Presented by:Siow Li LingZatil Aqmar Mohd HalimiWoon Pei JoonNoor Nadiatul Akma Hamidon
Early Contingency Theories of Effective Leadership
LPC Contingency Model Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Situational Leadership Theory Leadership Substitutes Theory
Outline of the Presentation
This presentation is discussing about the different contingency theories of leadership. There are several theories include in this presentation which are LPC Contingency Model, Path-Goal Theory of Leadership, Situational Leadership Theory and Leadership Substitutes Theory. Actually there are advantages and disadvantages of these several theories and may not apply in all situations. The main key here is all the leadership theories are a guideline for the leaders but it depends much on the situations.
Abstract
LPC Contingency
model
LPC contingency Model•This model describes how the situation moderates the relationship between leadership effectiveness•Trait measure – least preferred coworker (LPC) score
Rate the coworker who has worked least well by using a set of bipolar adjective scales
examples: Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly
Uncooperative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cooperative Sum of the rating - critical = low
- lenient = high
Leader LPC Score
Fiedler’s (1978) most recent interpretation, the LPC score indicates a leader’s motive hierarchy.
Rice (1978) concluded that the data support a value-attitude interpretation- low LPC leaders value task success- high LPC leaders value interpersonal success
Favorability is determined by weighting and combining these three aspects of the situation.
Situational Variables• Three aspects of the situation are considered:
1) Leader- member relations2) Position power3) Task structure
Octant
L-M Relation
s
Task Structur
e
Position
Power
Effective
Leader1 Good Structured Strong Low LPC
2 Good Structured Weak Low LPC
3 Good Unstructured
Strong Low LPC
4 Good Unstructured
Weak Low LPC
5 Poor Structured Strong High LPC
6 Poor Structured Weak High LPC
7 Poor Unstructured
Strong High LPC
8 Poor Unstructured
Weak High LPC
LPC score may not be stable over time and may be more complex than assumed.
The model is not really a theory, it does not explain how a leader’s LPC score affect group performance.
The model neglects medium LPC leaders who probably outnumber the high and low LPC leader.
Conceptual Weaknesses
Path-goal theory of leadership
Developed by a) Evans (1970)- earlier version b) House (1971)- next version. More elaboration which
include situational variables in it Explaining how the behavior of the leader influences
the satisfaction and performance of the subordinate This theory based on the expectancy theory in
explaining it (work motivation). ET: A person decides how much effort to devote to a
job at a given time.
PATH-GOAL THEORY
Subordinates perceptions: If the subordinate believes that the serious effort given from him will lead to the result in completing the task then, he will make the effort.(Leader’s behavior will modify these perceptions)
Depending on the situation, effect of leaders’ behavior on the subordinates’ satisfaction & performance may the same way, both differently or only one of them.
Expectancy: perceived probability of an outcomeValences: desirability of an outcome
“ how many expectancies & valences for different outcomes and level of effort combine to determine motivation is still a controversy”
1) supportive: concerning about the need of the subordinates, welfare and try making friend with them
2) directive: giving instructions to subordinates to make sure what they should do in achieving current goals. Coordinating the works for them to follow
3) participative: involve them in discussions and listen to their opinions as well
4) achievement-oriented: set the challenge goal, seeking better performance from them shows them confidence in attaining the high standards
LEADER BEHAVIORS
Effect of the leader’s behavior on the satisfaction & performance of the subordinates is depending on the situation
Involve - task characteristics - subordinates characteristics
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
Causal variable (leader behavio
r)
Intervening
variables
(subordi
nates expectancies &
valences)
Result variable
s (subordinates
effort &
satisfaction)
Situational variables ( task characteristics, subordinates characteristics)
It is for supportive leadership Only suitable when the task is stressful, boring, tedious/
dangerous If task is interesting, enjoyable, subordinates already confident
supportive leadership only has little effect/ not at all
SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP
Reduce boredom & make job more
tolerable
Increase self-confidence & lower anxiety
Increase effort-performance expectancy
Increase the intrinsic valence
of work
Increase effort
• If task is unstructured, complex, subordinates inexperienced & little formalization of rules, procedures
DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP
Strengthen reward
contingencies
Increase size of
incentives
Reduce role ambiguity
Increase performance-
reward expectancies
Increase outcome
valence for task success
Increase effort-
performance expectancy
Increase subordinat
e effort
1. Rely on expectancy theory as the primary basis in explaining leader influence
(not account the emotional relations to decision dilemmas-denial/ distortion of relevant info about expectancies & valences, & sometimes, subordinates have differ perceptions of outcomes by using different actions)
2. Role ambiguity will cause a person to have low expectancy & leader behavior will increase it(sometimes, attainment of specific goals are difficult than what subordinates think, & it is determined that role ambiguity is based on task structure rather than employee itself (ability/ experience)
3. Each type of leader behavior is considered separately(there might be interactions among the behaviors/ more than 1 situational variables)eg: directive leadership suits when there is unstructured task but it might be suitable if the subordinates have high level of training & experiences.
