A. Introduction to Excellence in management and leadership
1. Leadership in the workplace
c. Leadership approaches
index of contents
The Situational (contingency) approach to leadership and the management of performance
Activity 3
Figure 4. Fiedler's Contingency Theory for Leadership
Figure 5. Path-Goal Theory
Figure 6. The Path-Goal Model of Leadership
Reading
Activity 4
The Situational (contingency) approach to leadership and the management of performance
Much has been written on leadership, behaviour and motivation. However the Situational (Contingency) Approach emphasised the distinctive characteristics of the leader could not be divorced from their situation, and the characteristics of the leader and their subordinates. Edwin Holland was one of the original writers on situational leadership. He reviewed leadership theories and noted that:
It is in the nature of situational requirements that they call forth certain expectations for leadership, and these may be fulfilled by various individuals in the situation. (1964: 5)
Fundamentally, a person could be a follower and a leader. This could vary depending on the distinctive characteristics to the situation and setting (Hoy & Miskel, 1987:273). As situations vary and human characteristics vary so must our understanding of leadership effectiveness.
The Situational Approach reinforces the fact humans have needs and these will vary across geography, culture, contexts, size of companies and so on. These needs impact choices and how leaders make decisions. Many authors tie the study of leadership to how leaders consider humans in situations and contexts.
At the pinnacle of the Maslow, hierarchy, the concept of the self-actualised person underpinned the belief self-awareness, self-knowledge and mutual respect, democracy and participation in decision making were essential elements when seeking to build an effective organisation (McGregor:1960).
Frederick Herzberg (1960) enunciated his Motivation-Hygiene Theory on the premise that five (motivational) factors stand out as strong determiners of job satisfaction - achievement; recognition; work itself; responsibility; and advancement. He went on to postulate that five different (hygiene) factors stand out as strong determiners of job dissatisfaction - company policy and administration; supervision; salary; interpersonal relations; and working conditions. That is, the opposite of job satisfaction would not be job dissatisfaction but rather no job satisfaction; and the opposite of job dissatisfaction would not be job satisfaction but rather very little job satisfaction. While focussing on management the message reinforces that a leader who is able to develop the determiners of job satisfaction (the motivators) would be more effective than a leader/ manager who worked on eliminating the five determiners (hygienes) of job dissatisfaction. Herzberg concluded:
If we accept the notion that one of the most important functions of a manager is the development of future managers, the teaching of hygiene motivations becomes a serious defect to the company... The superior who is a hygiene seeker cannot but have an adverse effect on management development, which is aimed at the personal growth and actualisation of subordinates. (Herzberg, 1960:91)
One of the most influential studies of contingency or situational leadership was completed by Vroom and Yetton (1973) and later by Vroom and Jago (1989). This model suggests leadership style is determined by the situation and decision making structures. They identified five decision-making styles:
Autocratic 1 - Problem is solved using information already available.
Autocratic 2 - Additional information is obtained from group before leader makes decision.
Consultative 1 - Leader discusses problem with subordinates individually, before making a decision.
Consultative 2 - Problem is discussed with the group before deciding.
Group 2 - Group decides upon problem, with leader simply acting as chair.
A1 Autocrat: You solve the problem or make the decision yourself, using information available to you at that time.
A2 Consultative Autocrat 1: You obtain the necessary information from your subordinates, then decide on the solution to the problem yourself. You do not necessarily tell your subordinates what the problem is while getting the information from them. The role played by your subordinates in making the decision is clearly one of providing the necessary information to you, rather than generating or evaluating alternative solutions.
C1 Consultative Autocrat 2: You share the problem with 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 your subordinates' influence.
C2 Consultative Autocrat 3: You share the 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 subordinates' influence.
G2 Consensus Seeker: You share the 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 chairman. You do not try to influence the group to adopt "your" solution and you are willing to adopt and implement any solution that has the support of the entire group.
AI |
Autocratic or directive style of problem solving. |
AII |
Autocratic with group information input |
AIII |
Autocratic with group's review and feedback. |
CI |
Individual Consultative Style |
CII |
Group Consultative Style |
GI |
Group Decision Style |
GII |
Participative Style |
GIII |
Leaderless Team |
Activity 3
Please complete the Leadership Style Attitudes assessment tool. It will take some 15-20 minutes to complete this tool and it should give a very informative view on how your leadership styles.
Leadership Style Attitudes (web link)
Leadership Style Attitudes .pdf file version
[ back to index of contents ]
Hoy and Miskel (1987) identified four areas of situational leadership:
a) Structural propriety of the organisation;
b) Organisation climate;
c) Role characteristics; and
d) Subordinate characteristics (1987:273).
Other authors argued for leadership to be placed in a situation or organisational context because a leader and thus leadership was not vested in the individual, but in the collective. Beyond individual traits and roles, the concept of leadership required a sense of multiple players contributing to 'leadership' and multiple players performing the role of followers or subordinates.
By its very nature the effective workplace leader is reliant upon the successfully orienting individuals towards and agreed vision and then working with staff members to translate this vision to action.
