After studying this chapter, students should be able to:
1. Define leadership and contrast leadership and management.2. Summarize the conclusions of trait theories.3. Identify the central tenets and main limitations of behavioral theories.4. Assess contingency theories of leadership by their level of support.5. Contrast the interactive theories path-goal and leader–member exchange.6. Identify the situational variables in the leader-participation model. .7. Show how U.S. managers might need to adjust their leadership approaches in Brazil, France, Egypt, and China.
Summary and Implications for Managers
Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior, for it’s the leader who usually provides the direction toward goal attainment. Therefore, a more accurate predictive capability should be valuable in improving group performance.
The early search for a set of universal leadership traits failed. However, recent efforts using the Big Five personality framework have generated much more encouraging results. Specifically, the traits of extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience show strong and consistent relationships to leadership.
The behavioral approach’s major contribution was narrowing leadership into task-oriented (initiating structure) and people-oriented (consideration) styles. As with the trait approach, results from the behavioral school were initially dismissed. But recent efforts have confirmed the importance of task- and people-oriented leadership styles.
A major shift in leadership research came when we recognized the need to develop contingency theories that included situational factors. At present, the evidence indicates that relevant situational variables include the task structure of the job; level of situational stress; level of group support; leader’s intelligence and experience; and follower characteristics, such as personality, experience, ability, and motivation. Although contingency theories haven’t lived up to their initial promise, the literature has provided basic support for Fiedler’s LPC theory.
Finally, two other theories—leader–member exchange (LMX) theory and the leader-participation model—also contribute to our understanding of leadership. LMX theory has proved influential for its analysis of followers—whether they are included in the leader’s “in-group” or were relegated to the “out group.” Vroom’s leader-participation model focuses on the leader’s role as decision maker and considers how leaders make decisions (such as whether to involve followers in their decision making).
As a group, these traditional theories have enhanced our understanding of effective leadership. As we’ll discover in the next chapter, however, more recent theories have shown even more promise in describing effective leadership.
The chapter opens introducing William Perez, first CEO of Wrigley without the Wrigley name. Perez was formerly with Nike and S.C. Johnson. Similar to Wrigley, S.C. Johnson also had generations of family leadership. This unprecedented move at Wrigley is all about leadership and identifying those individuals who are the right fit with the right stuff. The chewing gum company is banking on Perez and his ability to lead Wrigley in the future..
Brief Chapter Outline
I. WHAT IS LEADERSHIP? (PPT 12–2) Definitions
o John Kotter feels that management is about coping with complexity. o Robert House of Wharton basically concurs: We define leadership as “the ability to
influence a group toward the achievement of goals.” o Organizations need strong leadership and strong management for optimum
effectiveness. Leaders must challenge the status quo, create visions of the future, and inspire organizational members.
II. TRAIT THEORIES (PPTs 12-3 ) Big Five personality traits and leadership
o Extraversion most importanto Conscientiousness and openness to experienceo Agreeableness and emotional stability
Emotional intelligence and leadershipo Empathyo Highest levels of leadershipo EI and Leadership lack thorough investigation
III. BEHAVIORAL THEORIES (PPTs 12–4 to 12–6) A. Introduction
Behavioral approach assumption: suggests that we could train people to be leaders. We can design programs to implant behavioral patterns. If training worked, we could have an infinite supply of effective leaders.
B. Ohio State Studies The most comprehensive and replicated of the behavioral theories resulted from
research that began at Ohio State University in the late 1940s. These researchers sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior.
They narrowed over a thousand dimensions into two dimensions—initiating structure and consideration.
C. University of Michigan Studies Leadership studies were undertaken at the same time as those being done at Ohio
State, with similar research objectives. They discovered two dimensions of leadership behavior—employee-oriented and production-oriented.
D. The Managerial Grid Blake and Mouton proposed a managerial grid based on the styles of “concern for
people” and “concern for production,” which essentially represent the Ohio State dimensions of consideration and initiating structure or the Michigan dimensions of employee-oriented and production-oriented.
The grid has nine possible positions along each axis, creating 81 different positions.
E. Summary of Trait Theories and Behavioral Theories The behavioral theories have had modest success in identifying consistent
relationships between leadership behavior and group performance. However, situational factors that influence success or failure need to be explored
further.
IV. CONTINGENCY THEORIES A. Fiedler Model (PPTs 12–7 to 12–11)
1. Introduction The first comprehensive contingency model for leadership was developed
by Fred Fiedler who proposed that effective group performance depends upon the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader.
2. Identifying Leadership Style Fiedler believed that a key factor in leadership success is the individual’s
basic leadership style. He created the least preferred coworker (LPC) questionnaire for this purpose.
3. Defining the Situation Leader-member relations—The degree of confidence, trust, and respect
members have in their leader Task structure—The degree to which the job assignments are procedural Position power—The degree of influence a leader has over power
variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases4. Matching Leaders and Situations
Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders tend to perform better in situations that were very favorable to them and in situations that were very unfavorable.
5. Evaluation There is considerable evidence to support at least substantial parts of the
model. If predictions from the model use only three categories rather than the original eight, there is ample evidence to support Fiedler’s conclusions.
6. Cognitive Resource Theory: (PPTs 12–11) The essence of the new theory is that stress is the enemy of rationality. It is
difficult for leaders to think logically and analytically when they are under stress.
Cognitive resource theory is developing a solid body of research support. B. Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory (PPTs 12–12 to 12–20)
Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed a leadership model that has gained a strong following among management development specialists. This model—Situational Leadership Theory (SLT)—has been incorporated into leadership training programs at over 400 of the Fortune 500 companies, and over one million managers a year from a wide variety of organizations are being taught its basic elements.
