Chapter 6: Trait, Behaviour and Contingency Theories Flashcards
contingency theory
This theory is premised on the assumption that different situations or contexts necessitate different kinds of leadership.
trait
refers to a variety of enduring characteristics, typically belonging to an individual, including personality tendencies that determine an individual’s behaviour.
Human traits exhibit four core properties:
(1) are measurable,
(2) vary across individuals,
(3) exhibit time and situational stability, and
(4) help predict attitudes and behaviours
Examples of traits
Examples include extroversion, introversion, emotional intelligence and conscientiousness
emotional intelligence (EI)
has been considered a trait that may indicate effective leadership
an individual’s inherent ability to recognize their own and other people’s emotions, together with the ability to use emotions to enhance thoughts and actions
trait activation theory (TAT)
which predicts that some events, situations or human interventions ‘activate’ a trait more than others.
For example, in a supportive organization culture employees are more likely to behave pro-socially. TAT suggests that individual personality and the situation affect behaviour in the workplace
Until the mid-20th century, trait theories and research flourished in the enduring quest to discover:
(1) specific psychological traits and attributes which would help explain whether an individual will emerge as an informal leader in a group, and
(2) how traits and personal attributes are related to leadership effectiveness.
____________ has stood the test of time and is strongly related to leadership outcomes
Cognitive ability
The correlation coefficient
statistical measure that calculates the strength of the relationship between the relative movements of two variables.
The Big Five (OCEAN)
openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism
Extraversion
refers to assertiveness, dominance and being positive
Conscientiousness
whose facets include determination, being goal directed and self-discipline
Openness
refers to curiosity and creativity
Agreeableness
refers to sociablity, being trustful of others and empathy,
neuroticism
which includes emotions such as anxiety, anger and depression
Theoretically, effective leaders tend to have higher scores on:
assertiveness, conscientiousness and openness to new ideas and learning, and lower scores on neuroticism
Critiquing the trait approach
1) Trait leadership research has largely neglected the context within which leaders find themselves
2) Underplays followership in the leadership process. It focuses on trait variables and optimum performance and downplays what it is like to be a human being.
3) Trait models disregard three well-known dimensions of the social world: class, gender and race.
4) Trait leadership theorizing is culturally determined. Therefore, we may assume that what could be considered a positive personal attribute will be an issue for debate between Asian and Anglo-American scholars
5) Do quantitative results actually establish a causal connection between traits and leadership effectiveness?
behavioural theories of leadership
focus on behaviour and infer that people can be trained to be leaders.
The neo-human relations school provided an analytical framework for comparing different types of leadership styles based on two main types of behaviours:
1) Task behaviour
2) Relationship behvaiours
Task behaviours
describes the extent to which the leader emphasizes productivity targets or goal accomplishment.
These behaviours are also called ‘producton-centred’ and ‘task-orientated’ leadership styles.
Relationship behaviours
describe the extent to which the leader is concerned about her or his followers as people: their needs, development and problems.
University of Michigan studies two types of leadership behaviours:
1) production orientation
2) employee orientation
Leaders classified as being production-orientated
Emphasize the production and technical aspects of work. Followers were viewed simply as a factor of production – as a means for getting the work done.
Leaders classified as being employee-orientated
Give special attention to a subordinate’s personal needs, value their individuality, and generally approach followers with a strong ‘human relations’ emphasis.
Ohio State studies
Investigating how leaders behaved when they were leading a team or an organization
Ohio State studies found: The results suggested that there were two important underlying dimensions of leader behaviour
1) Initiating structure
2) Consideration.
Initiating structure
leader behaviour aimed at defining and organizing work relationships and roles, as well as establishing clear patterns of communication, and ways of completing tasks
2) Consideration.
Leader behaviour aimed at nurturing warm working relationships, and encouraging mutual trust and respect among the leader and followers. The effective leader attempts to increase both initiating and consideration structure and to maintain a balance between the two
What the Michigan group labelled ‘employee orientation’ is similar to the Ohio State team’s ‘consideration’
Intersting
Michigan’s ‘production orientation’ is similar to Ohio State’s ‘initiating structure’
However, the Ohio State approach measured both formal and informal variables
‘four systems of management’ four general leadership styles
1) exploitative-authoritative
2) benevolent-authoritative
3) consultative
4) participative
Blake and Mouton characterized the two main activities of leaders as involving
1) a concern for results
2) concern for people
Blake and Mouton focused on five major leadership styles
1) Authority-compliance
2) Team style
3) Country club
4) Impoverished
5) Middle-of-the-road
1) Authority-compliance
characterized as having great concern for results (meeting targets) and little concern for people.
This leader desires tight control in order to get tasks done efficiently and gives little consideration to human relations
2) Team style
characterized as having great concern for both people and results. This leader works to motivate followers to reach their highest levels of accomplishment, is flexible, responsive to change and understands the need for change.
