Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
presented to
on
November 18, 2005
by
Group 13
PGP 1, Section A
INTRODUCTION
It could be said that there are two extremes to the leadership continuum – on one end
would be the harsh and brutal aristocrat while on the other end is a caring, considerate
and supportive leader. While there are some leaders who can be identified with just one
of these, some manage to adapt themselves based on the situation. However, the success
or failure of any of these approaches to leadership depends to a large extent on the
organization setting being dealt with. Certain leaders in certain settings can make the
difference between enormous success and overwhelming failure.
'…the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it depends
whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril…’
Sun Tzu, circa 400 BC
The readings deal with one of the most debated topics of organizational life – leadership;
a field that has been extensively studied with the hopes of pinning down the
characteristics of a successful leader. Griffin and Moorhead present a compilation of
several theories dealing with this topic – some historical views on leadership like the trait
and behavioral approaches and a few products of more contemporary research like the
Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) theory, the path goal theory and the Vroom’s decision
tree approach.
DEFINING LEADERSHIP
“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he
wants to do it.”
Dwight D Eisenhower
Thus while leadership could influence the group’s behavior, the extent to which the
leader’s goal meshes with the organization’s goal would define the success of the team in
an organizational setting.
"The difference between a boss and a leader: a boss says, 'Go!' - a leader says, 'Let's
go!’”
E.M.Kelly, Growing Disciples, 1995
The following table identifies the basic distinctions between the two
The trait approach focused on identifying stable and enduring character traits that could
differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Research further was directed towards developing
ways of measuring these traits and using these methods for selecting leaders.
Some important traits included – intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, energy,
activity and task-relevant knowledge. The theory invited criticism as slowly writers
started relating leadership to traits like, height, sun-sign etc. It also lost credibility as it
could not answer how any of these traits were connected to leadership per se.
The role of gender, age and national culture were also debated. For e.g. while the
American business culture promoted profits and competition, the Japanese stressed more
on group cohesiveness and identity.
The behavioral approach assumed that the behavior of effective leaders was constant
across all situations and differed from that of the less effective leaders. Two studies
focused on this approach:
The Michigan leadership studies aimed at identifying leadership behavior patterns that
determined effective group performance. Job-centered leadership behavior and
employee-centered leadership behavior were placed at the two extremes of a continuum.
Both the types are mainly concerned with high performance but while the former focuses
just on the effective completion of a task, the latter attempts to build effective work
groups by paying close attention to the human aspects of the employees.
The Ohio State leadership studies on the other hand identified two significant kinds of
leader behavior – consideration and initiating-structure. When engaging in the
consideration behavior, the leader and subordinate share a relationship of mutual trust,
self-respect and two-way communication. The subordinate’s feelings and ideas are
respected. The initiating-structure behavior involves clear definition of leader-
subordinate roles so that the subordinate is clear about what is expected from him. Focus
is primarily on accomplishing the group’s task. Unlike in the Michigan studies, these two
traits are independent of each other and could be found in the same person in varying
degrees. The stability of a leader’s behavior depends on the stability of the situation and
the success of any one style would depend solely on the organizational setting.
The leadership grid portrays the types of leadership behavior and their potential
combinations in a two dimensional grid (9X9) – concern for production mapped against
concern for people on a scale of 1(low) to 9(high). Concern for production implies task-
oriented attitude and focus on the accomplishment of results while a manager with high
concern for people strives to avoid conflicts and maintain friendly relations with
subordinates. Though the position (9,9) appears intuitively the best, anecdotal evidence
claims it is less than the optimal solution in many situations.
While some of the above theories (e.g. leadership grid) overlooked the complexity of
leadership behavior, most of them failed to meet their primary goal – to identify universal
leader-behavior and follower-response patterns. The focus shifted to contingency theories
with the assumption that leadership behavior will vary across settings.
THE LPC THEORY OF LEADERSHIP
A leader’s personality traits in relation to leadership are identified as: task vs.
relationship motivation. These are grounded in the personality and hence constant for
any given leader. The degree of either of these is measured on the LPC scale. The
respondent selects from amongst his co-workers, his least preferred one and then
describes him on sixteen attributes on a scale on 1(negative) to 8(positive). These
descriptions speak more about the respondent as anyone’s least preferred co-worker
would be equally unpleasant – high-LPC leaders are more concerned with interpersonal
relations whereas low-LPC leaders are more concerned with task-relevant problems.