Situational leadership is a contingency theory that focuses on the followers. o Successful leadership is achieved by selecting the right leadership style,
which is contingent on the level of the followers’ readiness. The term readiness refers to “the extent to which people have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task.”
Hersey and Blanchard identify four specific leader behaviors—from highly directive to highly laissez-faire. The most effective behavior depends on a followers’ ability and motivation.
SLT has an intuitive appeal. Yet, research efforts to test and support the theory have generally been disappointing.
One of the most respected approaches to leadership is the path-goal theory developed by Robert House.
It is the leader’s job to assist followers in attaining their goals and to provide the necessary direction and/or support to ensure that their goals are compatible with the overall objectives of the firm.
2. Leader Behaviors House identified four leadership behaviors:
o The directive leader lets followers know what is expected of them, etc.
o The supportive leader is friendly and shows concern for the needs of followers.
o The participative leader consults with followers and uses their suggestions before making a decision.
o The achievement-oriented leader sets challenging goals and expects followers to perform at their highest level
D. Leader-Member Exchange Theory (PPTs 12–15 and 12–16) The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory argues that because of time
pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small group of their followers. How the leader chooses who falls into each category is unclear. .
E. Contingency Variables and Predictions1. Introduction
In contrast to Fiedler, House assumes leaders are flexible and can display any of these behaviors.
Two classes of situational or contingency variables moderate the leadership behavior: o Environmental or outcome relationship. o Personal characteristics of the employee.
2. Evaluation Research evidence generally supports the logic underlying the path-goal
theory. F. Leader-Participation Model (PPTs 12–17)
In 1973, Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton developed a leader-participation model. Recognizing that task structures have varying demands for routine and non-routine activities, these researchers argued that leader behavior must adjust to reflect the task structure. o The model was a decision tree incorporating seven contingencies and five
leadership styles.o More recent work by Vroom and Arthur Jago revised this model.
The twelve contingency variables are listed in Exhibit 12–5. The model is far too complicated for the typical manager to use on
a regular basis. Vroom and his associates have provided us with some specific, empirically-
supported contingency variables that you should consider when choosing your leadership style.
V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS A. Leadership is central to understanding group behavior
Leaders provide direction toward goalsB. Traits Theory
Big Five Personality FrameworkC. Behavioral Theory
o Task structureo Stresso Supporto Leader intelligenceo Follower Personality
Expanded Chapter Outline
I. WHAT IS LEADERSHIP? Definitions
o John Kotter feels that management is about coping with complexity. Good management brings about order and consistency by drawing up
formal plans, designing rigid organization structures, and monitoring results against the plans.
Leadership is about coping with change. Leaders establish direction by developing a vision of the future; then they
align people by communicating this vision and inspiring them to overcome hurdles.
o Robert House of Wharton basically concurs: Managers use the authority inherent in their designated formal rank to
obtain compliance. Management consists of implementing vision and strategy, coordinating
and staffing, and handling day-to-day problems. o We define leadership as “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of
goals.” The source of this influence may be formal. A person may assume a
leadership role simply because of his/her position. Not all leaders are managers, nor, for that matter, are all managers’
leaders. Non-sanctioned leadership—the ability to influence that arises outside the
formal structure of the organization—is often as important as or more important than formal influence.
Leaders can emerge from within a group as well as by formal appointment to lead a group.
Organizations need strong leadership and strong management for optimum effectiveness. Leaders must challenge the status quo, create visions of the future, and inspire organizational members.
II. TRAIT THEORIES The media has long been a believer in trait theories of leadership. They identify leaders by
focusing on personal qualities and characteristics such as charisma, enthusiasm, and courage.
The search for attributes that describe leaders and differentiate them goes back to the 1930s.
Research efforts at isolating leadership traits resulted in a number of dead ends. A review of 20 different studies identified nearly 80 leadership traits, but only five of these traits were common to four or more of the investigations.
The trait approach has at least four limitations:o Big Five personality framework provided some breakthroughs. Most of the dozens
of traits that emerged could be subsumed under one of the Big Five traits. o Extraversion is the most important trait of effective leaders—More strongly related
to leader emergence than to leader effectiveness. o Conscientiousness and openness to experience strong, consistent relationships to
leadership o Agreeableness and emotional stability weren’t as strongly correlated with
leadership. o Recent studies suggest that Emotional Intelligence (EI—See Chapter 8), may be
associated with leadership. Empathy is the key. There needs to be more rigorous investigation in this area.
o Traits do a better job at predicting the appearance of leadership than in actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders.
III. BEHAVIORAL THEORIESA. Introduction
Researchers began to wonder if there was something unique in the way that effective leaders behave. The behavioral approach would have implications quite different from those of the trait approach.
Trait and behavioral theories differ in terms of their underlying assumptions. o Trait theories assumption: Leadership is basically inborn; therefore we
could select the right leaders. o Behavioral approach assumption: suggests that we could train people to be
leaders. We can design programs to implant behavioral patterns. If training worked, we could have an infinite supply of effective leaders.
B. Ohio State Studies The most comprehensive and replicated of the behavioral theories resulted from
research that began at Ohio State University in the late 1940s. These researchers sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior.
They narrowed over a thousand dimensions into two dimensions—initiating structure and consideration.
Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his/her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. o It includes attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals. o The leader high in initiating structure could be described as someone who
“assigns group members to particular tasks,” “expects workers to maintain definite standards of performance,” and “emphasizes the meeting of deadlines.”
Consideration is described as “the extent to which a person is likely to have job relationships that are characterized by mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings.” o The leader shows concern for followers’ comfort, well-being, status, and
satisfaction. o A leader high in consideration could be described as one who helps
employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable, and treats all employees as equals.
