chp1 the nature of leadership

Chapter 1The Nature of Leadership, and Trait, Style

(Behavioural) Perspectives on Leadership Research

Introduction

This aims of this chapter are to explore the nature of the leadership process and to review the

main contributions of trait, style (behavioural) and contingency (situational) approaches to

leadership research. The chapter begins with a brief discussion on the nature of the leadership

process (Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985; McHugh & Thomson, 1995; Northouse, 2001; Yukl,

1998) and offers a definition of leadership as process of social influence, which often occurs

within teams resulting in the willing commitment to and achievement of organisational goals.

The contributions of trait, style (behavioural) and contingency (situational) approaches to

leadership research are critically evaluated in order to provide an understanding of the leadership

process, its contingent variables, and to provide an entitative perspective for the analysis and

interpretation of clinical leadership undertaken in chapter 4. (Meyer et al., 1985; Hosking &

Morley, 1991).

The Nature of Leadership

In recent years there has been more written about leadership than almost any other facet of

management and remains an active area of inquiry (Bass, 1990; Bennis, 1989; Yukl, 1998;

Burns 1978) argues that;

“Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on

earth.” (Burns, 1978, p.2).

Yukl (1998) argues that researchers in the field usually define leadership according to their own,

subjective perspectives and the aspects of the phenomena of most interest to them, and cites the

work of Stogdill (1974) who even after a comprehensive review of the leadership literature

Chapter 1

concluded that there were almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have

attempted to define it. In reviewing some of the historical definitions of leadership Yukl (1998)

argues that leadership has been defined in terms of traits, behaviours, influence, interaction

patterns, role relationships, psychosocial constructs of personality, and occupation of an

administrative position.

1. Leadership is “the behaviour of an individual directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal” (Hemphill & Coons, 1957, p.7)

2. Leadership is “the influential increment over and above the mechanical compliance with directives of the organisation” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p.528)

3. Leadership is “the process of influencing the activities of an organised group toward goal achievement” (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p.46)

4. Leaders are “those who consistently make effective contributions to social order and who are expected and perceived to do so” (Hosking, 1988, p.153)

5. Leadership is “the process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose (Jacobs & Jacques, 1990, p.281)

6. Leadership is “the ability to step outside the culture…to start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptive. (Schein, 1992, p.2)

7. Leadership is “the process of making sense of what people are doing together so that people will understand and be committed” (Drath & Palus, 1994, p.4)

8. Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplished (Richards & Engle, 1986, p.206)

(Yukl, 1998, p.2-3)

(Yukl, 1998; Northhouse, 2001) among others, argue that most definitions of leadership reflect

an underlying assumption that it involves a process of intentional influence whereby one person

is able to guide and facilitate the activities, relationships, and structural and process determinants

of work, of a group or organisation in order to achieve shared goals. Northhouse (2001) cites

the work of Fleishman et al., (1991) in arguing that over the past fifty years there have been as

many as sixty-five different classification systems developed to define the dimensions of

leadership, and Bass (1990) who argued that the components of leadership can be defined in

terms of:

- the focus of group processes; from this perspective the leader is viewed as at the centre of

group activity and the process of leadership embodies the will of the group,

Chapter 1

- a construct of personality; this perspective argues that the extent to which a leader is able

to influence followers is constrained by a combination of personal characteristics (traits)

which are argued to have innate and phenotypical components,

- an act or behaviour; which enables leaders to bring about change in a group,

- a power relationship; which exists between leaders and followers and is the prime

mechanism of influence,

- as an instrument of goal achievement; which enables followers to achieve team and

organisational objectives (goals) which they share with the leader and includes facets of

leadership which transforms followers through vision setting, role modelling and

individualised attention.

Thus, according to (Northouse, 2001) despite the many ways in which leadership has been

conceptualised, it is possible to identify several components which are central to the phenomena

of leadership.

“They are (a) leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c)

leadership occurs within a group context, and (d) leadership involves goal

attainment. [Thus, the following broad definition of leadership is proffered]. ….

Leadership is the process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals

to achieve a common goal.” (Northouse, 2001, p.3)

The theme of leadership as a process of social influence is emphasised by McHugh & Thomson

(1995) who cite Buchanan & Huczynsci (1985) in defining leadership as:

“a social process in which one individual influences the behaviour of others

without the use or threat of violence” (Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985, p.389)

and argue that research has focussed on personality traits, styles of leadership and more recently

on situation-contingent styles and the relations between leaders and group members.

Chapter 1

Trait Theories of Leadership

The ‘trait’ approach to leadership research was historically the first systematic approach to the

study of leadership developed in the early 1900’s. This approach led to the development of what

were called ‘great man’ theories because they focussed on the identification of innate qualities

and psychological characteristics possessed by great social and military leaders. A central tenet

of this approach was the belief that leaders were born with these traits and only great people

possessed them. (Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998). In the period 1904-1948, trait

theory was the most influential leadership theory with over one hundred studies undertaken,

given added support with the advent of psychometric testing in the 1920’s and 1930’s.