Leader Motivation and Situation Favorableness are mapped to recommend the following
behavior models:
Leader-Member
Good Poor
Relations
Unstructure
Task Structure Structured Structured Unstructured
d
Hig
Position Power High Low High Low Low High Low
h
Situational
Very Very
Favorableness
Favorable Moderately Favorable Unfavorable
Fiedler recommends that in case of a leader-situation mismatch, the only solution would
be to change the situation through “job engineering” e.g. a person oriented leader in a
very unfavorable situation should attempt to improve matters by spending more time with
subordinates to improve leader-member relations and lay down procedures to provide
more task structure.
This theory evolves from the expectancy theory of motivation and is based on the
underlying assumption that leaders can readily adapt to different situations. It contends
that subordinates are motivated by their leader to the extent that their leader’s behavior
influences their expectations – by clarifying the behavior (path) that leads to desired
rewards (goals).
Leaders can change and adopt any of these styles based on the need of the situation. Two
types of situations can influence his behavior – personal characteristics of the
subordinates and characteristics of the environment.
Personal characteristics of the subordinate
- Locus of control: Extent to which individuals believe that what happens to
them is a result of their own behavior or external causes.
Those who attribute outcomes to
own behavior more satisfied with a participative leader
external causes more favorable to a directive leader
- Perceived ability: How people view their own ability wrt. the task.
Those who rate their ability
relatively high low need for a directive leader
relatively low prefer a directive leader
Characteristics of the environment
- Task structure
- Formal authority system
- Primary work group
Leader behavior will motivate subordinates if it helps them cope with the
environmental uncertainty created by these factors.
While Vroom’s approach goes by the same assumptions as the path-goal theory, it
concerns itself with only one aspect of leader behavior – subordinate participation in
decision making and argues that the extent of this depends on the characteristics of the
situation. A variety of problem attributes need to be evaluated to determine the optimum
extent of subordinate participation in decision making.
The manager assesses the situation based on various factors and assesses whether the
factor is high or low for the given decision. This path leads to another factor on which the
situation is again assessed and so on. One of two decision trees is used based on the
demand for time vs. personnel development.
The various decision styles that could be arrived at after traversing the tree are:
Decide: manager makes the decision and conveys it to the group
Delegate: manager allows the group to define the nature and parameters of the problem
and arrive at a solution
Consult (individually): manager presents the problem to each individual and takes his
suggestions into consideration
Consult (group): manager presents the problem to the group and takes their suggestions
into consideration for decision making
Facilitate: manager presents the problem to the group, defines its boundaries and
facilitates a discussion for making the decision
Though not fully scientifically tested, the theory has been well supported by research
results and it as been observed that individuals making decisions consistent with the
model are more effective that those who make decisions inconsistent with it.
The Leader-member exchange model (LMX) stresses the one-one relation between
supervisors and their subordinates – each such pair being called a ‘vertical dyad’. The
theory suggests that a special relationship is shared by the supervisor with a small group
of subordinates called the in-group. This group receives special responsibilities,
autonomy and even some extra privileges. The subordinates not part of this group for the
out-group and receive less of the supervisor’s time and attention. Though the basis of
this bias is not well-defined, it is believed to be based to an extent on the subordinate’s
competence and compatibility.
The Hersey and Blanchard Model takes the stand that the leader’s behavior depends on
the follower’s readiness defined by his degree of motivation, competence, experience and
interest in accepting responsibilities. There the style adopted by the leader changes as the
readiness of the subordinate changes.
Low readiness “telling” style (provide direction and defining roles)
Low-Moderate readiness “selling” style (direction and role definition +
explanation and information)
Moderate-High readiness “participating” style (allowing participation in
decision making)
High readiness “delegating” style (allowing followers to work independently
with minimal supervision
LEADERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Modern leadership theory has had two major concerns. The first is regarding who
becomes a leader and the second pertains to the question of leadership effectiveness.