WEAKNESSES
Situational Leadership theory
Proposed by Hersey and Blanchard(1977) Specifies the appropriate type of leadership
behavior for different levels of subordinate ’maturity’ n relation to the work.
A high-maturity subordinate has both the ability and confidence to do a task, whereas a low-maturity subordinate lacks ability and self-confidence.
Situational Leadership
According to Hersey and Blanchard, knowing when to use each style is largely dependent on the maturity of the person or group you're leading. They break maturity down into four different levels: M1 – People at this level of maturity are at the bottom level of the
scale. They lack the knowledge, skills, or confidence to work on their own, and they often need to be pushed to take the task on.
M2 – At this level, followers might be willing to work on the task, but they still don't have the skills to do it successfully.
M3 – Here, followers are ready and willing to help with the task. They have more skills than the M2 group, but they're still not confident in their abilities.
M4 – These followers are able to work on their own. They have high confidence and strong skills, and they're committed to the task.
Maturity Levels
M1, the leader should use substantial task-oriented behavior and be directive in defining roles, clarifying standards and procedures, and monitoring progress on attainment of objectives.
M2 & M3, the leader can decrease the amount of task-oriented behavior and provide more relations-oriented behavior.
M4, the leader should use a low level of task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors.
Major Propositions
Maturity Level Most Appropriate Leadership Style
M1: Low maturity S1: Telling/directing
M2: Medium maturity, limited skills
S2: Selling/coaching
M3: Medium maturity, higher skills but lacking confidence
S3: Participating/supporting
M4: High maturity S4: Delegating
Hersey-Blanchard model maps
Studies found support for the proposition that more directive supervision is needed for subordinates who have low ability and confidence.
Using the contingent pattern of task and relations behavior prescribed by the theory will make leaders more effective.
Blake and Mouton, specifies that a relatively high level of both task and relations behavior is optimal as long as the specific types of behavior are appropriate for the situation.
Evaluation of the Theory
Emphasis on flexible, adaptive behavior, which has become a central tenet of some recent theory and research
Essential to treat different subordinates differently Vary behavior as the situation changes Advanced the proposition that leaders should be
aware of opportunity to build the skills and confidence of subordinates
STRENGTHS OF THE SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL
Limit the utility of situational leadership theory and help to explain the lack of support for it in the research.
Leadership behavior is not clearly defined and consistently. The model also lacks a clear explanation about the process by which leader behavior influences subordinate performance.
The maturity is a composite of diverse elements and the procedure used to weight and combine them is highly questionable.
The model only acknowledge the leaders can influences some components of maturity with developmental interventions.
Conceptual weaknesses of situational leadership theory
Leadership substitutes theory
Kerr & Jermier (1978)
Identify aspects of situation that reduce the important of leadership by leaders
Initial version
Mostly concerned with identifying substitutes and neutralizers for
supportive and instrumental leadership
1. Substitutes Makes leader behavior unnecessary & redundant Include characteristic of subordinate, task or
Organization.
2. Neutralizer Prevent leader from acting in specified
way/nullify the effect of leader action. Including characteristic of task or Organization.
2 kind of situational variables
Characteristic that involve in substitute or neutralizers
Supportive leadership
Instrumental leadership
Subordinate characteristics1. Experience, ability, training2. Professional orientation3. Indifference toward reward
SubstituteSubstituteNeutralizer
SubstituteNeutralizer
Task characteristics1. Structured, routine task2. Feedback provided by task3. Intrinsically satisfying task Substitute
SubstituteSubstitute
Organization characteristics1. Cohesive work group2. Low position power3. Formalization (roles,
procedures)4. Inflexibility (rules, policies)5. Dispersed subordinate work
sites
SubstituteNeutralizer
Neutralizer
SubstituteNeutralizerSubstituteNeutralizerNeutralizer
Howell & colleagues (1990)
“If there so many neutralizer, that difficult/impossible for any leader to succeed”
Remove neutralizer by changing the situation.
Implication for improving leadership
Kerr & Jermier (1978)their model was design to deal only with
substitutes for leadership behavior by a formal leaderMerely replaced by similar leadership
behavior carried out by peers or informal leaders (shared among members of group)
Research provide strong evidence that situational variables can directly affect dependent variables such as subordinate motivation
Mc Intosh (1988) Proposed that, evaluation research on
substitute emphasize wrong aspect. Research should pay more attention to the
direct effect of situational variables on substitutes variables & leadership behavior
Research on the theory
It does not provide a detailed rationale for each substitute and neutralizer in term of causal processes involving explicit intervening variables.
Reduce the important of an intervening variable and substitute that involve leadership behavior by people rather than the leader.
Failure to differentiate between direct actions by leader to improve dependent variables and action to improve a substitute that effect the dependent variable.
Take actions to reduce constrains that prevent the use of effective behaviors and block neutralizers that undermine the effects of a potential relevant behavior.
Conceptual weaknesses
Leader substitutes theory emphasized the importance of formal leaders by showing how their influence can be replaced by
1. Work design2. Reward system3. Informal peer leadership4. Self management
Summary
Thank You