=Reviewed and Resourced or
R= Redo Goals[4][5] or Recorded [6]
• E=Ecological - consider 'whole' self R=Reasons and Reward [7]

Path-Goal Theory (Robert House)

Summary
Study questions:

• What are the two primary goals of a leader/manager?

• Think of the most common categories of situations that might prevent workers from
achieving these goals?
• For each category of goals, what can the leader do to remove the barrier and get the
worker back on the path toward the goal?
• When might people prefer directive leadership (relate this to locus of control)

House proposes that the leader can affect the performance, satisfaction, and motivation of a
group in different ways:

• Offering rewards for achieving performance goals

• Clarifying paths towards these goals
• Removing obstacles to performance

A person may perform these by adopting a certain leadership style, based on the situation:

• Directive leadership: Specific advice is given to the group and ground rules and
structure are established. For example, clarifying expectations, specifying or assigning
certain work tasks to be followed.
• Supportive leadership: Good relations are promoted with the group and sensitivity to
subordinates' needs is shown.
• Participative leadership: Decision making is based on consultation with the group and
information is shared with the group.
• Achievement-oriented leadership: Challenging goals are set and high performance is
encouraged while confidence is shown in the groups' ability.
There is also evidence that more directive leadership is preferred by certain people under some
circumstances as shown in the figure below:
• Self assessment: Locus of Control--
Supportive behavior increases satisfaction by the group, especially in stressful situations, while
directive behavior is suited to uncertain and ambiguous situations. It is also proposed that leaders
who have influence upon their superiors can increase group satisfaction and performance.

The figure below shows how environmental and subordinate contingency factors may moderate
leadership behaviors to produce task and interpersonal outcomes.

House's 1971 article on Path-Goal Theory argued that a subordinates' motivation, satisfaction
and work performance are dependent on the leadership style chosen by their superior. Multiple
dimensions of leadership behavior were examined in the theory including: leader initiating
structure, consideration, authoritarianism, hierarchical influence, and degree of closeness of the
supervision. Each of the dimensions was "analyzed in terms of path-goal variables such as
valence and instrumentality" (House, 1971, pp.321). "Initiating structure" was defined as the
extent to which the leader imposes psychological structure on subordinates, such as clarifying
their expectations, specifying or assigning certain work tasks for them to follow. Consideration
was defined as the degree to which a leader provides a friendly, supportive, and helpful
environment for subordinates. There were two principal findings from this classic study:
Subordinate role ambiguity was considered to have a negative correlation with initiating
structure. That is, if a subordinate has a habitual or accustomed job, then a high level of initiating
structure will decrease employee satisfaction. In contrast, an employee has a highly ambiguous
role with the organization then a high level of initiating structure by the leader would lead to
high levels of employee satisfaction. In terms of consideration, for subordinates who have
routine jobs, a greater consideration by the leader should result in increased job satisfaction. For
professional individuals and those whose position is less determined by specific job duties,
consideration has been found to have almost no effect. (Adapted from Dick Ecelbarger's
Educational Leadership Portfolio, University of Arizona)
 Original theory
According to the original theory, the manager’s job is viewed as guiding workers to choose the
best paths to reach their goals, as well as the organizational goals. The theory argues that leaders
will have to engage in different types of leadership behavior depending on the nature and the
demands of a particular situation. It is the leader’s job to assist followers in attaining goals and to
provide the direction and support needed to ensure that their goals are compatible with the
organization’s goals.[4]

A leader’s behavior is acceptable to subordinates when viewed as a source of satisfaction, and

motivational when need satisfaction is contingent on performance, and the leader facilitates,
coaches, and rewards effective performance. The original path-goal theory identifies
achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive leader behaviors:

• The directive path-goal clarifying leader behavior refers to situations where the leader
lets followers know what is expected of them and tells them how to perform their tasks.
The theory argues that this behavior has the most positive effect when the subordinates'
role and task demands are ambiguous and intrinsically satisfying.[5]