• When they possess somewhat superior abilities, skills or control over resources
that enables the group to achieve its objectives
• If their particular personality attribute makes them more visible than other
members of the group
• They know themselves very well and seek self-improvement - In order to know
oneself, one has to understand his or her attributes. Seeking self-improvement
implies continually strengthening these attributes. This can be accomplished
through self-study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others
• They know their job and have a solid familiarity with their employees' tasks
• Leaders search for ways to guide one’s organization to new heights. And when
things go wrong; they analyze the situation on hand, take corrective action, and
move on to the next challenge -- they do not blame others
• They use good problem solving, decision making, and planning tools
• They set an example - Be a good role model for other employees to emulate. They
must not only hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become
the change we want to see - Mahatma Gandhi
• Know one’s people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and
the importance of sincerely caring for one’s workers
• Keep one’s workers informed - Knows how to communicate with not only them,
but also with seniors and other key people
• Leaders develop and instill a sense of responsibility in co-workers - Help to
develop good character traits that will help them carry out their professional
responsibilities
• They ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished -
Communication is the key to this responsibility
• Train as a team and not as just a group of people doing their jobs
Use the full capabilities of the organization - By developing a team spirit, a leader will be
able to exploit one’s organization, department, section etc. to its fullest capabilities
An effective leader is a person with a passion for a cause that is larger than they are and
possesses values that are life-giving to society.
The observed effect of leaders on organizational outcomes is minimal for the following
reasons:
• The people selected for leadership positions are those possessing only certain,
limited styles of behavior
• The discretion and behavior of the person in that particular position is severely
constrained
• Leaders typically affect only a few variables that impact the organizational
performance as a whole
Introduction
Perfect Pizzeria is a large franchise chain which employs mainly college students, almost
all of whom work part-time. The manager’s bonus depends on his ability to plan the
quantity of food accurately and to reduce the percentage of unsold or damaged food.
Many of the employees indulge in taking free food from the outlet beyond their allotted
quota. Also, the employees’ mistakes are ignored by the night manager, which means the
establishment takes the loss and the bonus of the manager is affected. Reduction of the
free food eligibility by the manager did not alleviate the situation, and a lot of employees
quit, were dismissed, or remained discontent. A large turnover rate resulted in the
manager going beyond his supervisory role for two months and involving himself in
actual food preparation activities, further disrupting operations. Having reduced the
percentage, he earned the bonus for those months, but soon the wastage of food again
increased. The manager took a drastic step of removing all benefits, and threatened to
take a lie detector test and terminate all culprits. However, since the employees knew that
almost all were guilty, they were unperturbed and the wastage percentage reached an all
time high.
Our solution
The situation seems to be such that the leader-member relations are pretty bad. However,
the task structure seems to be structured and the leadership position power is high. This
points towards a moderately favorable situation under the LPC theory of leadership, thus
demanding a person-oriented behavior. Since the manager’s task oriented approach is a
mismatch with this demand, the situation needs to be changed through job engineering,
i.e. he needs to spend time with subordinates to improve leader-member relations so that
situation is amenable for his task-oriented behavior. Thus, the manager should
communicate to the employees the reasons for the drastic actions taken, and the impact
on profitability of the organization. In addition, he should ask for feedback, address their
grievances and offer appropriates solutions to build their trust.
Since only the manager’s compensation is linked to the low percentage wastage, the other
employees do not seem to be concerned about this performance aspect. Since pay is an
extremely motivational factor for these college students, small financial rewards can be
given to those who help the most towards the accomplishment of this objective. In
addition, they can be considered for promotion to night managers. The night managers
should be given slightly elevated status over the regular employees including higher
compensation, so they feel the sense of responsibility and are able to earn the respect of
their subordinates. In addition they could be offered permanent jobs so they are more
attuned to the organizational goals and strive to achieve them.
Introduction
Savita Deshpande, a manager of software systems, handles a team of 18 which could be
divided almost equally among those who consistently performed above standard and
those whose work was late and/or done poorly. Ranked high on task orientation and low
on employee orientation in a leadership questionnaire, she made efforts to increase her
employee-oriented behavior, especially towards the low performing group, to improve
her team performance. However, this move made no difference to the underperforming
members, but many high performers showed drastic drop in the quality and quantity of
work. The reason for this failure has to be evaluated.
REFERENCES