Leadership Traits examined during this period included physical characteristics such as the

leader’s appearance, height and energy level; personal characteristics such as, self-esteem, need

for achievement and power, emotional stability, intelligence, sociability, creativity, and

educational achievements.

Stogdill’s (1948) review of trait leadership studies suggested that there was no consistent set of

traits which differentiated leaders from followers or non-leaders, and an individual who was able

to provide leadership in one situation might not be able to transfer this leadership to a different

situation. Consequently, trait researchers concentrated on isolating traits, which made leaders

more effective in given situations rather than trying to isolate a universal set of leadership traits.

(Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998).

Given the limitations identified above Stogdill’s (1948) analysis of over one hundred studies

undertaken between 1904-1948 argued that within an average group the following traits

differentiated leaders from non-leaders (followers); intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility,

initiative, persistence, self-confidence and sociability. Additionally Stogdill’s (1948) meta-

analysis indicated that;

“…an individual does not become a leader solely because he or she posses certain

traits. Rather, the trait the leader possesses must be relevant to situations in which

the leader is functioning….Findings showed that leadership was not a passive

Chapter 1

state but resulted from a working relationship between the leader and other group

members. This research marked the beginning of a new approach to leadership

research that focussed on leadership behaviours and leadership situations."

(Northouse, 2001, p.16)

Stogdill’s (1974) survey, analysed 163 new studies and identified 10 traits which were

associated with leadership:

“The leader is characterised by a strong drive for responsibility and task

completion, vigour and persistence in pursuit of goals, venturesomeness and

originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, self-

confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept the consequences

of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to

tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other persons’ behaviour, and

the capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purposes at hand.”

(Stogdill, 1974, p.81)

According to (McKenna, 1994; Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998), Sogdill’s (1974) survey

provided a more balanced analysis of the roles of traits and the leadership process: whilst the first

survey argues that leadership is determined principally by situational factors, the second survey

“argued moderately that both personality and situational factors are determinants of leadership.”

(Northouse, 2001, p.17)

A survey by Mann (1959) which analysed the nature of leadership in small groups identified

leaders as possessing the following traits: intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance,

extroversion and conservatism. This survey placed less emphasis on situational factors than

(Stogdill’s 1948, 1974) surveys and tentatively suggested that personality traits alone could be

used to discriminate between leaders and non-leaders, (McKenna, 1994; Northouse, 2001). A

meta-analysis of the Mann’s (1959) findings by Lord et al., (1986) identified: intelligence,

masculinity and dominance as follower attributions of leadership but argued strongly that

personality traits alone could not be used to differentiate between leaders and non-leaders. In

Chapter 1

another contemporary review of leadership traits Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) postulate that the

following six traits differentiate leaders from non-leaders: drive, the desire to lead, honesty and

integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability and knowledge of the business. According to

Northouse (2001) the significance of this study compared with similar research is that:

“According to these writers [Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)], individuals can be

born with these traits, they can learn them, or both.” (Northouse, 2001, p.17-18)

In other words characteristics of leadership and thus determinants of the social influence process

(Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985) are a combination of innate and phenotypical constructs of

personality and the wider social system.

Fig 1 Studies of leadership Traits and CharacteristicsStogdill (1948) Mann (1959) Stogdill (1974) Lord,

DeVader & Alliger (1986)

Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)

Alertness Masculinity Persistence Masculinity MotivationInsight Adjustment Insight Intelligence IntegrityResponsibility Dominance Self-confidence Dominance ConfidenceInitiative Extroversion Responsibility Cognitive

abilityPersistence Conservatism Cooperativeness Task

KnowledgeSelf-confidence ToleranceSociability Influence

Sociability [Source: Northouse, 2001, p.18]

Trait approaches to leadership research have failed to provide any correlation between leadership

ability and specific characteristics of the leader, identified traits are often ambiguous, ill defined

and fail to take into account the situation. McHugh & Thomson (1995) argue that the most

abiding feature of leadership traits in management literature are that they provide good examples

of traits considered to be stereotypically male such as dominance, aggression and rationality,

rather than traits associated with female constructs of leadership such as, passivity, nurturance

and emotionality. Additionally, trait theories focus on the leader rather than followers or the

leadership process and in emphasising the identification of traits fail to link these to leadership

outcomes such as organisational effectiveness, productivity or follower satisfaction, (Yukl,

Chapter 1

1998). The trait approach to leadership research is particularly weak in describing how a

leader’s traits affect the facilitation and outcome of group processes in particular organisational

settings. From an educational perspective trait theories do not provide a conceptual framework

which can be used as the basis of management and leadership development programmes.

“Even if definitive traits could be identified, teaching new traits is not an easy

process because traits are not easily changed. For example, it is not reasonable to

send managers to a training programme to raise their IQ or to train them to

become introverted or extroverted people. The point is that traits are relatively

fixed psychological structures, and this limits the value of teaching and leadership

training.” (Northouse, 2001, p.24)

In summarising the legacy of the trait line of research McHugh & Thomson (1995) return to

Stogdill’s (1974) review in arguing that most interesting evidence relates to the disconfirmative

findings on the acceptability of leaders to group members which appear to show that groups

prefer high-status members as leaders and that the characteristics of followers determine the

acceptability of leadership characteristics.