• The achievement-oriented leader behavior refers to situations where the leader sets
challenging goals for followers, expects them to perform at their highest level, and shows
confidence in their ability to meet this expectation.[5] Occupation in which the
achievement motive were most predominant were technical jobs, sales persons, scientists,
engineers, and entrepreneurs.[2]

• The participative leader behavior involves leaders consulting with followers and asking
for their suggestions before making a decision. This behavior is predominant when
subordinates are highly personally involved in their work.[2]

• The supportive leader behavior is directed towards the satisfaction of subordinates needs
and preferences. The leader shows concern for the followers’ psychological well being.[5]
This behavior is especially needed in situations in which tasks or relationships are
psychologically or physically distressing.[2]

Path-goal theory assumes that leaders are flexible and that they can change their style, as
situations require. The theory proposes two contingency variables, such as environment and
follower characteristics, that moderate the leader behavior-outcome relationship. Environment is
outside the control of the follower-task structure, authority system, and work group.
Environmental factors determine the type of leader behavior required if the follower outcomes
are to be maximized. Follower characteristics are the locus of control, experience, and perceived
ability. Personal characteristics of subordinates determine how the environment and leader are
interpreted. Effective leaders clarify the path to help their followers achieve goals and make the
journey easier by reducing roadblocks and pitfalls. [1] [6] Research demonstrates that employee
performance and satisfaction are positively influenced when the leader compensates for the
shortcomings in either the employee or the work setting.
In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states that the four leadership
styles are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation
demands.

Fiedler contingency model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Fiedler contingency model is a leadership theory of industrial and organizational

psychology developed by Fred Fiedler (born 1922), one of the leading scientists who helped his
field move from the research of traits and personal characteristics of leaders to leadership styles
and behaviours.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Two factors
o 1.1 Least preferred co-worker (LPC)
o 1.2 Situational favourableness
• 2 Leader-situation match and mismatch
o 2.1 Examples
• 3 Opposing views
• 4 Summary
• 5 See also

• 6 References

[edit] Two factors

The first management theorists, Taylorists, assumed there was one best style of leadership.
Fiedler’s contingency model postulates that the leader’s effectiveness is based on ‘situational
contingency’ which is a result of interaction of two factors: leadership style and situational
favourableness (later called situational control). More than 400 studies have since investigated
this relationship.

[edit] Least preferred co-worker (LPC)

The leadership style of the leader, thus, fixed and measured by what he calls the least preferred
co-worker (LPC) scale, an instrument for measuring an individual’s leadership orientation. 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:

Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly
Uncooperative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cooperative
Hostile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Supportive
.... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ....
Guarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Open

The responses to these scales (usually 18-25 in total) are summed and averaged: a high LPC
score suggests that the leader has a human relations orientation, while a low LPC score
indicates a task orientation. Fiedler assumes that everybody's least preferred coworker in fact
is on average about equally unpleasant. But people who are indeed relationship motivated, tend
to describe their least preferred coworkers in a more positive manner, e.g., more pleasant and
more efficient. Therefore, they receive higher LPC scores. People who are task motivated, on the
other hand, tend to rate their least preferred coworkers in a more negative manner. Therefore,
they receive lower LPC scores. So, the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale is actually not
about the least preferred worker at all, instead, it is about the person who takes the test; it is
about that person's motivation type. This is so, because, individuals who rate their least
preferred coworker in relatively favorable light on these scales derive satisfaction out of
interpersonal relationship, and those who rate the coworker in a relatively unfavorable light get
satisfaction out of successful task performance. This method reveals an individual's emotional
reaction to people they cannot work with. Critics point out that this is not always an accurate
measurement of leadership effectiveness.

[edit] Situational favourableness

According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both low-LPC (task-oriented) and high-LPC
(relationship-oriented) leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation.
The contingency theory allows for predicting the characteristics of the appropriate situations for
effectiveness. Three situational components determine the favourableness or situational control:

1. Leader-Member Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and confidence
between the leader and the subordinates.
2. Task Structure, referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and structured.
3. Leader Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader's position itself.

When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position
power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation." Fiedler found that low-LPC leaders are
more effective in extremely favourable or unfavourable situations, whereas high-LPC leaders
perform best in situations with intermediate favourability.

