Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Contd…
• These three variables determine whether a given situation is
favourable or unfavourable to the leader. The favourableness of a
situation is the degree to which the situation enables the leader to
exert his influence over his group.
• He came to the conclusion (Refer exhibit-4):
(i) Task-oriented leaders tend to be most effective in situations that
are either very favourable or are very unfavourable to them.
(ii) Relations-oriented leaders tend to be most effective in situations
that are intermediate in favourableness.
Contd…
• Hersey and Blanchard identify four specific leadership styles (Refer
Exhibit-5)
– Telling (high task–low relationship): The leader defines roles and tells
people what, how, when, and where to do various tasks.
– Selling (high task–high relationship): The leader provides both directive
and supportive behavior.
– Participating (low task–high relationship): The leader and followers share
in decision making; the main role of the leader is facilitating and
communicating.
– Delegating (low task–low relationship): The leader provides little direction
or support.
• The most effective behavior depends on a follower’s ability and
motivations shown as four stages of readiness.
– R1: If a follower is unable and unwilling, the leader needs to display high
task orientation.
– R4: At the other end of the readiness spectrum, if followers are able and
willing, the leader doesn’t need to do much.
• SLT has an intuitive appeal—it acknowledges the importance of
followers and builds on the idea that leaders can compensate for the
lack of ability and motivation of their followers. However, research
efforts to test and support the theory have generally been mixed.
Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Model (Exhibit-5)
Path-Goal Theory
• Another approach to understanding leadership, developed by Robert
House, is path-goal theory.
• House identified four leadership behaviors:
– The directive leader tells employees what is expected of them, schedules
work, and gives specific guidance as to how to accomplish tasks. It
parallels initiating structure.
– The supportive leader is friendly and shows concern for the needs of
employees. It is essentially synonymous with the dimension of
consideration.
– The participative leader consults with employees and uses their
suggestions before making a decision.
– The achievement-oriented leader sets challenging goals and expects
employees to perform at their highest levels.
• In contrast to Fiedler, House assumes that leaders are flexible.
– Path-goal theory implies that the same leader can display any or all
leadership styles, depending on the situation.
Contd…
• Path-goal theory proposes two classes of contingency variables (Refer
Exhibit-6):
(a) Those in the environment that are outside the control of the employee (task
structure, the formal authority system, and the work group).
» Environmental factors determine leader behavior required if employee outcomes are
to be maximized.
(b) Those that are part of the personal characteristics of the follower (locus of
control, experience, and perceived ability).
» Personal characteristics determine how the environment and leader behavior are
interpreted.
(c) The theory proposes that leader behavior will be ineffective when it is
redundant to sources of environmental structure or incongruent with
subordinate characteristics.
• Research to validate path-goal predictions is encouraging, although not
all support is positive.
– The majority of the evidence supports the logic underlying the theory.
Path-Goal Model (Exhibit-6)
Leader-Participation Model
• How Participative Should a Leader Be?
• Back in 1973, Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton developed a
leader-participation model.
–It related leadership behavior and participation to decision-making.
• 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 provided a sequential set of rules to be followed in
determining the form and amount of participation in decision making in
different types of situations. More recent work by Vroom and Arthur Jago
revised that model (See Exhibit -7)
• Research testing the original leader-participation model was very
encouraging.
–But the model is far too complex for the typical manager to use regularly.
–The model has provided us with some solid, empirically supported
insights into key contingency variables related to leadership effectiveness.
.
Leader-Participation Model (Exhibit -7)
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
• A leadership theory that says leaders create ‘in-
groups’ and ‘out-groups’ and those in the ‘in-group’
will have higher performance ratings, less turnover,
and greater job satisfaction.
• Leader also encourage ‘Leader-member exchange
(LMX)’ by rewarding those employees with whom
they want a closer linkage and punishing those with
whom they don’t.
• For the ‘LMX’ relationship to remain intact, however,
both the leader and the follower must “invest” in the
relationship.
Transactional vs. Transformational Leaders
Transactional Leaders: Leaders who primarily use social exchanges (or
transactions) are called transactional leaders. They guide or motivate
followers to work toward established goals by exchanging rewards for
their productivity.
Transformational Leaders: Transformational leaders inspire followers
to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the organization and
are capable of having a profound and extraordinary effect on his or her
followers.
– Transformational leaders pay attention to the concerns and developmental needs of
individual followers; they change followers’ awareness of issues by helping those
followers to look at old problems in new ways; and they are able to excite, arouse,
and inspire followers to put out extra effort to achieve group goals.
– The evidence supporting the superiority of transformational leadership over the
transactional variety is overwhelmingly impressive.
– In summary, the overall evidence indicates that transformational leadership is more
strongly correlated with lower turnover rates, higher productivity, and higher
employee satisfaction.
Charismatic vs. Visionary Leaders
• A Charismatic leader is an
enthusiastic, self-confident leader
whose personality and actions
influence people to behave in certain
ways.
• A Visionary leader is the one who is
able to create and articulate a
realistic, credible, and attractive
vision of the future that improves
upon the present situation. This
vision effectively “jump-starts” the
future by calling forth the skills,
talents, and resources to make it
happen.