Style/Behavioural Theories of Leadership

The failure of trait theories of leadership which viewed leadership as a quality anchored in the

personality of a particularly individual which enabled them to assume an influential role within

society, resulted in a new approach to leadership research which gave rise to a set of approaches

collectively known as style or behavioural theories of leadership. These theories viewed

leadership as a phenomenon, which did not resided solely in the personality of an individual but

could be cultivated as distinct patterns of learnt behaviour, (McKenna, 1994). Thus, representing

a shift in emphasis from viewing leadership as a trait to conceptualising leadership as an activity,

with a focus on what leaders do and how they act, and expanding the study of leadership to

include the actions of leaders towards followers in differing organisational contexts each with

associated criterion for leadership effectiveness.

Chapter 1

Researchers utilising the style approach conceptualised leadership as composed of two general

types of behaviours; task (production) related behaviours and relationship (group) related

behaviours. Task related behaviour emphasises leader control and is often bounded in

organisational procedures and rules, whereas relationship orientated behaviour is more

responsive to the needs of followers and emphasises the role of leadership in motivating and

developing work teams. The main studies on leadership style were undertaken in the USA at

Ohio State University beginning in the late 1940’s, based on the findings of Stogdill’s (1948)

research and at the same time a group of researchers at the University of Michigan began to

explore the nature and function of leadership in small groups. These studies coupled with later

work by Blake & Mouton (1964, 1978, 1985) comprise of the bulk of research relating to style

(behavioural) theories of leadership.

Research at the Ohio State University was initiated to identify how individuals behaved when

they were leading a group or providing organisational leadership. Leadership behaviours were

analysed using a Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) that asked

subordinates (followers) in military, educational and industrial contexts to identify the frequency

of certain types of leadership behaviour. The original LBDQ developed by (Hemphill & Coons,

1957) consisted of 150 items, five years later a shortened version known as LBDQ-XII was

developed by Stogdill (1963) and became the more widely used instrument.

Data collected from the extensive use of the LBDQ-XII allowed researchers (Fleishman &

Harris, 1962; Stogdill, 1963, 1974) to categorise subordinates’ responses around two general

types of leadership behaviours; initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure

indicates a concern with defining and organising roles, or relationships within the organisation,

establishing well defined channels of organisation and work organisation, and establishing

procedures for completing the work and communication within the work team – these behaviours

are frequently termed task or production orientated behaviours.

“A high score on this dimension characterises individuals who play an active role

in directing group activities through planning, communicating information,

Chapter 1

scheduling, trying out new ideas and practices, and so on.” (McKenna, 1994,

p.364)

Consideration behaviours are concerned with building relationships with subordinates

(followers), and focus on meeting individual and group needs, building trust and mutual respect

and are representative of a climate of good rapport, two way communications and participative

leadership. The two categories of behaviours identified by the LBDQ-XII represented the core

of the style approach and were considered central to what leaders do: leaders provide structure

for subordinates and they nurture them in order to achieve the objectives inherent in the

structuring of work. (Northouse, 2001; McKenna, 1994, Yukl, 1998) make the important point

that these two behaviours were distinct and independent and were not considered as end points of

a single continuum, but as two distinct continua of leadership behaviour. Thus, a leader could be

high in initiating structure and low or high in task behaviour, or, a leader could be low in

initiating the structure but low or high in consideration behaviour. That is, the degree to which a

leader exhibited one behaviour was not constrained or related by the degree to which s/he

exhibited behaviours on the other continuum.

At the same time as the Ohio State studies were been undertaken researchers from the University

of Michigan (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Katz & Khan, 1951; Likert, 1961) identified two

types of leadership behaviour which they called employee orientation and production

orientation. Employee orientation describes leadership behaviour characterised by concern for

the needs of subordinates (followers), valuing their individuality and taking a genuine interest in

developing good interpersonal relationships within work groups. These behaviours are

analogous with the leadership behaviours identified as consideration by the Ohio State

researchers. Production Orientation describes leadership behaviours, which are concerned with

the production aspects of the work and stress the importance of the technical aspects of work

organisation and view subordinates as a means to get the work done, a resource to be exploited in

completing the task. These behaviours are analogous with the leadership behaviours identified

as initiating structure by the Ohio State researchers.

Chapter 1

The key difference between the Michigan and Ohio State studies were that the Michigan

researchers originally conceptualised employee orientation and production orientation as

opposites ends of the same continuum. Thus, suggesting that leaders could not simultaneously

be highly orientated towards production and employees. However, later research by (Khan,

1956) suggested that in fact these behaviours were capable of being conceptualised on two

independent continua and that leaders were able to simultaneously show a high regard for

employee and production needs.