[edit] Leader-situation match and mismatch

Since personality is relatively stable, the contingency model suggests that improving
effectiveness requires changing the situation to fit the leader. This is called "job
engineering." The organization or the leader may increase or decrease task structure and position
power, also training and group development may improve leader-member relations. In his 1976
book Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept Fiedler (with Martin
Chemers and Linda Mahar) offers a self paced leadership training programme designed to help
leaders alter the favourableness of the situation, or situational control.

[edit] Examples

• 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 one who emerges as a leader to direct the group's
activity usually does not know subordinates personally. The task-oriented leader who gets
things accomplished proves to be the most successful. If the leader is considerate
(relationship-oriented), they may waste so much time in the disaster, that things get out of
control and lives are 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 their decision. Finally, even though the leader may
not be relationship-oriented, leader-member relations may be extremely strong if they can
gain promotions and salary increases for subordinates. Under these situations 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 favorable 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

[edit] Opposing views

• Researchers often find that Fiedler's contingency theory falls short on flexibility.[citation
needed]

• They also noticed that LPC scores can fail to reflect the personality traits they are
supposed to reflect.
• Fiedler’s contingency theory has drawn criticism because it implies that the only
alternative for an unalterable mismatch of leader orientation and an unfavorable situation
is changing the leader.
• The model’s validity has also been disputed, despite many supportive tests (Bass 1990).
• Other criticisms concern the methodology of measuring leadership style through the LPC
inventory and the nature of the supporting evidence (Ashour 1973; Schriesheim and Kerr
 1977a, 1977b; Vecchio 1977, 1983). Fiedler and his associates have provided decades of
research to support and refine the contingency theory.
• Cognitive Resource Theory (CRT) modifies Fiedler’s basic contingency model by adding
traits of the leader (Fiedler and Garcia 1987). CRT tries to identify the conditions under
which leaders and group members will use their intellectual resources, skills and
knowledge effectively. While it has been generally assumed that more intelligent and
more experienced leaders will perform better than those with less intelligence and
experience, this assumption is not supported by Fiedler’s research.

[edit] Summary
To Fiedler, stress is a key determinant of leader effectiveness (Fiedler and Garcia 1987; Fiedler
et al. 1994), and a distinction is made between stress related to the leader’s superior, and stress
related to subordinates or the situation itself. In stressful situations, leaders dwell on the stressful
relations with others and cannot focus their intellectual abilities on the job. Thus, intelligence is
more effective and used more often in stress-free situations. Fiedler has found that experience
impairs performance in low-stress conditions but contributes to performance under high-stress
conditions. As with other situational factors, for stressful situations Fiedler recommends altering
or engineering the leadership situation to capitalize on the leader’s strengths. Despite 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
their group is going to do to be the primary contingency factor in determining the effectiveness
of leader behavior.

Cognitive Resource Theory

A Summary
Study questions

• What is the basis for decision making by leaders; what do they rely on
for those decisions?
• Leaders may be intellectually bright and/or experienced, and use
rationality and intuition respectively. What are examples of each.
• What are the effects of stress on thinking and intuition?
• Under high and low stress conditions, how might leaders of each style
perform?

Although Fred Fiedler's Leadership Contingency Model has received considerable

criticism regarding the means for measuring task and relationship oriented leadership, the
model still has much utility. However, Fiedler, Garcia, and Vecchio have gone on to focus
attention and efforts on additional aspects of leadership formulated in the Cognitive
Resources Theory (CRT). This theory examines the role of intellectual and other cognitive
abilities on leader performance. Surprisingly, these cognitive resources can be a source of
enhancement or liability at times.

Intelligence and experience are two key variables in the theory. Intelligence is one's overall
effectiveness as measured by standard IQ tests. Experience includes learned behaviors and
skills that are acquired over the years by performing various tasks. These two variables
can impact teams performance depending on the level of stress present. Stress is defined as
the level of interpersonal conflict and concerns about performance with superiors, or
during organizational disruptions as during mergers, reorganizations and transitions.