Leaders high in initiating structure and consideration tended to achieve high employee performance and satisfaction. o The “high-high” style did not always result in positive consequences. o Leader behavior characterized as high on initiating structure led to greater
rates of grievances, absenteeism, and turnover, and lower levels of job satisfaction for routine tasks.
o High consideration was negatively related to performance ratings of the leader by his/her superior.
Leadership studies were undertaken at the same time as those being done at Ohio State, with similar research objectives. They discovered two dimensions of leadership behavior—employee-oriented and production-oriented.
Employee-oriented leaders emphasized interpersonal relations. They took a personal interest in the needs of their employees and accepted individual differences among members.
The production-oriented leaders tended to emphasize the technical or task aspects of the job—group members were a means to that end.
Michigan researchers’ conclusions strongly favored the leaders who were employee oriented. Employee-oriented leaders were associated with higher group productivity and higher job satisfaction.
Production-oriented leaders tended to be associated with low group productivity and lower job satisfaction.
D. The Managerial Grid Blake and Mouton proposed a managerial grid based on the styles of “concern for
people” and “concern for production,” which essentially represent the Ohio State dimensions of consideration and initiating structure or the Michigan dimensions of employee-oriented and production-oriented.
The grid has nine possible positions along each axis, creating 81 different positions.
The grid shows the dominating factors in a leader’s thinking in regard to getting results.
Based on the findings of Blake and Mouton, managers were found to perform best under a 9,9 style, as contrasted, for example, with a 9,1 (authority type) or 1,9 (liaises-faire type) style. Unfortunately, the grid offers a better framework for conceptualizing leadership style than for presenting any tangible new information.
E. Summary of Trait Theories and Behavioral Theories The behavioral theories have had modest success in identifying consistent
relationships between leadership behavior and group performance. However, situational factors that influence success or failure need to be explored
further.
IV. CONTINGENCY THEORIESA. Fiedler Model
1. Introduction The first comprehensive contingency model for leadership was developed
by Fred Fiedler who proposed that effective group performance depends upon the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader.
2. Identifying Leadership Style Fiedler believed that a key factor in leadership success is the individual’s
basic leadership style. He created the least preferred coworker (LPC) questionnaire for this purpose. o It purports to measure whether a person is task- or relationship-
oriented. o The questionnaire contains 16 contrasting adjectives (such as pleasant-
unpleasant, efficient-inefficient, open-guarded, supportive-hostile). o It asks respondents to describe the one person they least enjoyed
working with by rating him or her on a scale of one-to-eight for each of the 16 sets of contrasting adjectives.
o Fiedler believes that based on the respondents’ answers to this questionnaire, he can determine their basic leadership style.
o If the least preferred coworker is described in relatively positive terms (a high LPC score), the respondent is primarily interested in good personal relations with this coworker.
If the least preferred coworker is seen in relatively unfavorable terms (a low LPC score), the respondent is primarily interested in productivity and thus would be labeled task-oriented.
About 16 percent of respondents cannot be classified as either. Fiedler assumes that an individual’s leadership style is fixed.
3. Defining the Situation After assessing leadership style, it is necessary to match the leader with
the situation. Fiedler has identified three contingency dimensions: o Leader-member relations—The degree of confidence, trust, and
respect members have in their leadero Task structure—The degree to which the job assignments are
procedural o Position power—The degree of influence a leader has over power
variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases
The next step is to evaluate the situation in terms of these three contingency variables. o Leader-member relations are either good or poor. o Task structure is either high or low. o Position power is either strong or weak.
Fiedler states the better the leader-member relations, the more highly structured the job, and the stronger the position power, the more control the leader has.
Altogether, by mixing the three contingency variables, there are potentially eight different situations or categories in which leaders could find themselves.
4. Matching Leaders and Situations The Fiedler model proposes matching them up to achieve maximum
leadership effectiveness. Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders tend to perform better in
situations that were very favorable to them and in situations that were very unfavorable. o Fiedler would predict that when faced with a category I, II, Ill, VII,
or VIII situation, task-oriented leaders perform better. o Relationship-oriented leaders, however, perform better in
moderately favorable situations—categories IV through VI. Fiedler has condensed these eight situations to three. Task-oriented
leaders perform best in situations of high and low control, while relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situations.
Given Fiedler’s findings, you would seek to match leaders and situations. Because Fiedler views an individual’s leadership style as being fixed, there are only two ways to improve leader effectiveness. o First, you can change the leader to fit the situation. o The second alternative would be to change the situation to fit the
leader. 5. Evaluation
There is considerable evidence to support at least substantial parts of the model. If predictions from the model use only three categories rather than the original eight, there is ample evidence to support Fiedler’s conclusions.
There are problems and the practical use of the model that need to be addressed. The logic underlying the LPC is not well understood and studies have shown that respondents’ LPC scores are not stable.
Also, the contingency variables are complex and difficult for practitioners to assess.
Fiedler and an associate, Joe Garcia, re-conceptualized the original theory focusing on the role of stress as a form of situational unfavorableness and how a leader’s intelligence and experience influence his/her reaction to stress. The re-conceptualization is Cognitive Resource Theory.
The essence of the new theory is that stress is the enemy of rationality. It is difficult for leaders to think logically and analytically when they are under stress.
The importance of a leader’s intelligence and experience to his/her effectiveness differs under low- and high-stress situations. Intelligence and experience interfere with each other. Three conclusions: o Directive behavior results in good performance only if linked with
high intelligence in supportive, low-stress situations. o In high stress situations, there is a positive relationship between
job experience and performance. o The intellectual abilities of leaders correlate with group
performance in situations that the leader perceives as low in stress.