The 'leadership grid' (Blake & Mouton, 1978, 1985, 1991) which was originally conceptualised

as a 'managerial behaviour grid' (Blake & Mouton, 1964) is a model of leadership behaviour

which has been extensively used in organisational and managerial development. It is designed to

develop managerial self-awareness (and presumably leadership self-awareness) in relation to

how managers can facilitate the achievement of organisational objectives through combinations

of two behaviours namely; concern for production and concern for people - these are loosely

analogous to initiating structure/production orientation and consideration/employee orientation

respectively. Concern for production and concern for people are tested as separate dimensions of

leadership style and are not shown as a point on a single continuum but rather as a point on a two

dimensional grid, (see fig 2 on page 11).

The leadership behaviour questionnaires (LBQs) used, result in a leader being able to score

between a maximum (9, 9) - 'Team Management' or a minimum of (1, 1) - 'Impoverished

Management'. In an idealised organisational/managerial (leadership) development

programme participants once they have established a datum of behaviours from the LBQs

then utilise a planned series of development activities to develop leadership behaviours

commensurate with other points on the grids. However, essentially Blake & Mouton's

(1978, 1985, 1991) model does not add any additional insight into the leadership process than

the other style (behavioural) models of leadership and does not attempt to conceptualise a

contingent relationship between leadership behaviours and the wider environment.

Chapter 1

Fig 2 Leadership Grid [Source: Adapted from: Blake & Mouton, 1991, p.29; McKenna, 1994, p.365]

HighCONcern

For

People

10

(1,9) Country Club ManagementThoughtful attention to the needs of the

people for satisfying relationships leads to a comfortable, friendly organisational

atmosphere and work tempo

(9,9) Team ManagementWork accomplishment is from committed

people; interdependence through a 'common stake; in the organisational

purpose leads to relationships of trust and respect

9

8

7(5,5) Middle of the rode

ManagementAdequate organisational performance is possible

through balancing the necessity to get work out while

maintaining morale of people at a satisfactory level.

6

5

4

3(1,1) Impoverished Management

Exertion of minimum effort to get the required work done is appropriate to sustain organisational membership

(9,1) Task ManagementAuthority-Compliance Management: efficiency in operations results from

arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a

minimum degree

2

1

Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Concern for production/Results

The five basic types of managerial style (including leadership style) are described as: 1,1 Impoverished Management. Mangers with a 1,1 style fail to demonstrate a concern for people or

results. These managers are going through the motions of managing but are really not contributing anything to the organisation. Their management style is characterised by a lack of leadership.

9,1 Task/Authority-Compliance Management. This managerial style emphasises results but shows little concern for people. Managers with a 9,1 style exhibit leadership behaviours, which focus on the arrangements of work conditions and discount the importance of creativity and interpersonal processes. Since these managers tend to lead by issuing orders, individual initiative by subordinates (followers) may be view as insubordination.

1,9 Country Club Management. The 1, 9 manager is primarily concerned with people and their feelings, attitudes and needs. Leadership behaviour is characterised by a low concern for results and an attempt to create work environments with pleasant social environments with positive interpersonal relationships.

5,5 middle of the Road Management. Mangers with a 5,5 style have a moderate amount of concern for both results and people. Managers who use this leadership style try to balance employee morale with acceptable levels of work output and try to resolve conflict through accommodation and compromise.

9,9 Team Management. The 9,9 manager demonstrates high concern for people and results and views relationships between these two dimensions of leadership as complementary rather that antagonistic. Leadership is characterised by participative decision making and problem solving, the integration of follower objectives with those of the organisation by developing work teams that utilise team members’ contributions in an independent way.

Chapter 1

An interesting expansion on the idea that leadership style consisted of two types of behaviour

namely those related to achieving the task often conceptualised as autocratic and those relating to

developing interpersonal relationships often conceptualised as democratic (Lippitt & White,

1968; Lewin, 1968) is offered by Likert (1967) who articulates four styles of leadership related

to specific management cultures that he believed were present in organisations (see fig 3 on page

13)

Yukl (1998) argues strongly that despite a large number of studies conducted by researchers

from both Ohio State and Michigan University aimed at determining how best leaders could

combine their task and relationship behaviours so as to maximise the impact of these behaviours

on followers in order to further the aims of the organisation, in a vain search for a universal style

of leadership; given the complexity, and contextually, multiply contingent nature of the

leadership process it is not surprising that such approaches yielded ambiguous and contradictory

results. Researchers were not able to establish a link between leadership behaviours and the

outcomes of the leadership process such as organisational productivity and efficiency, job

satisfaction and staff morale, and team effectiveness that were universally transferable.

Northouse (2001) argues that whilst approaches to leadership derived from the work of (Blake

& Mouton, 1967, 1978, 1985; Blake & McCanse, 1991) would argue that a high-high (9,9 -

Team Management) approach to leadership to be optimal this might not be effective in all

situations eg in crisis (or even war), in developing an immature team.

