Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

CONTINGENCY THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP

PRESENTED BY: 1. LAU 2. NUR HARTINI BINTI YAACOP 3. LEE CHUAN HAU 4. MD HELEMY BIN MOHD YUSOF 5. SHEERA MEENA 6. NUR AZLIENA BINTI AZIS

IMPORTANT TERMINOLOGIES
Situational Moderator Variables Contingency Theories

Aspect of the situation that enhance or nullify the effects of leaders traits or behaviours __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ ________

Theories that explain leadership effectiveness in terms of situational moderator variables __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ ________

THE CONTINGENCY THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP


1.

Path Goal Theory Leadership Substitute Theory The Multiple Linkage Model LPC Contingency Theory

2.

3.

4.

5.

Cognitive Resources Theory


Normative Decision Theory

6.

NORMATIVE DECISION THEORY


Developed by

Victor Vroom
Born August 9, 1932. a business school professor at Yale School of Management Holds a PhD from University of Michigan Author to many well known books such as Work & Motivation, Leadership & Decision Making and The new Leadership

in collaboration with

Phillip Yetton ( 1973 )

IMPORTANT TERMINOLOGIES
Decision Quality Decision Acceptance

selection of the best alternative important when there are many alternatives

degree to which a follower accepts a decision made by a leader __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ ________

__________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ ________

5 DIFFERENT DECISION PROCEDURES

A1

: Leader takes known information and then decides alone. A2 : Leader gets information from followers, and then decides alone. C1 : Leader shares problem with followers individually, listens to ideas and then decides alone. C2 : Leader shares problems with followers as a group, listens to ideas and then decides alone. G2 : Leader shares problems with followers as a group and then seeks and accepts consensus agreement.

SITUATIONAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE METHOD ARE RELATIVELY LOGICAL:

When decision quality is important and followers possess useful information, then A1 and A2 are not the best method. When the leader sees decision quality as important but followers do not, then G2 is inappropriate. When decision quality is important, when the problem is unstructured and the leader lacks information / skill to make the decision alone, then G2 is best.

When decision acceptance is important and followers are unlikely to accept an autocratic decision, then A1 and A2 are inappropriate.

CONT.

When decision acceptance is important but followers are likely to disagree with one another, then A1, A2 and C1 are not appropriate, because they do not give opportunity for differences to be resolved. When decision quality is not important but decision acceptance is critical, then G2 is the best method. When decision quality is important, all agree with this, and the decision is not likely to result from an autocratic decision then G2 is best.

CAN A LEADER DETERMINE LEVEL OF


FOLLOWERS INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION?

1.Is there a quality requirement? Is the nature of the solution critical? Are there technical or rational grounds for selecting among possible solutions? 2.Do I have sufficient information to make a high quality decision?

3.Is the problem structured? Are the alternative courses of action and methods for their evaluation known?

4.Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates critical to its implementation?

5.If I were to make the decision by myself, is it reasonably certain that it would be accepted by my subordinates? 6.Do subordinates share the organizational goals to be obtained in solving this problem? 7.Is conflict among subordinates likely in obtaining the preferred solution
1. Vroom & Yetton formulated these seven questions on decision quality, commitment, problem information and decision acceptance, with which leaders can determine level of followers involvement in decision. 2. Answer to the above questions must be either Yes or No with the current scenario. 3. Based on the answers one can find out the styles

CASE :

FOREIGN

AUTO SHOP

Adapted from William J.Wasmuth and Leonard Greenhalgh, Effective Supervision (1979), pp.112-115. Ref : APPENDIX 1

THE END