3) Country club
great concern for people and little concern for results, attempts to avoid conflict and endeavours to be well-liked. This leader’s goal is to keep followers happy through good interpersonal relations, which are more important to him or her than the task.
4) Impoverished
referred to as ‘laissez-faire’ leading. This leader has little concern for people or results, avoids taking sides and stays out of conflicts; he or she does just enough to get by.
5) Middle-of-the-road
medium concern for people and results. This leader attempts to balance a concern for both followers and results without a commitment to either.
Critiquing the behaviour approach
First, like the trait approach, it has been unable to identify a universal style of leadership that could be effective in the vast majority of situations.
Another criticism is that the behaviour approach suggests that the most effective leadership style is the so-called ‘high-high’ style, that is, high results and high people-oriented behaviour.
A third criticism of behavioural theories of leadership is that they have not adequately demonstrated how leaders’ behaviours are associated with performance outcomes
internal and external contingencies
strategy, government regulations or organizational design – that affect managerial behaviour.
Contingency, as it applies to organizational theory and practice,
means that the effectiveness of a particular competitive or HR strategy, organizational structure or leadership or managerial style depends on the presence or absence of other factors or forces.
Therefore, there is no one best behaviour or style of leadership, but, rather, situation X requires leadership behaviour or style B.
Fiedler’s contingency theory
assumes that leaders are either task oriented or relationship oriented, an orientation that the leader cannot change.
Task-oriented leaders
are focused on accomplishing goals, meeting set targets and getting work done.
relationship-oriented leaders
focused on developing good, comfortable interpersonal relationships.
Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Scale
projective technique through which a leader is asked to think about the person with whom she or he can work least well (the least preferred co-worker, or LPC)
The leader is asked to describe this least preferred co-worker using adjectives like pleasant versus unpleasant, friendly versus unfriendly, quarrelsome versus harmonious. Leaders who describe their least preferred co-worker in positive terms, such as pleasant, cheerful or friendly, are classified as high LPC, or relationship-oriented leaders.
The LPC scale is a controversial element in Fiedler’s theory
been criticized because it is a projective technique, with associated measurement biases and low measurement reliability
The leader’s situation has three dimensions:
1) task structure,
2) position power
3) leader–member relations
1) task structure,
refers to the number and clarity of rules, regulations and procedures for getting the work done
2) position power
refers to the leader’s legitimate authority to evaluate and reward performance, punish errors and demote group members.
3) leader–member relations
an indication of the positivity of the leader’s relationship with their followers
A favourable leadership situation
is one in which the task is highly structured, the leader has considerable position power, and the leader–member relations are good.
The most unfavourable leadership situation
is one with an unstructured task, weak position of power for the leader, and poor leader–member relations.
House’s path–goal theory
Robert House (1971) developed the path–goal theory of leadership, which has its roots in the expectancy theory of motivation
Expectancy theory
based on the notion that work motivation is contingent upon the perception of a link between levels of physical or mental effort and reward
In path–goal theory
the main task of the leader is to facilitate the follower’s path to the goal. The leader uses the most appropriate of four leader behaviour styles – directive, supportive, participative or achievement oriented – to help followers clarify the paths that lead them to work and personal goals.
The directive style
used when the leader must communicate expectations, schedule work and maintain performance standards.
The supportive style
used when the leader needs to express concern for followers and create an organizational climate that demonstrates support
The participative style
used when the leader wants to share decision-making authority with followers
The achievement-oriented style
used when the leader must set challenging goals for followers, expect very high levels of performance and show strong confidence in the followers
The research support for path–goal theory has several limitations
First, the research support for the theory is weak
Second, path–goal theory incorporates so many different aspects of leadership that interpreting the theory can be unclear.
Third, the model neglects to explain adequately the leader–behaviour–follower motivation relationship
Fourth, the leader has to provide coaching to help followers achieve their goals, which assumes that the leadership is a one-way process and fails to recognize followers’ initiative and action.
Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory (SLT)
like the path–goal theory, suggests that the leader’s behaviour must be flexible to reflect the situation. It posits that effective leadership depends on choosing the right leadership style contingent on the subordinates’ ability and motivation to perform a given task
SLT employs two dimensions of leader behaviour drawn from the Ohio State studies:
directive behaviour, which focuses on the task in hand (e.g. routine or nonroutine),
and supportive behaviour, which focuses on followers’ job-related development (e.g. ability, training, experience).
Critiquing the contingency approach
1) All the theories incorporate multiple factors simultaneously into recommending a preferred leadership style, which is open to wide interpretation
2) A key methodological concern is that contingency theories do not explain adequately the causal effects underpinning the relationships they draw.