The theory provides the following hypotheses:

• Leader IQ can contribute positively to team performance when the

leader is directive. That is, the group can benefit from the leader's experience
only if they follow his/her guidance, especially regarding complex tasks.
• Stress moderates the relationship between IQ and performance. That
is, intelligence is an asset in low and moderate stress situations; under high
stress, intellectual skills can become impaired and detract from or have no
effect on a group's performance.
• Leader experience is related positively to performance in high-stress
situations but not in low-stress ones. That is, under high stress a leader can
fall back on tried-and-true experiences they have acquired, and thereby help
group performance. In low stress situations, they may rely too much on past
experience.

Evaluation of the Theory

• This is a relatively new theory and has not been sufficiently developed
or tested, although it seems to have some initial support for parts of the
theory.
• Definition and measurement of "experience" is not precise enough,
and other cognitive abilities might be included.
• Stress tolerance and the relationship between intelligence and
experience need to be elaborated (for example, how will leaders who are both
experienced and intelligence affect a group?).
• Other cultures may have other dimensions that carry more weight
than intelligence and/or experience.
Premises

1. cognitive resources refer to the leader's intelligence, ability, technical

competence
2. leaders make the best use of their cognitive resources under different
situations
3. stress is an important situational variable
4. use of intelligence & rationality is best under conditions of low stress and
high follower support and competence
5. use of prior experience/intuition is best under conditions of very high
stress
6. Managerial Styles
7.
8. Lieutenant Colonel Merrell E. Dean
9.
10. A manager’s style of managing has been a continuing cause of concern to his
organization, his subordinates, and, at times, the manager himself. All have recognized
that the manager's style is one of the major contributors to the performance and
effectiveness of his unit. The desire to define how a manager should conduct himself
while working with others has led to investigations into those variables that may affect
levels of managerial performance. This article examines, in summary form, investigations
 by various management authorities on the subject of managerial styles. These
investigations have been developed into three theories of managerial style: trait, behavior,
and situation.
11. Throughout this article, the emphasis will be on the manager's style of leadership. Since
there is no single, universally accepted definition of managerial style, the common
practice has been to consider the manager's leadership style as his style of managing.
Most of the authorities cited in this article use the terms "managerial style" and
"leadership style" interchangeably. However, it must be remembered that leadership is
only one mechanism that managers may use to motivate others toward organizational
goals.
12. trait theory
13. From research studies conducted during the 1940s and 1950s, the trait theory of styles
focuses on "what the leader is." Leadership is thought of as a function of a finite number
of characteristics that differentiate the successful from the unsuccessful leader. Edwin
Ghiselli cited the traits of initiative, self-assurance, individuality, supervisory ability, and
intelligence.1 He qualified the trait of intelligence by suggesting that the level of an
individual's intelligence was an accurate indication of the probability that he would
achieve success as a manager--until a certain intellectual level is reached. Above this
level, individuals with higher and higher scores were less and less likely to be successful
managers. Other researchers brought in even more traits--personality, height, image,
charisma, etc.--until at one time ninety traits had been identified.
14. However, Ralph Stogdill found little or no positive relationship between a manager's
traits and his success.2 Eugene Jennings concluded that fifty years of study had produced
nothing to distinguish leaders from nonleaders.3
15. Overall, the trait theory has made a contribution to the study of effective managerial
styles, but not as much as was once thought. Seemingly, traits do not consistently
distinguish the best leaders, the list of traits keeps growing, many traits are difficult to
measure, and the trait theory ignores other important variables in the leadership situation.
16. behavioral theory
17. Dissatisfaction with the trait theory led to a new theory that focused on the behavior of a
leader. The behavioral theory of managerial styles was prominent during the 1950s and
1960s. This theory focused on "what the leader does" by attempting to observe and
describe the leader's style of behavior. This theory comprises several approaches: a
continuum of styles, independent styles, and two-dimensional models of styles.
18. Continuum of Styles. Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt developed a continuum
of leadership behavior to describe a range of behavioral patterns available to a manager.4
They related the leader's actions to the degree of authority used by him and the amount of
freedom available to his subordinates. The leader's actions described on the left