Cognitive resource theory is developing a solid body of research support.
B. Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed a leadership model that has gained a
strong following among management development specialists. This model—Situational Leadership Theory (SLT)—has been incorporated into leadership training programs at over 400 of the Fortune 500 companies, and over one million managers a year from a wide variety of organizations are being taught its basic elements.
Situational leadership is a contingency theory that focuses on the followers. o Successful leadership is achieved by selecting the right leadership style,
which is contingent on the level of the followers’ readiness. The term readiness refers to “the extent to which people have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task.”
o The emphasis on the followers in leadership effectiveness reflects the reality that it is the followers who accept or reject the leader. SLT views the leader-follower relationship as analogous to that
between a parent and child. Just as a parent needs to relinquish control as a child becomes
more mature and responsible, so too should leaders. Hersey and Blanchard identify four specific leader
behaviors—from highly directive to highly laissez-faire. The most effective behavior depends on a follower’s ability and motivation.
SLT has an intuitive appeal. Yet, research efforts to test and support the theory have generally been disappointing.
C. Path-Goal Theory1. The Theory
One of the most respected approaches to leadership is the path-goal theory developed by Robert House. o It is a contingency model of leadership that extracts key elements
from the Ohio State leadership research on initiating structure and consideration and the expectancy theory of motivation.
It is the leader’s job to assist followers in attaining their goals and to provide the necessary direction and/or support to ensure that their goals are compatible with the overall objectives of the firm.
The term path-goal is derived from the belief that effective leaders clarify the path to help their followers achieve their work goals.
2. Leader Behaviors House identified four leadership behaviors:
o The directive leader lets followers know what is expected of them, etc.
o The supportive leader is friendly and shows concern for the needs of followers.
o The participative leader consults with followers and uses their suggestions before making a decision.
The achievement-oriented leader sets challenging goals and expects followers to perform at their highest level.
D. Leader-Member Exchange Theory The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory argues that because of time
pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small group of their followers.
These individuals make up the in-group—they are trusted, get a disproportionate amount of the leader’s attention, and are more likely to receive special privileges.
The theory proposes that early in the history of the interaction between a leader and a given follower, the leader implicitly categorizes the follower as an “in” or an “out” and that relationship is relatively stable over time. o How the leader chooses who falls into each category is unclear. o The leader does the choosing on the basis of the follower’s
characteristics. o The theory and research surrounding it provide substantive
evidence that leaders do differentiate among followers. E. Contingency Variables and Predictions
1. Introduction The directive leader lets followers know what is expected of them, etc. The supportive leader is friendly and shows concern for the needs of
followers. The participative leader consults with followers and uses their suggestions
before making a decision. The achievement-oriented leader sets challenging goals and expects
followers to perform at their highest level. In contrast to Fiedler, House assumes leaders are flexible and can display
any of these behaviors. (See Exhibit 12-4). Two classes of situational or contingency variables moderate the
leadership behavior: o Environmental or outcome relationship. These factors determine
the type of leader behavior required as a complement if follower outcomes are to be maximized.
o Personal characteristics of the employee. These determine how the environment and leader behavior are interpreted. Directive leadership leads to greater satisfaction when
tasks are ambiguous or stressful than when they are highly structured and well laid out.
Supportive leadership results in high employee performance and satisfaction when employees are performing structured tasks.
Directive leadership is likely to be perceived as redundant among employees with high perceived ability or with considerable experience.
Employees with an internal locus of control will be more satisfied with a participative style.
2. Evaluation Research evidence generally supports the logic underlying the path-goal
theory.
F. Leader-Participation Model In 1973, Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton developed a leader-participation model.
Recognizing that task structures have varying demands for routine and non-routine activities, these researchers argued that leader behavior must adjust to reflect the task structure.
The model was normative—it provided a sequential set of rules that should be followed in determining the form and amount of participation in decision making, as determined by different types of situations.
The model was a decision tree incorporating seven contingencies and five leadership styles.
More recent work by Vroom and Arthur Jago revised this model. o Retaining the same five alternative leadership styles but adds a set of
problem types and expands the contingency variables to twelve. The twelve contingency variables are listed in Exhibit 12-5. Research testing both the original and revised leader-participation
models has been encouraging. Criticism has focused on variables that have been omitted and on
the model’s overall complexity. Other contingency theories demonstrate that stress, intelligence,
and experience are important situational variables. The model is far too complicated for the typical manager to use on
a regular basis. Vroom and his associates have provided us with some specific,
empirically-supported contingency variables that you should consider when choosing your leadership style.
V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS A. Leadership is central to understanding group behavior
Leaders provide direction toward goalsB. Traits Theory
Big Five Personality FrameworkC. Behavioral Theory
Task-oriented style People-oriented style
D. Contingency Theory Situational Factors
o Task structureo Stresso Supporto Leader intelligenceo Follower Personality
This statement is false. Narcissism—the tendency to be self-absorbed, to be exploitive of others, and to have a grandiose self-regard—has sometimes been argued to be a necessary condition for effective leadership. If you don’t admire yourself, the thinking goes, who else will? A recent research effort, however, suggests that narcissistic self-admiration is toxic to effective leadership.
The authors conducted two studies—one of lifeguards on the East Coast and another of MBA students in the Southeast. In these studies, the authors first used a standard measure of narcissism, containing items such as “I am more capable than other people,” to assess participants’ level of narcissism. Then they asked the participants to describe their leadership effectiveness and, independently and confidentially, they asked the participants’ peers for their views of the participants’ leadership effectiveness.
