Leadership Week 1

Assessment of transformational leadership

Empirical support - A review of 87 studies found that transformational leadership was related to the motivation and satisfaction of followers and to the higher performance/perceived effectiveness of leaders. - Transformational leadership is correlated with lower turnover rates, higher productivity, lower employee stress and higher employee satisfaction. However: - A paper by van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) criticized transformational-charismatic leadership, claiming that the concept is not well-defined, and that it is poorly operationalized and measured. This paper suggests that research should focus on more clearly defined and empirically distinct aspects of leadership.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory (by Graen & Uhl-Bien)

- LMX = a response to perceived failings of the contingency theories to account for followers and for different leadership approaches to individual workers. - Focuses on the relationship between leader and follower. - Each follower has a unique linkage with the leader (dyadic relation). - The quality of the relationship between leader and follower determines outcomes.

Low/high LPC

- Low LPC o Task-oriented. o Very effective at completing tasks. o Quick to organize groups to get tasks and projects done. o Relationship-building is not a priority. - High LPC o Relationship-oriented. o Focus on personal connections, good at avoiding and managing conflicts. o Task accomplishment is secondary

University of Michigan: 4 categories of leadership behaviors

1. Goal emphasis (job-centered), 2. Work facilitation (job-centered), 3. Leader Support (employee-centered), 4. Interaction facilitation (employee-centered)

There are 4 primary transformational leadership behaviors (from least to most active):

1. Individualized consideration: Gives personal attention, treats employees individually, coaches, advises. 2. Intellectual stimulation: Promotes intelligence, rationality, and problem solving. 3. Inspirational Motivation: Communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts, expresses important issues simply. 4. Idealized Influence: Provides vision and sense of mission, instills pride, gains respect and trust.

Telling

give detailed instructions, describe exactly what to do; you decide

Selling

give specific instructions and oversee performance, also support followers by explaining why the task is important, work on relationships; you may consult followers but still you decide

Some predictions based on path-goal theory include:

o Directive leadership is more strongly related to follower satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous or stressful than when they are well laid out. o Supportive leadership results in high employee performance and satisfaction when followers perform structured tasks. o Directive leadership is more effective when followers have an external vs an internal locus of control. o Directive leadership is more effective for insecure and less capable followers than for secure and more capable followers.

four types of leadership (path-goal)

o Directive: Focus on the work to be done. o Supportive: Focus on the well-being of the worker. o Participative: Consult with employees in decision-making. o Achievement-oriented: Set challenging goals. Expect followers to perform at their highest level.

Assessment of the path-goal theory

o The theory is very difficult to test. o So far there is mixed support for the theory. o Limited scope: leadership effectiveness is not only determined by the ability to increase followers' motivation. o Highlights the mismatch between researchers and practitioners - many practitioners see the theory as too complex to apply. o However, highlights the importance of contingency factors/situational moderators.

criticism

o What are the positives? Considerable evidence supports the model, especially if the original eight situations are grouped into three. o What are the criticisms? The logic behind the LPC scale is not well understood. No flexibility in leaders, is this true? (research suggests LPC scores are not stable). Contingency variables are complex and hard to determine.

The three situational factors (fiedler)

Leader-member relationships: Cooperative - hostile. Task structure: Clear and detailed - vague and general. Position power: High authority and rank - low authority rank

so, according to fiedler, leadership is contingent upon:

Motivation hierarchy leader. Situation favorability (LM-relations, task structure, and position power).

Does charisma work well in all situations?

The follower's task has an ideological component. There is a lot of stress and uncertainty in the environment. The leader is at the upper level of the organization. Followers have low self-esteem and self-worth

Situational Leadership Theory (Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard)

- Draws upon Ohio leadership behavior model: consideration versus initiating structure as two independent dimensions - Uses two contingency factors to determine which combination of the two basic dimensions is most effective: willingness (or motivation, level of maturity of followers) and ability (to perform a given task, can vary depending on the task)

The Contingency Model (by Fiedler)

- Fiedler argued that a key factor in leadership success is the individual's basic leadership style. - He thus created the LPC (least preferred co-worker scale) which purports to measure whether a person is task or relationship oriented. - Premise: leaders are not that flexible in terms of their behavior.