Hunt (1991) argues behavioural approaches to leadership tend to focus on micro-level

perspectives constructed from an individual manager-subordinate relationship and neglects the

role of managers in dealing with inter-organisational and environmental relationships, in which

the leadership outcomes such as networking, alliance and group formation are critical and largely

ignored by the narrow behavioural constructs proposed by the proponents of style theory. Hence,

such approaches failed to develop theories which explain how leadership behaviour contributes

to the flexibility and adaptation of the organisation to turbulent and globalised economies, which

some researchers (Schein, 1992) would argue, once social validity has been established, are

determinants of organisational culture.

Chapter 1

Fig 3 - Comparison of Likert's (1967) cultural determinants of leadership Style with Michigan & Ohio State University studies on leadership style.

Dominant Culture Leadership Behaviours Task

Beh

aviours

(Con

cern for

prod

uction

/in

itiating stru

ctures)

Exploitive - Authoritative

The leader utilises downwards communication to threaten followers in a climate of negative reinforcement. Decision-making takes place at the apex of the organisation and excludes subordinates who are psychologically estranged from the aims of the organisation and the leadership process.

Benevolent - Authoritative

The leader uses a degree of positive reinforcement especially in relation to financial remuneration to encourage desirable behaviours amongst followers. Communication is mostly downward and upward communication tends to be restricted to what subordinates perceive that their managers want to hear. Most decision making occurs at the top of the organisation but limited delegation exists in relation to clearly defined operational tasks.

Con

tinu

um

of leadersh

ip b

ehaviou

rs

Consultative The leader uses both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in order to positively reinforce desirable subordinate behaviours, upward communication is still limited to what subordinates perceive that their managers want to hear. Subordinates (followers) have a moderate amount of influence in operational issues but policy making is conducted by senior managers only.

Participative The leader discusses both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards with followers and involves them in the setting of group objectives, and establishing work processes. The emphasis is the exchange of accurate information, with individuals being a member of more than one work team spread across established organisational structures, the leaders and followers are psychologically close and every attempt is made to integrate individual objectives (needs) with those of the organisation.

Relation

ship

Beh

aviours

(Con

cern for

peop

le/Con

sideration

)

The corollary to this argument is that style theorists in an arguably over eager effort to identify

core leadership behaviours effectively reduced organisations to closed social systems, which

provide a wholly inadequate conceptual framework for the analysis of contemporary leadership

behaviour associated with interrelated globalised markets and associated economic systems.

Chapter 1

Additionally, style theories of leadership tend to consider leadership behaviours as mutually

exclusive rather than considering how leaders select and use patterns of behaviours to achieve

their objectives and how the social context shape these (and indeed how in turn leadership

behaviours shape the context). Kaplan (1986) argues that far more complex behavioural

taxonomies are required than those proposed by the proponents of style theory to adequately

describe and explain 'real-life' leadership actions, and that such taxonomies need to take into

account the instrumentality of first level outcomes in selecting future leadership behaviours.

McHugh & Thomson (1995) cite Stogdill's (1974) review of leadership research in arguing

that:

"In view of the complexity of leadership behaviour and the variety of situations in

which it functions, a conditional and multivariate hypothesis seems more

reasonable than a simplistic, bipolar view of leader follower relationship [which is

a central tenet of style research (see fig 3)]" (Stogdill, 1974, p.407 in McHugh

& Thomson, 1995, p.289)

Whilst style theories of leadership marked a shift in the emphasis of leadership research from the

identification of personality traits to what leaders actually do in practice. Resulting in a

conceptually simple framework for categorising leadership behaviour which in turn could be

used as a framework for self-reflection and planned leadership, management and organisational

development activities, which provided added credence to the notion that the antecedence of

leadership behaviours had both genetic and environmental components. The lack of emphasis on

the contextual components of leadership and the contingent nature of leadership behaviour is a

significant and fundamental weakness of this strand of research.

Contingency Theories of Leadership

The failure of style (behavioural) theories of leadership to take into account situational and

contextual variables led to new multi-variable research which investigated which types of

Chapter 1

leadership behaviour would be best suited to certain contextual and situational variables. This

led to the development of contingent theories of leadership which are often referred to as 'leader-

match' theories, because of the attempt to match leaders to appropriate situations. (Fiedler's

1964, 1967; Fielder & Garcia, 1987) are amongst the best known.

Fiedler’s (1964, 1967) Contingency Theory

Following the analysis of the leadership styles of many leaders (both good and bad), Fiedler was

able to make empirically grounded generalisations about which styles of leadership were best for

given organisational contexts. The theory attempts to predict how the preferred style of the

leader, the positional power of the leader and the structure of the job or task interrelate to

determine the effectiveness of the leader. Thus, leadership effectiveness was predicted to be

dependent on the situational favourableness, which was viewed as contingent on levels of task

structure, leader-member relations, the leader's positional power and the leaders preferred style,

(Northouse, 2001).

The leader's preferred style is determined using the Least Preferred Co-worker Questionnaire

(LPC) which measures the leader's esteem for her/his least preferred co-worker. To arrive at a

LPC scale leaders were asked to rate both their Most Preferred Co-worker (MPC) and LPC.

