the general thrust of path-goal theory is to specify what the leader must do to

10.4 What Is the Role of the Context? Contingency Approaches to Leadership

Learning Objectives

1. Larn virtually the major situational conditions that decide the effectiveness of dissimilar leadership styles.
2. Identify the conditions nether which highly task-oriented and highly people-oriented leaders can be successful based on Fiedler's contingency theory.
3. Discuss the main premises of the Path-Goal theory of leadership.
4. Draw a method by which leaders can decide how democratic or authoritarian their decision making should be.

What is the all-time leadership way? By at present, you must have realized that this may not the right question to ask. Instead, a better question might be: under which conditions are different leadership styles more constructive? After the disappointing results of trait and behavioral approaches, several scholars developed leadership theories that specifically incorporated the role of the environment. Researchers started post-obit a contingency approach to leadership—rather than trying to identify traits or behaviors that would be effective nether all weather condition, the attention moved toward specifying the situations under which dissimilar styles would exist effective.

Fiedler's Contingency Theory

The primeval and i of the virtually influential contingency theories was adult by Frederick Fiedler.Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill; Fiedler, F. Due east. (1964). A contingency model of leader effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, 149–190). New York: Academic Printing. Co-ordinate to the theory, a leader'southward manner is measured by a scale called Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) calibration. People who are filling out this survey are asked to think of a person who is their least preferred coworker. So, they rate this person in terms of how friendly, prissy, and cooperative this person is. Imagine someone you did not enjoy working with. Can you describe this person in positive terms? In other words, if y'all tin say that the person you hated working with was even so a nice person, you would have a high LPC score. This ways that you lot have a people-oriented personality and yous can separate your liking of a person from your ability to work with that person. Yet, if you remember that the person y'all hated working with was also someone you did non like on a personal level, you would have a low LPC score. To yous, being unable to work with someone would mean that yous also dislike that person. In other words, you are a task-oriented person.

According to Fiedler's theory, dissimilar people can exist effective in unlike situations. The LPC score is akin to a personality trait and is not likely to modify. Instead, placing the right people in the right situation or changing the situation is important to increase a leader'southward effectiveness. The theory predicts that in "favorable" and "unfavorable" situations, a low LPC leader—one who has feelings of dislike for coworkers who are difficult to piece of work with—would be successful. When situational favorableness is medium, a high LPC leader—one who is able to personally like coworkers who are difficult to work with—is more than likely to succeed.

How does Fiedler decide whether a situation is favorable, medium, or unfavorable? At that place are iii conditions creating situational favorableness: (1) leader-subordinate relations, (2) position ability, and (iii) task construction. If the leader has a good relationship with nigh people, has high position ability, and the task is structured, the situation is very favorable. When the leader has depression-quality relations with employees, has depression position ability, and the task is relatively unstructured, the situation is very unfavorable.

Research partially supports the predictions of Fiedler's contingency theory.Peters, Fifty. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Buletin, 97, 274–285; Strube, M. J., & Garcia, J. E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Buletin, 90, 307–321; Vecchio, R. P. (1983). Assessing the validity of Fiedler'southward contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer wait at Strube and Garcia. Psychological Buletin, 93, 404–408. Specifically, at that place is more back up for the theory's predictions virtually when depression LPC leadership should be used, but the office about when high LPC leadership would be more than effective received less support. Even though the theory was not supported in its entirety, it is a useful framework to think about when chore- versus people-oriented leadership may be more effective. Moreover, the theory is important because of its explicit recognition of the importance of the context of leadership.

Figure 10.ten Situational Favorableness

Source: Based on data in Fiedler, F. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Loma; Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leader effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). New York: Academic Printing.

Situational Leadership

Another contingency approach to leadership is Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey's Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) which argues that leaders must use different leadership styles depending on their followers' evolution level.Hersey, P.H., Blanchard, K.H., ' Johnson, D.E. (2007). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leadership man resource. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. According to this model, employee readiness (defined as a combination of their competence and commitment levels) is the key factor determining the proper leadership fashion. This approach has been highly popular with 14 million managers beyond 42 countries undergoing SLT training and seventy% of Fortune 500 companies employing its use.http://www.situational.com/Views/SituationalLeadership/RightHereRightNow.aspx

The model summarizes the level of directive and supportive behaviors that leaders may showroom. The model argues that to be effective, leaders must use the right style of behaviors at the right time in each employee'due south development. It is recognized that followers are primal to a leader's success. Employees who are at the earliest stages of developing are seen equally being highly committed but with depression competence for the tasks. Thus, leaders should be highly directive and less supportive. Every bit the employee becomes more competent, the leader should appoint in more than coaching behaviors. Supportive behaviors are recommended once the employee is at moderate to high levels of competence. And finally, delegating is the recommended arroyo for leaders dealing with employees who are both highly committed and highly competent. While the SLT is pop with managers, relatively like shooting fish in a barrel to empathise and use, and has endured for decades, enquiry has been mixed in its support of the bones assumptions of the model.Blank, Westward., Dark-green, Southward.K., ' Weitzel, J.R. (1990). A test of the situational leadership theory. Personnel Psychology, 43, 579–597; Graeff, C. L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical review. University of Management Review, viii, 285–291; Fernandez, C.F., ' Vecchio, R.P. (2002). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 67–84. Therefore, while it can be a useful way to think most matching behaviors to situations, overreliance on this model, at the exclusion of other models, is premature.