The authors found, for both lifeguards and MBA students, that those who scored high on narcissism thought they were better-than-average leaders. However, their peers not only disagreed, they rated them as worse than average. So, narcissists tend to think they’re very good leaders when in the eyes of others, they are very bad leaders. It’s ironic that narcissism may cause people to want to be leaders and to believe they can be good leaders, when in fact they are the very people who should not be leaders.
This study arouses particular concern because we all may be becoming more narcissistic. Some researchers who have studied narcissism over time have found that narcissism levels in the population are rising. Poet Tony Hoagland argues that “American culture encourages self-involvement to a degree that makes it difficult for us to pay attention to anything but ourselves.” Whether that statement is true is debatable, but thoughts of Paris Hilton or presidential candidate John Edwards’ haircut make one wonder. ■
Class Exercise
1. Give each student several sheets of “post it notes” or 3 5 cards. Ask each student to write an idea of how he or she is developing leadership experience, or can develop leadership experience while still in school. Each student should try to come up with two-to-three ideas.
2. When the students have finished, collect the cards and begin by reading an idea and then grouping them on the board under a like category—ask students for help with the categorizations. For example, service organizations, clubs, church, etc. The categories should become apparent as ideas are read.
3. Discussion: Ask how these skills will transfer to being a manager or other positions of responsibility in the future. How might they explain this experience in a job interview? Do they think this experience will help them when looking for a professional position in the future? Why? What have they learned about leadership? What style of leadership do they use? Are some categories more likely to provide leadership skills than others—and if so, do they plan to spend time developing skills in those activities? Which leadership theory seems to make the most “sense” based on their personal experiences and why? Have they experienced stress when participating in a leadership activity and how did it affect their experience? And finally, what have they learned about being a follower?
Although much is expected of leaders, what’s surprising is how rarely they seem to meet the most basic definitions of effectiveness. A recent study of 700 workers by Florida State University revealed that many employees believe their supervisors don’t give credit when it’s due, gossip about them behind their backs, and don’t keep their word. The situation is so bad that for many employees, the study’s lead author says, “they don’t leave their company, they leave their boss.”
Among the other findings of the study: 39 percent said their supervisor failed to keep promises. 37 percent said their supervisor failed to give credit when due. 31 percent said their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment" in the
past year. 27 percent said their supervisor made negative comments about them to
other employees or managers. 24 percent said their supervisor invaded their privacy. 23 percent said their supervisor blames others to cover up mistakes or
minimize embarrassment.Why do companies promote such people into leadership positions? One
reason may be the Peter Principle. When people are promoted into one job (say, as a supervisor or coach) based on how well they did another (say, salesperson or player), that assumes that the skills of one role are the same as the other. The only time such people stop being promoted is when they reach their level of incompetence. Judging from the results of this study, that level of leadership incompetence is reached all too often.
Source: D. Fost, “Survey Finds Many Workers Mistrust Bosses,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 3, 2007, www.SFGate.com.
Class Exercise
Separate students into teams. Provide the students with materials to build a small structure. Building sets, blocks, paper cups, and sticks are just a few ideas, but every group must have the same materials. The task will be to build the tallest free-standing structure with the materials provided in the time permitted. Ten minutes should be the maximum amount of time allowed. Give a two minute warning as time wraps up.
1. Select a “leader/manager.” The manager is responsible for bringing the group to goal, which is to create a structure. Explain that everyone, except the manager, will get “paid” (for example, a piece of candy). However, the manager will get twice (two pieces of candy) what the group members do if they get to goal or nothing if they do not. The winning group (the group with the tallest structure) will also receive a bonus (for example, two pieces of candy). The winning manager will also receive a bonus of twice the amount (for example, four pieces of candy).
2. Once time has elapsed, select a winner and reward the team members and managers who got their teams to goal. Award the bonuses to the winning team. (If no team can complete the task you must decide whether or not to allow more time or to repeat the exercise.)
3. Debrief with the students asking them to describe what happened. Did the manager’s attitude change as time drew near? What worked and what did not? What could have helped them to be more successful in completing the task? What was a barrier? Were they satisfied with the result? Would they work for this manager again? Ask the manager how it felt to have the pressure on him or her to perform knowing a bonus was at stake. Did it seem “fair” to be singled out? What would he or she do differently if the exercise were repeated?
4. This exercise is usually fun and creates a lot of noisy activity among the students. However, as time draws to a close, the “managers” often get more autocratic in their decision making as they try to complete the task. Monitor that students are respectful of one another in their remarks.
International Cultivating an International Perspective: A Necessity for Leaders
Accounting and consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is serious about expanding the world-view of its up-and-coming leaders. So the company started the Ulysses Program, which sends the company’s potential leaders to foreign countries to gain knowledge and experience in cultural diversity.
For example, PwC sent one group of managers on an 8-week consulting assignment in the Namibian outback. Their job? To help village leaders deal with the growing AIDS crisis. Without PowerPoint presentations and e-mail, the managers quickly learned to communicate in a more traditional way—face-to-face. The managers were forced to rely less on quick technologies and more on forging connections by cultivating relationships with diverse clients. By experiencing diversity first-hand at what is perhaps its extreme, PwC hopes that its managers will be better-equipped to handle issues in any culture in which they conduct business. The company says that the program gives its future leaders a broad, international perspective on business issues and makes it more likely that they will find creative, unconventional solutions to complex problems. In addition, participants can realize what they are able to accomplish when they do not have access to their usual resources. In essence, they are forced to become leaders.
The jury is still out on whether the program is effective at increasing the global leadership skills of those who participate. Nevertheless, participants of the Ulysses Program tout its benefits, and other companies have taken notice—Johnson & Johnson and Cisco Systems are just two of several companies that have adopted similar programs.
Source: Based on J. Hempel, and S. Porges, “It Takes a Village—And a Consultant,” Business Week, September 6, 2004, p. 76.