Charismatic leadership

- House's Charismatic leadership theory: Followers make attributions of heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities when they observe certain behaviors. - Charismatic leaders: o Have a vision. o Are willing to take personal risks to achieve that vision. o Are sensitive to followers' needs. o Exhibit behaviors that are out of the ordinary. - Charismatic leaders are likely to be extraverted, self-confident and achievement- oriented.

Examples of contingency theories

- Path-Goal Theory (House & Dressler). - Contingency Model (Fiedler). - LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien).

How do charismatic leaders influence followers?

A four-step process: o 1. Leader articulates an attractive vision. o 2. Leader communicates high performance expectations and confidence in a follower's ability. o 3. Leader conveys a new set of values by setting an example. o 4. Leader engages in emotion-inducing and often unconventional behavior to demonstrate convictions about the vision.

- able, willing - can be left on their own

DELEGATING

The Path-Goal Theory (House & Dressler)

Effective leaders ensure valued rewards (goals) and help followers (with information, support, and other resources) (path) to attain these goals.

The link between leader behavior and follower performance

Gottfredson & Aguinis (2017) addressed this question - comparing different potential mediators of the relationships between leadership behavior and follower performance...and found that LMX was the strongest mediator.

Transformational leadership

Inspire followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the organization; they can have a profound and extraordinary effect on followers.

- able, unwilling - have high ability but may lack confidence, need support and encouragement

PARTICIPATING

- unable, unwilling - followers need detailed direction and support

SELLING

- unable, willing - have only moderate ability and need specific direction

TELLING

Contingency model variables

These approaches suggest that the most effective way for a leader to behave depends on: o Leader characteristics: Traits, experience, skills... o Follower characteristics: Capabilities, motivation... o Characteristics of the situation: Task, structure, environment...

Participating

focus on giving support by encouraging and fostering self- confidence; don't focus too much on instructions; make decisions together

Delegating

merely let them know what needs to be done; laissez-faire, hands-off, management-by-exception

LMX Premise:

o Because of time pressures, leaders form a special relationship with a small group of followers: the "in-group." o This in-group is trusted and gets more time and attention from the leader (more "exchanges"). Relationships are characterized by mutual influence, negotiability, and trust and respect. o Other followers are in the "out-group" and get less of the leader's attention and tend to have formal relationships with the leader (fewer "exchanges"). Relationships are more transactional (fulfilling contractual obligations). o Leaders pick group members early in the relationship.

The most effective leadership style also appears to depend on the criteria used to judge effectiveness, namely that...

o Consideration is especially important for follower satisfaction, motivation and leader effectiveness. o Initiating structure is esp. important for group/organizational performance.

Motivation hierarchy (fiedler)

o Low LPC-leaders are primarily motivated by the task. If tasks are being accomplished in an acceptable manner they will move to their secondary motivation - forming/ maintaining relationships with followers. o Conversely, high LPC-leaders are primarily motivated by relationships. Once these are established, they will move on to focus on task accomplishment.

Assessment of LMX

o Research has been generally supportive i.e., leaders differentiate and 'ingroup' followers are more satisfied/perform better, more OCB etc. o High quality relationship is good for individual follower outcomes (motivation, empowerment, satisfaction, performance). However: o Self-fulfilling prophecy? o Differentiation of LMX can be bad for teams (conflict, coordination), and perhaps also bad for the individual (violates equality norms). o LMX does not specify the specific behaviors that lead to high quality relationship exchanges between the leader and followers.

Transformational vs. charismatic Leadership:

o Similar concepts, but transformational leadership may be considered a broader concept than charisma. o Instrument-based testing shows the measures to be roughly equivalent.

Two classes of contingency variables were identified (path-goal):

o Situational/environmental factors: Are outside of employee control. o Follower/subordinate factors: Are internal to the employee.

Difference in University of Michigan and Ohio State

while job-centered is more similar to initiating structure and employee-centered to consideration, UoM considered job-centered and employee- centered leadership to be at opposite ends of a single continuum of leadership behavior (one dimension) and Ohio state researchers believed that consideration and initiating structure dimensions were independent continuums.