Table 10.1

Follower Readiness Level	Competence (Low)	Competence (Low)	Competence (Moderate to High)	Competence (High)
	Commitment (High)	Commitment (Low)	Commitment (Variable)	Delivery (High)
Recommended Leader Style	Directing Behavior	Coaching Beliefs	Supporting Beliefs	Delegating Behavior

Situational Leadership Theory helps leaders match their manner to follower readiness levels.

Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

Robert House's path-goal theory of leadership is based on the expectancy theory of motivation.House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Scientific discipline Quarterly, 16(three), 321–338. Expectancy theory of motivation suggests that employees are motivated when they believe—or expect—that (1) their endeavour volition pb to high performance, (2) their high performance volition be rewarded, and (3) the rewards they will receive are valuable to them. Co-ordinate to the path-goal theory of leadership, the leader'due south main task is to make sure that all iii of these conditions exist. Thus, leaders will create satisfied and high-performing employees by making sure that employee endeavour leads to performance, and their functioning is rewarded. The leader removes roadblocks along the way and creates an environs that subordinates notice motivational.

The theory as well makes specific predictions well-nigh what type of leader behavior will exist constructive under which circumstances.Firm, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352; Firm, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Gimmicky Business organization, iii, 81–97. The theory identifies four leadership styles. Each of these styles can be effective, depending on the characteristics of employees (such every bit their ability level, preferences, locus of control, accomplishment motivation) and characteristics of the work environment (such as the level of role ambiguity, the degree of stress present in the surround, the degree to which the tasks are unpleasant).

Iv Leadership Styles

Path-goal theory of leadershipTheory stating that a leader'south main job is to motivate employees with the behavior that (1) their effort will lead to high performance, (2) their high performance volition be rewarded, and (3) the rewards they will receive are valuable to them. identifies four styles leaders may prefer. Directive leadersThose leaders who provide specific directions to their employees. provide specific directions to their employees. They pb employees past clarifying office expectations, setting schedules, and making sure that employees know what to practise on a given workday. The theory predicts that the directive way will piece of work well when employees are experiencing role ambivalence on the job. If people are unclear about how to go nearly doing their jobs, giving them specific directions will motivate them. Still, if employees already have role clarity, and if they are performing boring, routine, and highly structured jobs, giving them direction does non help. In fact, information technology may injure them by creating an even more than restricting atmosphere. Directive leadership is too idea to be less constructive when employees accept loftier levels of ability. When managing professional person employees with high levels of expertise and job-specific knowledge, telling them what to practise may create a low empowerment environment, which impairs motivation.

Supportive leadersThose leaders who provide emotional back up to employees. provide emotional support to employees. They treat employees well, care about them on a personal level, and are encouraging. Supportive leadership is predicted to be effective when employees are nether a lot of stress or when they are performing boring and repetitive jobs. When employees know exactly how to perform their jobs but their jobs are unpleasant, supportive leadership may too be effective.

Participative leadersThose leaders who brand sure that employees are involved in making of import decisions. make sure that employees are involved in making important decisions. Participative leadership may be more constructive when employees have high levels of ability and when the decisions to be made are personally relevant to them. For employees who take a high internal locus of control, or the belief that they can command their own destinies, participative leadership gives employees a fashion of indirectly controlling organizational decisions, which will be appreciated.

Achievement-oriented leadersThose leaders who set goals for employees and encourage them to reach their goals. ready goals for employees and encourage them to reach their goals. Their mode challenges employees and focuses their attention on work-related goals. This style is probable to be constructive when employees accept both high levels of ability and high levels of accomplishment motivation.

Figure 10.12 Predictions of Path-Goal Theory

Source: On the basis of information presented in House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, seven, 323–352; Firm, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Periodical of Gimmicky Business, 3, 81–97.

The path-goal theory of leadership has received partial but encouraging levels of support from researchers. Because the theory is highly complicated, information technology has not been fully and adequately tested.House, R. J., & Aditya, R. Northward. (1997). The social scientific written report of leadership: Quo Vadis? Periodical of Management, 23, 409–473; Stinson, J. E., & Johnson, T. W. (1975). The path-goal theory of leadership: A fractional test and suggested refinement. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 242–252; Wofford, J. C., & Liska, 50. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, nineteen, 857–876. The theory'south biggest contribution may be that it highlights the importance of a leader's power to change styles, depending on the circumstances. Unlike Fiedler's contingency theory, in which the leader's style is assumed to be fixed and merely the environment can exist inverse, House'due south path-goal theory underlines the importance of varying i'south manner, depending on the situation.