Class ExerciseInstructors may wish to engage students in a discussion concerning how leaders are trained to work in other cultures.
Point CounterpointLeaders Are Born, Not MadePointIn the United States, people are socialized to believe they can be whoever they want to be—and that includes being a leader. While that makes for a nice children’s tale (think The Little Engine That Could—“I think I can, I think I can”), the world’s affairs and people’s lives are not always wrapped in pretty little packages, and this is one example. Being an effective leader has more to do with what you’re born with than what you do with what you have.
That leaders are born, not made, isn’t a new idea. The Victorian-era historian Thomas Carlyle wrote, “History is nothing but the biography of a few great men.” Although today we should modify this to include women, his point still rings true: Great leaders are what make teams, companies, and even countries great. Can anyone disagree that people like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were gifted political leaders? Or that Joan of Arc and George Patton were brilliant and courageous military leaders? Or that Henry Ford, Jack Welch, Steve Jobs, and Rupert Murdoch are gifted business leaders? As one reviewer of the literature put it, “Leaders are not like other people.” These leaders are great leaders because they have the right stuff—stuff the rest of us don’t have, or have in lesser quantities.
If you’re not yet convinced, there is new evidence to support this position. A recent study of several hundred identical twins separated at birth found an amazing correlation in their ascendance into leadership roles. These twins were raised in totally different environments—some rich, some poor, some by educated parents, others by relatively uneducated parents, some in cities, others in small towns. But the researchers found that despite their different environments, each pair of twins had striking similarities in terms of whether they became leaders.
Other research has found that shared environment—being raised in the same household, for example—has very little influence on leadership emergence. Despite what we might like to believe, the evidence is clear: A substantial part of leadership is a product of our genes. If we have the right stuff, we’re destined to be effective leaders. If we have the wrong stuff, we’re unlikely to excel in that role. Leadership cannot be for everyone, and we make a mistake in thinking that everyone is equally capable of being a good leader.1
CounterpointOf course, personal qualities and characteristics matter to leadership, as they do to most other behaviors. But the real key is what you do with what you have.
First, if great leadership were merely the possession of a few key traits—say intelligence and personality—we could simply give people a test and select the most intelligence, extraverted, and conscientious people to be leaders. But that would be a disaster. It helps to have these traits, but leadership is much too complex to be reduced to a simple formula of traits. As smart as Steve Jobs is, there are smarter and more extraverted people out there—thousands of them. That isn’t the essence of what makes him, or political or military leaders, great. It is a combination of factors—upbringing, early business experiences, learning from failure, and driving ambition.
Second, great leaders tell us that the key to their leadership success is not the characteristics they had at birth but what they learned along the way.
Take Warren Buffett, who is admired not only for his investing prowess but also as a leader and boss. Being a great leader, according to Buffett, is a matter of acquiring the right habits. “The chains of habit are too light to be noticed until they are too heavy to be broken,” he says. Buffett argues that characteristics or
1ENDNOTES? R. D. Arvey, Z. Zhang, and B. J. Avolio, “Developmental and Genetic Determinants of Leadership Role Occupancy among Women,” Journal of Applied Psychology, May 2007, pp. 693–706.
habits such as intelligence, trustworthiness, and integrity are the most important to leadership—and at least the latter two can be developed. He says, “You need integrity, intelligence and energy to succeed. Integrity is totally a matter of choice—and it is habit-forming.”
Finally, this focus on “great men and great women” is not very productive. Even if it were true that great leaders were born, it’s a very impractical approach to leadership. People need to believe in something, and one of those things is that they can improve themselves. If we walked around thinking we were just some accumulation of genetic markers and our entire life was just a vessel to play out gene expression, who would want to live that way? People like the optimistic story of The Little Engine That Could because we have a choice to think positively (we can become good leaders) or negatively (leaders are predetermined), and it’s better to be positive.
Class Exercise
1. Rent a video tape of one of the following movies: Lawrence of Arabia Hoosiers 12 O’Clock High 9 to 5 The Memphis Belle Saving Private Ryan
2. Preview the video and note points where the leadership abilities of the individual are demonstrated. Lawrence of Arabia—About 30 minutes into the film, Lawrence convinces the Arabs to
cross the desert. Start with his discussion of the idea, and go all the way up to the attack on the coastal city.
Hoosiers—Show the clip where the coach explains his coaching style to the team, and then go to the end of the movie, when, in the last minute of play during the championship game, the team leader asserts himself.
12 O’clock High—Use the clip where General Savage takes over command from chewing out the clerk through his meeting with each member of his new staff. It ends when he asks his adjutant for advice and is rejected.
9 to 5—Show the clip where Violet leads the other women into the scheme of tying up the boss in his own home. Then show the closing scenes of the film, when she is leading the owner of the company through the firm showing him all the changes that have been made.
The Memphis Belle—Begin with the plane in flight on its last mission. For the sake of time, stop when the plane finally drops its bombs. This film is especially useful to generate discussion about others beside the formal leader demonstrating leadership.
Saving Private Ryan—Begin with the patrol searching for Ryan and coming upon the German machine gun nest. Stop after they decide to let the German go. This is an excellent clip for showing leadership with followers also having power (guns) and of followers leading the leader (the soldier who intervenes in the killing of the captive).
3. Ask students to note leadership dimensions, elements, or behaviors as they watch the selected clip.4. Record on the board those elements the students noted.5. Lead a discussion as to whether those are traits, behaviors, etc., and whether or not someone
could be trained to duplicate them.6. Does this lead them to agree more with the POINT or COUNTERPOINT position?