characterize the manager who maintains a high degree of control, while those on the right
describe a manager who delegates authority. Tannenbaum and Schmidt felt that a leader
should not choose one style and adhere to it strictly but should be flexible and adapt his
style to the situation. (See diagram, page 43.)
19. Independent Styles. Although flexibility in styles had been stressed, a number of
independent leadership styles were analyzed, including the autocratic, the benevolent-
autocratic, and the supportive.
20. Autocratic behavior is usually identified with a leader who commands and has many
sanctions at his disposal. He is considered almost totally job-oriented, with little or no
concern for the people in his organization. This leader is the one who has all the answers,
and people serve only to carry out his instructions. Many times he has been thought of as
being dogmatic and arbitrary in his actions. However, M. E. Shaw discovered that, in
problem-solving situations, autocratically supervised persons used less time and made
fewer errors than did democratically supervised subjects.5
21. Advanced as a style of behavior by Robert McMurry, the benevolent-autocratic leader is
described as powerful and prestigious but one who can be communicated with and is
interested in his subordinates' problems.6 He structures the activities of his subordinates,
makes policy decisions affecting them, and enforces discipline. He may encourage
participation in planning, but in executing he is the "chief." However, James Gibson,
John Ivancevich, and James Donnelly, Jr., say even this style has been weakened by
recent changes in attitudes within our society.7 This may particularly be true for younger
generations as they express desires to shift away from any authoritative or paternalistic
environment.
22. The supportive leader is one who is considered as being somewhat democratic and
participative in style. He is one who supervises his employees generally, not closely. This
type of leader specifies objectives and communicates them but then allows subordinates
considerable freedom in accomplishing the tasks. Rensis Likert concluded that
employee--centered supervisors tend to have higher producing groups than job-centered
supervisors.8 Stogdill, Coons, Argyle, Blau, Scott, Jennings, and Gibb each had similar
findings from their research. However, others do not agree. Spector and Suttle found no
significant difference in output between an autocratic and a democratic leadership style.9
M. Patchen said that close supervision does not necessarily reduce a subordinate's
freedom; the subordinate may perceive close supervision as interest in his welfare.10
23. Varying ideas within and between these three independent approaches to leader behavior
were never reconciled. However, independent approaches such as these did help to
provide the groundwork for the development of subsequent two-dimensional behavioral
models.
24. Two-Dimensional Styles. By developing models to display dual dimensions of a leader's
style, researchers were able to consolidate many of the independent thrusts of studies.
From group dynamics, Bales founded the Great Man approach: the individual who is both
the best idea man and the best-liked member is the best leader.11 Roger M. Stogdill, Alvin
E. Coons, and others at Ohio State University developed a leadership model based on the
dimensions of "consideration" and "initiating structure." A leader with a high degree of
"consideration" was one who developed a work atmosphere of mutual trust, respect for
subordinates' ideas, and consideration of their feelings. A leader with a high degree of
"initiating structure" was one who established unit goals, structured his role and those of
his subordinates, planned and scheduled work activities, and communicated pertinent
information. The most effective manager, it was concluded, was one whose behavior was
high in both "consideration" and "initiating structure," with the next-best manager being
the one who was high in "consideration" and low in "initiating structure."12
25. Another approach to a two-dimensional theory, the managerial grid, was developed by
Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton. Their model was based on the manager's
assumptions regarding his "concern for people," the satisfying of their needs, and his
"concern for production," the reaching of production objectives. To Blake and Mouton,
the best manager would be one who couples the two concerns to provide the highest level
of contribution and accomplishment.13 Their model and its accompanying surveys have
possibly been the most widely used instruments to identify managerial styles. However,
there is an important caveat associated with this model: it may identify a manager's
assumptions and concerns without identifying his actual leadership behavior. The model
has had its most informative value when surveys are completed not only by the manager
himself but also by his subordinates and superiors concerning him. Blake and Mouton
subsequently expanded this model into a three-dimensional grid.
26. Overall, the behavioral theory has made a valuable contribution to the study of
managerial styles. It has provided a classification of a number of styles. Much of the
research generally supports the idea that styles can be characterized by a combination of