Fiedler (1967), differentiated situation from contingency. He emphasised that fact that differing roles, traits and behaviours of leaders did not just require an specific understanding of interactions with subordinate, it also required favourable conditions.
Figure 4. Fiedler's Contingency Theory for Leadership
[ back to index of contents ]
Fiedler's contingency leadership model promotes three factors:
1. Leadership Style = personality of the leader
2. Task-motivation/ structure = the degree which gives the leader control and influence. This model is measured by a high (good) and low (bad) ranking of a (LPC) Least Preferred Co-worker. This scale helps measure the leader-member relations, task structure, and position power.
3. Position power - The ability of a leader to control subordinates through reward and punishment.
By using a questionnaire called the least preferred co-worker (LPC) Fiedler was able to identify leadership styles in given situations. A leader was asked to describe the characteristics of the person with whom they were least able to work with - ie. The least preferred co-worker. This yielded not only characteristics for leaders in situations and with particular styles but also the preconditions for these factors applied to a positive working relationship.
Robert House (1971), further refined the study of personality characteristics, traits, roles, and situational variables by focussing on how an effective leader held characteristics (or behaviours) that enabled goal attainment. House identified four leadership behaviours that enabled a leaders' effectiveness when given a set of outcomes to achieve within a given workplace situation:
a. Directive;
b. Achievement-oriented;
c. Supportive; and
d. Participative.
Figure 5. Path-Goal Theory
[ back to index of contents
The above model of Path-Goal Theory depicts the Expectancy Theory (V-I-E). This illustrates how the leader is effective where they can control and establish an outcome (V); that confirms the need and rewards for collective performance (I), and thus raises the subordinates' beliefs and values about their capacity to attain goals; and motivates people to 'put in the effort' (E) to perform in a sustained manner at this raised level.
House suggests that the leader in a number of ways can affect the performance, satisfaction, and motivation of a group:
- Offering rewards for the achievement of performance goals.
- Clarifying paths towards these goals.
- Removing performance obstacles.
House's study interfaces with Fiedler's earlier work by suggesting can adopt certain leadership styles, according to the situation:
· Directive leadership - Specific advice is given to the group and ground rules are established.
· Supportive leadership - Good relations exist with the group and sensitivity to subordinates' needs is shown.
· Participative leadership - Decision making is based on group consultation and information is shared with the group.
· Achievement-oriented leadership - Challenging goals are set and high performance is encouraged while showing confidence in the groups' ability.
Thus the role of a leader is to adopt a favourable style, appropriate to the subordinates ability and motivation, and appropriate to the environmental or situational constraints. The flexibility to modify leadership to 'fit' these situations and contingencies is the foundation, according to Fiedler, of leadership effectives (see figure below).
Figure 6 The Path-Goal Model of Leadership
(© TAFE SA 1999 derived from Fiedler 1967)
[ back to index of contents ]
Reading
House, RJ & Aditya, RN (1997) 'The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis', Journal of Management, Vol.23[3], pp. 409-473. Available at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4256/is_n3_v23/ai_20147092
Activity 4
Access and examine the background and propositions the reading from House explores. Note the concept of traits and different ways of describing the leader and manger will be explored in the related topic area on Management Effectiveness.
[ back to index of contents ]
The situational studies of Edwin Hollander (1964; & 1978) also laid the early foundations for placing Situational (Contingency) models into a dynamic transactional process. This approach focuses on how situations and contingencies change and leadership is bound in how these changes impact the interaction between a particular leader and a particular follower over time.
Bass and Avolio (1995) determined from extensive research (Bass 1985 & 1990; & Avolio 1995) that the determinants of an effective leader is their ability to enhance group effectiveness. Bass and Avolio individually and together (1995) promoted transformational and transactional leadership theories that draw many parallels from McGregor (1960) and Likert's (1961) earlier work.
As stated by Avolio:
Transformational leadership would involve establishing ones beliefs and values and being consistent with them; determining the course for change in the future and articulating it as a vision; stimulating coworkers and oneself to challenge traditional ways of thinking; and developing oneself and others to the highest level of potential. (1995)
Bass' study of transactional leaders emphasises how transaction or exchange takes place between leaders, colleagues, and followers. Leadership is based on using this exchange to achieve specific leader expectations. The leader uses the exchange process to guide understanding of the followers and shape action by reinforcing what the followers will receive, or not receive, if expectations are respectively satisfied or not satisfied.
Transformational leadership in contrast with transactional leadership emphasises a different approach to leadership. Transformational leaders use 'higher order' aspects to their relationship with followers to achieve outcomes (Liethwood & Steinbach, 1991).
Rather than rely on exchanges transformational leaders motivate followers to achieve exceptional outcomes through setting and communicating visions for outcomes that extend beyond individual self-interest and achieve shared outcomes desired by the group. As such it is the manager who controls and coordinates attainment of goals, while it is the leader that helps shape the vision, articulate the direction, set goals, and orients the teams to outcomes that transform action into goals attainment (Bennis & Nanus, 1985:21, Bennis 1989:46).
[ back to index of contents ]