Questions for Review
1. Are leadership and management different from one another? If so, how?
Answer: Both leadership and management are essential for organizational success. They are often used synonymously, but they are not the same. - Leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals - Management is the use of authority inherent in designated formal rank to obtain compliance from organizational members
2. What is the premise of trait theories? What traits are associated with leadership?
Answer: Proponents of trait theories believe that a leader is “born.” They often describe leaders in terms of their personal characteristics, such as “charismatic” and “driven.” Behaviorists believe leadership can be taught, or nurtured, by providing the necessary skills to an individual to be an effective leader.
There are no universal traits that predict in all situations. Traits predict behavior more in “weak” situations than in “strong” situations. The evidence is unclear in separating cause from effect. Finally, traits do a better job at predicting the appearance of leadership than in actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders. These limitations have led researchers to look in other directions.
3. What are the central tenets and main limitations of behavioral theories?
Answer: Behavioral theories propose that specific behaviors differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Behavioral theory believes that leadership is a skill set and can be taught to anyone, so the proper behaviors must be identified to teach potential leaders. Leaders who display consideration and structuring behaviors do appear to be more effective, although there is no guarantee. Combined with trait theories and situational factors that may influence success or failure, future research may combine some of these factors to define leadership.
4. What is Fiedler’s contingency model? Has it been supported in research?
Answer: After assessing leadership style, it is necessary to match the leader with the situation. Fiedler identified three contingency variables to match the leader with the situation:
Leader-member relations—The degree of confidence, trust, and respect members have in their leader
Task structure—The degree to which the job assignments are procedural Position power—The degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring,
firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increasesConsiderable evidence does support the model especially when the original eight situations are grouped into three but the logic behind the LPC scale is not well understood.
5. What are the main tenets of path-goal theory? What about leader–member exchange theory?
Answer: The contingency variables in path-goal theory are extracted from the key elements of initiating structure and consideration from the Ohio State studies and the expectancy theory of motivation. It says that the leader’s job is to help followers in attaining their goals and to provide the necessary direction and support to ensure their goals are compatible with the overall objectives of the organization.
Directive leadership leads to greater satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous or stressful than when they are highly structured and well laid out.
Supportive leadership results in high employee performance and satisfaction when employees are performing structured tasks.
The participative leader consults with followers and uses their suggestions before making a decision. Employees with an internal locus of control will be more satisfied with a participative style.
Achievement-oriented leadership will increase employees’ expectancies that effort will lead to high performance when tasks are ambiguously structured
The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory argues that because of time pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small group of their followers. These individuals make up the in-group—they are trusted, get a disproportionate amount of the leader’s attention, and are more likely to receive special privileges. The theory proposes that early in the history of the interaction between a leader and a given follower, the leader implicitly categorizes the follower as an “in” or an “out” and that relationship is relatively stable over time. How the leader chooses who falls into each category is unclear. The leader does the choosing on the basis of the follower’s characteristics. Research to test LMX theory has been generally supportive. The theory and research surrounding it provide substantive evidence that leaders do differentiate among followers and that these disparities are far from random.
6. What are the predictions of the leader-participation model?
Answer: Yroom and Yetton’s model says that how a leader makes decisions is as important as what is decided.Premise:
– Leader behaviors must adjust to reflect task structure– “Normative” model: tells leaders how participative to be in their decision-making of a
decision tree• Five leadership styles• Twelve contingency variables
Research testing for both the original and modified models has not been encouraging, since the model is overly complex
7. How specifically might an American leader need to adapt to the Brazilian, French, Egyptian, and
Chinese cultures?
Answer: Leaders need to take culture into account. Based on GLOBE study findings Americans need to be aware of the following information to be effective in these countries:
– Brazilian teams prefer leaders who are high in consideration, participative, and have high LPC scores
– French workers want a leader who is high on initiating structure and task-oriented– Egyptian employees value team-oriented, participative leadership, while keeping a high-
power distance– Chinese workers may favor a moderately participative style
Questions
1. What is more important in judging a leader-his or her actions or the outcomes? Which should be more important?
Answer: Leaders should be evaluated on the means by which they achieve the ends. That is, the various styles, techniques, tactics, and strategies employed need to be considered when rendering an evaluation of effective leadership. Means and outcomes are important but the means need to be ethical.
2. How much of leadership success is due to luck or other factors beyond a leader’s control?
Answer: There is some luck involved in terms of timing or other factors but effective leaders often appear lucky when they make leadership look easy. Good decisions made at the right time may appear fortunate but it is more likely well planned. A leader influences his/her followers but the leader does not have control over everything.
3. Are employees, shareholders, and society too quick to excuse leaders who use questionable means if they are successful in achieving their goals?
Answer: Students should debate whether or not society, employees, stakeholders, etc. place more emphasis on the “ends” rather than the means. You may wish to use contemporary examples from the political realm and from business experiences to generate discussion.
4. Is it impossible for leaders to be ethical and successful?
Answer: The most effective and respected leaders are those who are both ethical and successful. There are many historical and contemporary examples that support this. Have students list any number of “leaders” (e.g. Martin Luther King, Jack Welch, Bill Gates, Andrea Jung, Abraham Lincoln, etc).
Source: Based on C. E. Johnson, Meeting the Ethical Challenges in Leadership (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001), pp. 4–5.
Case Incident 1MOVING FROM COLLEAGUE TO SUPERVISOR
Cheryl Kahn, Rob Carstons, and Linda McGee have something in common. They all were promoted within their organizations into management positions. And each found the transition a challenge.
