3 whos the boss Flashcards
explain the trait approach to leadership
is trying to support the fact that leaders have certain traits that non leaders do not have.
- there is not much evidence that shows relationship between traits and leadership, nevertheless newer research says there might be
what does the behavior approach state
behavioral theories ask: what do effective leaders do instead of who are effective leaders
- leader behavior are the best predictors of leadership success
- Ohio state + michigan
- full range leadership model
behavioral approach task vs person oriented
this refers to the Ohio state studies. They identified 2 groups of important leadership behavior
1. Consideration (person oriented leadership)
2. initiating structure (task-oriented structure)
task oriented = focused on attempting to achieve the organization’s goals, initiating structure.
person oriented = they focus more on other’s well-being, consideration
behavior approach participative vs autocratic
this refers to how involved the leader is, and if they assert their dominance with hierarchy or not
participative = leader is part of workforce. Effective because it breaks down the hierarchy between leaders and employees. Therefore, employees feel like they have a say.
Autocratic = is the opposite, Leaders make the decisions and employees do not have much of a say.
Criticism: does not consider situational factors + inconsistent findings
situational/contingency approach to leadership
The contingency approach: leadership theory proposed to take into account the role of the situation in
leadership.
Using task-oriented or relation-oriented behavior in different situations.
2 contingency theories:
* Hersey and blanchard: success of various leadership approaches depend in part on maturity of subordinate.
2 diff facets to maturity:
o Job maturity (ability)
o Psychological maturity (confidence)
o More structuring from leader for subordinates with lower maturity
o Leader should change according to the situation
* House et al: path-goal theory→ leader’s responsibility to show subordinate path to valued
subordinate goals
fiedler’s contingency theory
Viewed leaders as being primarily motivated around task or ppl
o Considers 3 situational aspects thought to be particularly important in determining
appropriate style of leadership:
▪ Quality of leader-follower relationships
▪ Existence of formal authority or power in relationship
▪ Clarity of performance goals
o 3 points above contribute to favourableness of situation → task oriented leaders better
in very low or high favourable situations, ppl oriented leaders better in moderate
favourable situations (new to the situation)
o Leader cannot change his approach → if situation changes and the leader does not
change → ineffective leader
▪ He has to “change the situation”
Fiedler’s contingency theory
Leaders are motivated around tasks
3 situational aspects: these aspects tell us what is an appropriate style of leadership.
Quality of relationship between leader and followers
There’s formal authority
Clarity of performance goals
Task oriented
Criticism: leaders cannot change their leadership style, only their task or job. Not practical.
-These points contribute to favourableness of situation à task oriented leaders better in very low or high favourable situations, ppl oriented leaders better in moderate favourable situation
Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory
Approach that leader takes depends on maturity (job maturity and psychological maturity) of subordinate. (skilled and confident in their skills therefore they can be self-sufficient.
Leader does not have to provide much guidance.
Main difference to previous theory: focuses on subordinates whereas previous theory focused on 3 outside factors.
Criticism: leadership is not one size fits all, not much support. Hard to measure maturity objectively.
success of various leadership approaches depend in part on maturity of
subordinate. 2 diff facets to maturity:
o Job maturity (ability)
o Psychological maturity (confidence)
o More structuring from leader for subordinates with lower maturity
o Leader should change according to the situation
House’s path-goal theory
theory→ leader’s responsibility to show subordinate path to valued
subordinate goals
Main idea: responsibility of a leader is to build a path that helps the worker achieve a goal.
Theory is vague
Is part of the contingency approach because this theory focuses on situations since the leader is in charge of creating situations that will lead the organization to achieve their goals.
Criticism: very hard to test or implement since it is complex. Not well researched.
leader-member exchange (LMX)
Main idea: that the relationship the leader has with the follower is more important than the traits that the follower has. If there is positive relationship between leader and follower, it is more likely to have a successful organization.
If there is trust in loyalty between leader and follower
Ingroup members: high relationship, easy to make negotiations, leader does not need to use much power over them, workers are more likely to stay in the organization.
Outgroup members: the opposite. Low quality relationship between leader and followers.
Problems with this perspective
Leader has different views on their leading skills than the subordinate (leader likes their leadership style but follower does not agree)
charismatic leadership style
A leader is liked and respected by people. example from book: Hitler. A lot of charismatic leaders started off by using transactional leadership (promising people things so they follow them). Followers are very emotionally attached to the leader and blindly follow any of the leaders orders.
Characteristics:
Confidence
Trying to impress followers
Strong need for power
Set examples through their own behaviors
Provide appealing vision of future (make promises)
Charisma comes in different ways:
Crisis situation: followers see who is a charismatic leader within their group/situations
Certain characteristics indicate that person would be suitable for being a leader. (supporting trait approach)
transactional leadership style
Leaders make goals, and if people accomplish them, the leader gives them a reward. Can be both positive or negative
High levels of satisfaction motivation performance
Transformational leadership gets a high score on moral reasoning whereas transactional does not.
Management by exception, active micromanaging and passive.
laissez-faire leadership style
leader does not provide input and authority. Workers have a lot of freedom and poor guidance.
This is not considered a leadership style. Lowest level of leadership
Leader denies responsibility
No notable rewards or punishment
Leader avoids making decisions, neglects addressing things
What is the main difference between Fiedler’s contingency theory and Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory?
hersey focuses on subordinates whereas fiedler’s focused on 3 outside factors
new approaches such as LMX
Can leaders be both transactional and transformational?
Yes, can use Hitler example from class. He provided transactions (if mothers had more children they would get medals) but also was transformational (made a lot of promises)
To which leadership approach (trait, behavioral, or situational) do transactional and transformational leadership belong?
behavioral