Leaders who described their LPC and MPC similarly were classified as having a high preference

for relationship orientated behaviour whereas those who described their LPC much more

negatively than their MPC were said to demonstrate a preference for task orientated behaviour.

The situational variable of task structure is a direct reference to the degree to which the

organisation and/or the wider operating environment clarifies the way in which tasks are to be

carried out by for example the use of procedures, protocols, rules and regulations.

"The degree of structure in the job or the task can be measured by establishing the

extent to which one can be specific about the solution to the work problem. The

leader finds it easier to force compliance in a structured job situation than in an

unstructured job situation." (McKenna, 1994, p.380)

Chapter 1

The positional power of the leader refers to the authority vested in the leader by the organisation

as distinct from any other power base the leader may use to influence followers. Positional

power is strong if the leader has the ability to reward or punish followers, organise work, define

methods of group working and define organisational policy. Leader Member Relations is often

regarded as the most important of contextual variable and refers to the extent to which the leader

is trusted, liked and respected by followers. Taken collectively, these three variables determine

the conditions of 'favourableness' of various organisational contexts defined by unique

combinations of these variables, (see fig 4 below).

I II III IV V VI VII VIIIGood Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Poor

Situational Structured Structured Structured Structured Unstr Unstr Unstr UnstrVariables

Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak

Leadership effectiveness Low LPCsHigh LPCs(Relationship Orientated)

Power

Low - Middle LPCs(Task Orientated)

Leader - MemberRelations

Task structure

Leader Positional

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

High LPC score:

Realtionship Oreintated

Low LPC score: Task

Oreintated

Correlations between leader LPC and group Performance

Favourable to the leader Unfavourable to the leader

Fig 4 - A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness, Fiedler, 1967, p.146

Chapter 1

Based on empirical research findings the theory predicts that in very favourable (octants 1-3) or

very unfavourable (octant 8) conditions leaders with low LPC scores (who have a preference for

task orientated behaviour) are likely to perform best. In other situations which were either

moderately favourable or moderately unfavourable (octants 4-7) then leaders with middle to high

LPC scores (who have a preference for relationship orientated behaviour) are likely to perform

best.

McHugh & Thomson (1995) argue that whilst many studies have cast doubt on Fielder's

(1967) model it does fit with the notion that democratic (relationship orientated) leaders are

preferred in most situations and that autocratic (task orientated) leaders are preferred in crisis or

novel situations where there is a strong need amongst followers for quick decision making and

for work to be organised. However, it does not adequately explain why autocratic, task

orientated leaders are preferred in situations which Fielder's (1967) model describes as

favourable. (Northouse, 2001; McKenna, 1994; Hunt, 1996; Yukl, 1998) identify the indirect

measure of preferred leadership style using the LPC score which tends to result in leaders with

either high or low LPC scores with few intermediate scores, as a major flaw in the research

methodology.

"Although it takes only a few minutes to complete the instructions on the LPC

scale are not clear; they do not fully explain how the respondent is to select his or

her LPC. Some respondents may get confused between an individual who is the

least liked co-worker and their least preferred co-worker. Because their final LPC

score is predicated on who they choose as a least preferred co-worker, the lack of

clear directions on who to choose [and utilise to project their leadership style by

reacting to observed behaviours in others] makes the measure of the LPC

problematic." (Northouse, 2001, p.81)

Such criticisms reinforce the difficulty in universally utilising the theory within real life contexts

given the complexity of the three contingent variables each of which requires its own research

instrument, especially given that many researchers argue that by considering only three

contingent variables Fiedler (1967) provides an incomplete picture of the leadership process and

Chapter 1

its outcomes. (Yukl, 1998, p.285-6) provides an excellent summary of many of the criticisms of

contingency theory, see fig 5 below.

Fig 5 - Criticisms of Fiedler's (1967) Contingency Theory ofLeadership Effectiveness, (Adapted from Yukl, 1998, p.285-286)

Criticism Researcher/WriterLPC Score The LPC score is a "measure in search of meaning" (Schriesheim & Kerr,

1977, p.23). Its interpretation has been changed in an arbitrary fashion, and the current interpretation is speculative. LPC scores may not be stable over time, (Yukl, 1991).

Not a Theory The model is not really a theory, since it doesn't explain how a leader's LPC score affects group performance (Ashour, 1973). There are no explicit intervening variables or leader behaviour variables to provide the causal link between the leader's LPC score and group performance

Weak Empirical Support

The empirical support for the model is weak because it is based on correlational results that fail to achieve statistical significance in a majority of cases, even though correlations may be in the right direction (McMahon, 1972; Vecchio, 1983)

Arbitrary weightings assigned to situational variables

The weights used to compute situational favourability were determined in an arbitrary manner, and no explicit rationale was presented for them. The model does not explain why three different aspects of the situation should be combined and treated as a single continuum of leadership favourableness. (Shiflett, 1973)

Lack of emphasis on medium LPC leaders

The model and most of the empirical research neglects medium LPC scores, these leaders probably outnumber high and low LPC leaders. Research suggests that medium LPC leaders are more effective than either high or low LPC leader in at least 50% of situations (octants 4-7), presumably because they are able to better balance affiliation (relationship orientated behaviours) and achievement (task orientated behaviours) more successfully. (Kennedy, 1982; Shiflett, 1973)

The model treats task structure as given

The model treats task structure as given, whereas in many organisational situations, organising the work is the main concern of the leader. Research suggests that modifying the task structure has up to ten times the effect on group performance. (O'brien & Kabanoff, 1981)

Chapter 1

Causal Variable

Leader's LPC Score

End Result Variable

Group Performance

Situational VariablesLeader-Member RelationsLeader's Positional Power

Task Structure

?