Cheryl Kahn was promoted to director of catering for the Glazier Group of restaurants in New York City. With the promotion, she realized that things would never be the same again. No longer would she be able to participate in water-cooler gossip or shrug off an employee’s chronic lateness. She says she found her new role to be daunting. “At first I was like a bulldozer knocking everyone over, and that was not well received. I was saying, ‘It’s my way or the highway.’ And was forgetting that my friends were also in transition.” She admits that this style alienated just about everyone with whom she worked.
Rob Carstons, a technical manager at IBM in California, talks about the uncertainty he felt after being promoted to a manager from a junior programmer. “It was a little bit challenging to be suddenly giving directives to peers, when just the day before you were one of them. You try to be careful not to offend anyone. It’s strange walking into a room and the whole conversation changes. People don’t want to be as open with you when you become the boss.”
Linda McGee is now president of Medex Insurance Services in Baltimore, Maryland. She started as a customer service representative with the company, then leapfrogged over colleagues in a series of promotions. Her fast rise created problems. Colleagues “would say, ‘Oh, here comes the big cheese now.’ God only knows what they talked about behind my back.”
Questions
1. A lot of new managers err in selecting the right leadership style when they move into management. Why do you think this happens?
Answer: This happens for several reasons. Typically, managers adopt a style that is most comfortable to them; one that is consistent with their personality. They fail to assess the environment and/or the maturity (skill level) of their employees. Also, research has shown that some managers may adopt the style of their most recent (or respected) manager. This may or may not be a good “fit” for the organization and/or situation that the new manager is in.
2. What does this say about leadership and leadership training?
Answer: The case illustrates that leadership can be developed (learned) and that training can improve leadership effectiveness.
3. Which leadership theories, if any, could help new leaders deal with this transition?
Answer: Students should discuss the various leadership theories (situational, leader-member exchange, etc).
4. Do you think it’s easier or harder to be promoted internally into a formal leadership position than to come into it as an outsider? Explain.
Answer: Students will provide varied answers. However, it is typically more difficult to be promoted from within (supervising former peers); while coming in from the outside does pose challenges as well (i.e., different culture, expectations, etc.).
Source: Based on D. Koeppel, “A Tough Transition: Friend to Supervisor,” The New York Times, March 16, 2003, p. BU–12.
Case Incident 2
THE KINDER, GENTLER LEADER?
The stereotypical view of a CEO—tough-minded, dominant, and hyper-aggressive—may be giving way to a more sensitive image. Nowhere is this shifting standard more apparent than at General Electric. There may be no CEO more revered for his leadership style than former CEO Jack Welch, a “tough guy” in his own words. Yet, his handpicked successor, Jeff Immelt, is remarkable for his very different leadership style. Whereas Welch was intense, brash, and directive, Immelt was described by Financial Times as “unshakably polite, self-deprecating and relaxed.”
Of course, Immelt is only one leader, and his success at GE is hardly assured. But he’s far from alone in the set of seemingly sensitive CEOs. Colgate-Palmolive CEO Reuben Mark says of his leadership credo: “I have made it my business to be sure that nothing important or creative at Colgate-Palmolive is perceived as my idea.” The president of Toyota of America, Jim Press, embraces “servant leadership” and says one of his main functions is to “get out of the way” and support those who work with him.
A recent study of CEOs seems to suggest that this trend is spreading. The CEOs in its sample scored, on average, 12 points below average on tough-mindedness. Yes, that’s below average. As one observer of the corporate world concludes, “The Jack Welch approach appears to be on the wane.”
You might think a kinder, gentler approach works only for Fortune 500 CEOs, whose very job security might rely on glowing press coverage. In the United States, though, you don’t get much further from Wall Street than the Hanford, Washington, nuclear cleanup site, and there’s evidence that the “nice” approach to leadership is taking hold there, too. Jerry Long, VP of operations for CH2MHILL’s cleanup of the Hanford site, argues that a central part of his job is “showing them you care.”
Consider the meteoric rise of Barack Obama—all the way from state senator to serious presidential contender in just 3 years. While a student at Harvard Law School, Obama was famous attorney Laurence Tribe’s research assistant. Tribe said of Obama, “I’ve known senators, presidents. I’ve never known anyone with what seems to me more raw political talent. He just seems to have the surest way of calmly reaching across what are impenetrable barriers to many people.” Although some have argued that Obama’s campaign represents an emphasis of style over substance, it may be that after years of acrimonious political wars, people consider the how as important as the what. Regardless of whether Obama makes it to the White House, it seems clear that part of his incredible rise reflects people’s desire for a kinder, gentler leader.
Questions
1. Do you think the kinder, gentler leader image is just a fad?
Answer: No, it is not a fad. More recent generations want to be treated differently in the workplace and with the skills shortages and job changes, companies will need to adjust. The movement away from coercion and control techniques and the application of a servant leadership style is more prevalent today.
2. Do you think the kinder, gentler leadership approach works better in some situations than others? It is possible that Welch and Immelt are both effective leaders?
Answer: Yes, it may work better in some situations than others. The basic tenet should be Theory Y as it pertains to people. Both Welch and Immelt are both effective leaders. There is no one style that is effective and Welch has even softened his approach over the years.
3. Do you think the leadership style of people like Immelt and Obama is a result of nature, nurture, or both? What factors can you think of to support your answer?
Answer: It may be nature, nurture or just evidence of the respective personality. Intelligent leaders will adapt the style necessary to succeed in the respective scenario. Rudy Giuliani showed a softer empathetic style in his leadership after 9/11.
Sources: Based on J. Hollon, “Leading Well Is Simple,” Workforce Management, November 6, 2006, p. 50; A. Pomeroy, “CEOs Show Sensitive Side,” HRMagazine, August 2006, p. 14; P. Bacon, Jr., “Barack Obama,” Time, April 18, 2005, p. 60–61, J. Marquez