Vroom and Yetton'southward Normative Decision Model

Yale School of Management professor Victor Vroom and his colleagues Philip Yetton and Arthur Jago developed a controlling tool to assistance leaders make up one's mind how much involvement they should seek when making decisions.Vroom, Five. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision making process. Organizational Dynamics, 68, 82–94; Vroom, 5. H., & Yetton, P. Westward. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh: Academy of Pittsburgh Press; Jago, A., & Vroom, V. H. (1980). An evaluation of two alternatives to the Vroom/Yetton Normative Model. Academy of Management Periodical, 23, 347–355; Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. 1988. The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. The model starts past having leaders answer several central questions and working their manner through a funnel based on their responses.

Let's try information technology. Imagine that you desire to help your employees lower their stress so that you tin can minimize employee absenteeism. There are a number of approaches you could take to reduce employee stress, such as offer gym memberships, providing employee assistance programs, establishing a nap room, so forth. Let'southward refer to the model and offset with the first question. As you lot answer each question as loftier (H) or low (L), follow the corresponding path down the funnel.

1. Conclusion significance. The decision has loftier significance because the approach called needs to be constructive at reducing employee stress for the insurance premiums to be lowered. In other words, at that place is a quality requirement to the decision. Follow the path through H.
2. Importance of commitment. Does the leader need employee cooperation to implement the decision? In our case, the reply is high, because employees may simply ignore the resources if they practise not like them. Follow the path through H.
3. Leader expertise. Does the leader have all the information needed to make a high-quality decision? In our instance, leader expertise is low. You do not have information regarding what your employees need or what kinds of stress reduction resources they would prefer. Follow the path through L.
4. Likelihood of commitment. If the leader makes the determination alone, what is the likelihood that the employees would accept it? Let'southward assume that the respond is Depression. Based on the leader's experience with this group, they would likely ignore the decision if the leader makes information technology solitary. Follow the path from L.
5. Goal alignment. Are the employee goals aligned with organizational goals? In this instance, employee and organizational goals may be aligned because you both want to ensure that employees are healthier. And then let's say the alignment is loftier, and follow H.
6. Group expertise. Does the group have expertise in this controlling area? The group in question has little information about which alternatives are costlier or more user friendly. We'll say group expertise is low. Follow the path from 50.
7. Squad competence. What is the ability of this particular squad to solve the problem? Permit'south imagine that this is a new squad that simply got together and they have picayune demonstrated expertise to work together finer. We will answer this equally depression, or L.

Based on the answers to the questions we gave, the normative approach recommends consulting employees as a grouping. In other words, the leader may brand the decision lonely after gathering information from employees and is not advised to delegate the decision to the team or to brand the determination lonely with no input from the squad members.

Effigy 10.13

Vroom and Yetton's leadership conclusion tree shows leaders which styles will be most effective in different situations.

Used by permission from Victor H. Vroom.

Vroom and Yetton'southward model is somewhat complicated, only research results support the validity of the model. On average, leaders using the way recommended past the model tend to make more effective decisions compared with leaders using a style not recommended by the model.Vroom, V. H., & Jago, G. (1978). On the validity of the Vroom Yetton model. Periodical of Practical Psychology, 63, 151–162.

Key Takeaway

The contingency approaches to leadership describe the role the state of affairs would play in choosing the virtually effective leadership fashion. Fiedler'south contingency theory argued that chore-oriented leaders would exist almost effective when the state of affairs was the most and the least favorable, whereas human relationship-oriented leaders would be constructive when situational favorableness was moderate. Situational Leadership Theory takes the maturity level of followers into account. Firm's path-goal theory states that the leader's chore is to ensure that employees view their effort equally leading to performance and increase the belief that performance would be rewarded. For this purpose, leaders would use directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership styles, depending on what employees needed to feel motivated. Vroom and Yetton's normative decision model is a guide leaders can use to determine how participative they should be given determination surround characteristics.

Exercises

1. Do you believe that the least preferred coworker technique is a valid method of measuring someone's leadership style? Why or why not?
2. Practise you lot believe that leaders can vary their style to demonstrate directive, supportive, achievement-oriented and participative styles with respect to different employees? Or does each leader tend to take a personal manner that he or she regularly uses toward all employees?
3. What exercise y'all see as the limitations of the Vroom-Yetton leadership decision-making approach?
4. Which of the leadership theories covered in this department do yous think are most useful, and to the lowest degree useful, to practicing managers? Why?

woodalltwoubbeck.blogspot.com

Source: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_principles-of-management-v1.1/s14-04-what-is-the-role-of-the-contex.html

Share this post