Situational Leadership – Hersey & Blanchard (1969, 1977, 1985)

Situational leadership is a contingency model of leadership first proposed by Hersey &

Blanchard (1969) and was based on Reddin’s (1967) 3-D Management Style theory. The

situational approach has been further developed by Hersey & Blanchard (1977, 1985) and by

Blanchard et al., (1985, 1993). The theory focuses on leadership in different situations and

focuses on the need of the leader to adopt different leadership styles depending on the maturity

of individual employees. Maturity includes two related components: Job Maturity; the extent to

which a subordinate’s task orientated knowledge and technical skills are contextually

appropriate, and Psychological Maturity; which is concerned with the subordinate’s level of self-

esteem, self-confidence and self-respect. According to theory, the level of subordinate maturity

determines the optimal pattern of leadership behaviour along a task orientated/relationship

orientated behavioural continuum:

as subordinate maturity increases from a minimum level to a moderate level the leader

should utilise more relationship orientated behaviour and less task orientated behaviour,

as subordinate maturity increases beyond a moderate level the leader should decrease the

amount of relationship behaviour whilst continuing to decrease the amount the task

related behaviour.

“Situational Leadership theory suggests that there is no such thing as a common

style of good leadership, no one best way to influence people all the time, but that

a leader will be effective when s/he matches her/his style to her/his own

requirements, those of her/his subordinates and the task itself in the context of the

situation or environment. The individual manager needs to work out which

approach to use, which combination of task and relationship behaviour is

appropriate, depending on the circumstances, which prevail. …A subordinate or

team working competently has the knowledge and skills to perform the task, is

willing to take responsibility for the job, and is highly committed to achievement

of the task. A developed subordinate or group can be described as 'ready, willing

Chapter 1

and able'. The relative lack of these characteristics shows the degree of

underdevelopment or immaturity.” (Kakabadse et al., 1988, p.165)

Fig 6 Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977)(Northouse P, 2001, p.54)

Am

oun

t of

lead

er B

ehav

iou

r

Mu

chL

ittl

e

M1 M2 M3 M4Low Moderate High

Follower Maturity

Combinations of task and relationship behaviours are further sub-divided into four categories of

leadership behaviour

Telling is for low maturity followers (M1); people and/or teams who are unable and unwilling to

take responsibility and need clear, specific directions and supervision. This style is called 'telling'

because it requires telling people what, how, when and where to perform. It emphasises directive

behaviour.

Selling is for individuals and/or groups of moderate maturity (M2); People who are willing but

unable to take responsibility need directive behaviour because of their lack of ability, and supportive

behaviour to reinforce the team's willingness and enthusiasm

Chapter 1

Key

Tas

k B

ehav

iou

r

Rel

atio

nsh

ip

Beh

avio

ur

Participating is for moderate to high maturity individuals and teams (M3). The follower has the

ability but lacks self-confidence or enthusiasm, so the leader needs to maintain two-way

communications to support the follower's ability. The style is called 'participating' because the

leader and follower share in decision making, but the leader is the facilitator. Participating involves

high relationship behaviour and low task behaviour.

Delegating is for high maturity individuals and teams (M4). The people have both ability and

motivation and little direction or support is needed. Followers are permitted to decide how, when

and where to perform. They are psychologically mature and therefore do not need above-average

amounts of two-way dialogue. (See fig 7 on page 22)

Situational leadership theory has been used extensively in the development of managers and has

stood the test of time and the marketplace! It provides a practical, intuitive and sensible

approach to optimising leadership behaviour based on easily identifiable (observable) contingent

variables; which can be applied in a variety of contexts. Thus, providing a conceptual

framework with a high prescriptive value, which emphasises the importance of leader flexibility

and sensitivity to organisational and subordinate needs. (Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998)

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

Despite its extensive use as a framework for management development the theory attracts the

following criticisms:

There are only a limited number of research studies to test the underlying assumptions of

the theory, which raises concerns about the theoretical basis of the approach.

(Yukl, 1998; Northouse, 2001) argue that the ambiguous conceptualisation concerning

the development levels of subordinates; in their 1977 model Hersey & Blanchard identify

four levels of maturity (M1 – unwilling and unable, M2 – willing and unable, M3 –

Unwilling and able and M4 – willing and able). In their 1985 model these levels of

maturity have been replaced by a series of development levels (D1 – high commitment

and low competence, D2 – low commitment and some competence, D3 – variable

commitment and high competence and D4 – High commitment and high competence).