two leadership behaviors, one oriented toward the task (initiating structure, concern for
production) and one oriented toward interpersonal relations (consideration, concern for
people). However, many conflicting opinions within this theory still remain. To some, the
interpersonal-oriented leader is considered more effective; to others, the task-oriented
leader; and to still others the leader who is high in both dimensions is the best. Thus there
developed a need for research to integrate the various ideas and incorporate the impact of
varying situations on leadership styles and their effectiveness.
27. situational theory
28. Deficiencies in past theories have provided the stimulus for the most recent of the
theories, the situational view of leadership. Leadership is explained in the interaction
between the leader and variables in his work situation--his personality, his followers, the
task, and the organizational environment. Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard see the
manager's leadership process as a function of the leader, the followers, and the situation.14
D. Katz and R. L. Kahn feel that leadership acts are all different for different
 organizations, managerial levels, and situations.15 At high management levels,
interpersonal skills are more important, while at lower levels, task approaches are more
necessary.
29. Fred Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness is the principal
situational theory. With more than fourteen years of research as a basis, Fiedler
concluded that, to be effective, a leader must match his style, whether task- or
relationship-oriented, with the demands of the situation. The leader must assess the
situation for its degree of favorableness (or unfavorableness) to his style of influence.
This favorableness (or unfavorableness) would depend on (1) the level of the leader-
member relations, (2) the amount of power inherent in the leader's position, and (3) the
degree of structure in the task.16 If there were high degrees of value in each of these three
variables, the situation would be highly favorable to a leader's influence; if one or two
variables are high in degree and the remaining variable(s) low, the situation would be
moderately favorable; if low values in the variables, the situation would be highly
unfavorable to influence. If, for example, the leader-member relations are good, the
leader has the power to fire, promote, or demote, and the task is spelled out step by step,
the situation would be highly favorable to the leader and his influence. On the other hand,
if the leader-member relations are poor, the leader has little inherent power in the
position, and the task is nebulous and undefined, the situation would be highly
unfavorable to the leader's influence. To Fiedler, it is easier to be the well-esteemed
foreman of a construction crew working from a blueprint than it is to be the disliked
chairman of a volunteer committee preparing a new policy.17
30. Fiedler concludes that a task-oriented style is more effective in situations in which the
leader has very much or very little influence, and a relationship-oriented leader is more
effective in situations only moderately favorable to his influence. In Fiedler's words, "…
the appropriateness of the leadership style for maximizing group performance is
contingent upon the favorableness of the group-task situations."18 Although he feels the
leader should diagnose the variables in his situation, Fiedler suggests that it may be easier
and more effective for the organization to engineer the job to fit the manager than to
change a manager's leadership style to fit the job.19 In other words, the organization
should match up a particular manager and his style to the demands of the situation or alter
the variables within the situation, i.e., the power that goes with the leadership position, so
that the situation becomes more conducive to the manager's style of influence.
31. Overall, the situational approach to leadership styles has been a valuable contribution.
More realistic than previous theories, it shows that there is no "one best" style for all
situations. Launching from the early efforts in this theory, greater research efforts are
presently being conducted. Fiedler and others suggest that further research is needed to
encompass more variables that maybe within the managerial situation.
32. Attempting to define and determine a proper managerial style is an extremely complex
task for any manager. This article has shown that such a task may be just as perplexing
for authorities in the field of management. Summarizing some of their ideas, this author
has presented the trait, behavioral, and situational theories of leadership styles. Although
some leadership traits may still be valid, the trait theory seems to have less importance
than in the past. The behavioral theory has formed the basis for many managerial
practices of today, but it still has some problems in providing an integrated style of
leadership. The situational theory shows promise of integrating a theory of styles, but
further clarification is needed. Overall, the evidence is becoming clearer that there is no
single, all-purpose style of behavior that is effective in all managerial situations.
Someday, experience and research may provide us with "the one best way." Until then,
each manager must remain openminded, informed, and adaptable.