“The author’s of situational leadership do not explain the theoretical basis for

these changes in the composition of each of the development levels. Further they

do not provide an explanation for how competence and commitment are weighted

across different development levels.” (Northouse, 2001, p.60)

“Maturity is composed of diverse levels (ie task complexity, subordinate

confidence, motivation and ability), and questionable assumptions are made about

how to weight and combine them, (Barrow, 1977)”. (Yukl, 1998, p.272)

The theory is narrow in scope because it only uses one situational variable namely the

maturity of the subordinate and the model fails to identify any interim variables which

would delineate a causal relationship between the leader’s behaviour and subordinate

performance such as subordinate motivation, role clarity, task structure etc.

Chapter 1

Normative Decision Making Model of Leadership – Vroom & Yetton

(1973)

Vroom & Yetton (1973) developed a decision making model of leadership which is contingent

on two variables; decision quality and decision acceptance. Vroom argues that possible decision

making processes, which a leader might use in dealing with an issue affecting a group of

subordinates, are summarised in fig 8.

Fig 8 Vroom & Yetton (1973) Possible Decision Making Processes

AI You solve the problem or make the decision yourself, using information available to you at that time.

AII You obtain the necessary information from your subordinate(s), and then decide on the solution to the problem yourself. You may or may not tell your subordinates what the problem is when getting the information from them. The role played by your subordinates in making the decision is clearly one of providing necessary information to you, rather than generating or evaluating native solutions.

CI You share the problem with the relevant subordinates individually, getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect on your subordinates’ influence

CII You share a problem with your subordinates as a group, collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect your subordinate’s influence.

GII You share a problem with your subordinates as a group. Together you generate and evaluate alternatives and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. Your role is much like that of a chairperson. You do not try to influence the group to adopt ‘your’ solution and you are willing to accept and implement any solution that has the support of the entire group.

Processes AI and AII are designated autocratic processes, CI and CII consultative processes,

and GII is a group process. (GI applies to single subordinate issues.) Having identified these

processes Vroom and Yetton's research programme then proceeded to answer two basic

questions:

What decision-making processes should managers use to deal effectively with the

problems they encounter in their jobs?

What decision-making processes do managers use in dealing with their problems and

what factors affect their choice of processes and degree of subordinate participation?

Chapter 1

In attempting to answer the first question Vroom & Yetton (1973) developed a detailed

normative model of decision making based on the rational principles consistent with existing

evidence on the consequences of management decision-making on organisational effectiveness

and identified three classes of consequences (situations), which influence decision effectiveness:

The quality or rationality of the decision - clearly a process that jeopardised this would

be ineffective.

The acceptance or commitment on the part of the subordinates to execute the decision

effectively - if this commitment is necessary then processes, which do not generate it

even though they give a high quality decision, would be ineffective

The amount of time required to make the decision - a decision process which took less

time, if it were equally effective, would normally be preferable to one which took longer.

The normative Decision Model (fig 9) provides a predictive, logical (rational) model of decision-

making contingent on the above variables. The normative model requires that all managers, if

they are to be rational and effective, have to be able to be able utilise a range of leadership

behaviours, ranging from autocratic to consultative to participative.

“This is a pleasing rational model of decision making and Vroom has found that

it works well in helping managers to describe and plan their own decision making

processes. There is, however some doubt that what they actually do conforms to

what they say they do and, in practice, leadership is more than taking decisions

with a group or for a group. Even Vroom’s more complicated model is not

complicated enough, it seems.” (Handy, 1993, p.106)

Chapter 1

Fig 9 - Vroom V H, 1973 – Decision Tree Model of Leadership – [Source: Vroom, 1974 in Pugh (Ed), 1990, p.317)

1 - A12 - A1

3 - GII

5 - A16 - GII

7 - CII

4 - A1

8 - CI

9 - AII

10 - AII11 - CII

12 - GII

14 - CII13 - CII

rational thananother?

Is there a qualityrequirement suchthat one solution

is likely to be more

Do I have sufficientinformation to make a quality

decision?effective

implementation?

Is the ProblemStructured?

Is Acceptance ofthe decision by the decision by

yourself, is itreasonably certain

subordinatescritical to

that it would beaccepted by your

subordinates?

Do subordinatesshare the

organisationalgoals to be

obtained in solvingthe problem?

If you were to make Is conflict amongsubordinates

likely in preferredsolutions?

E F GA B C D

YesYes

NoYes

YesYesNoYes

YesYes

NoYes

YesYesNoYes

NoYes

YesYesNoYes

NoYes

YesYes

YesYes

NoYes

YesYes

YesYes

NoYes

NoYes

YesYes

YesYesNoYes

YesYesNoYes

NoYes

YesYes

NoYes

YesYes

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

chp1 the nature of leadership

Documents

high relations

ohio state

hundred studies

ohio state

relationship

low lpc scores

subordinate

task orientated