Occupational - leadership

Arnold et al., 2016
Leadership can be said to be the personal qualities, behaviours, styles and decisions acquired by the leader.
1 of 72
Historial overview
1930-1950 Many inconclusive studies. 1950-2002 Improved research designs have yielded more convincing results. Limited evidence that traits predict leadership effectiveness. After 2002: Strong evidence in favour of the trait approach
2 of 72
The Traits Approach
Traits refer to a variety of individual attributes, including aspects of personality, temperament, needs, motives, and values. Traits are relatively stable dispositions to behave in a particular way
3 of 72
Costa & McCrae, 1992
Big 5 - Openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism
4 of 72
Yukl, 2006
O - Curious and inquisitive; Open-Minded;Learning Oriented. C - Dependability;Personal Integrity;Need for achievement. E - Energy/Activity Level;Need for Power (Assertive). A - Cheerful and optimistic;Nurturance. N - Emotional Stability;Self-esteem
5 of 72
Judge et al., 2002
Used Big 5 as unifying framework Most consistent positive effects for extraversion, emotional stability and openness Effect of intelligence smaller than expected
6 of 72
How does the Trait Approach work?
Identifies traits that are most relevant for effective leadership Selecting the “right” people will assure leadership effectiveness A trait assessment can help people to determine if they have the qualities to move to leadership positions in a compan
7 of 72
Pros of the Trait Approach
Intuitively appealing Breath and depth of studies conducted. Provides a benchmark for selection
8 of 72
Cons of the Trait Approach
Ambiguous empirical findings Subjective determinations of the “most important” leadership trait Does not take into account situation and followers. Not a useful approach for training and development
9 of 72
The Style Approach
Focus on behaviours that differentiate effective from ineffective leaders Past research defines a multitude of styles (> 30 models)
10 of 72
The Style Approach - what are the four basic, underlying styles
Concern for task (task-orientation) Concern for people (people/employee-orientation) Directive leadership (authoritarian, autocratic). Participative leadership (democratic)
11 of 72
Stogdill, 1957
Ohio State Studies - initiating structure and consideration
12 of 72
Stogdill, 1957 - initiating structure
Definition - extent to which a leader was likely to define and structure her/his role and the roles of group members to seek goal attainment. Items - Tells group members what is expected. Promotes the use of standardised procedures
13 of 72
Stogdill, 1957 - consideration
Definition - extent to which a leader had job relationships characterized by mutual trust and respect for group members’ ideas and feelings. Items - Is easy to get along with Puts ideas generated by the group into operation. Treats everyone the same
14 of 72
Stogdill, 1957 - conclusions
Model is U.S. and culture bound. After 50 years of research, the LBDQ is thought to be unreliable, yet as a measure of leader behavior is still used widely. Situational factors such as time pressure, ambiguity may suggest a more initiating structure
15 of 72
Blake & Mouton, 1985
Managerial (Leadership) Grid First appeared in the early 1960s, refined and revised several times (e.g. Blake & Mouton, 1964, 1978, 1985) Identified two ends of a continuum of leadership behavior (orientation)
16 of 72
Blake & Mouton, 1985 - concern for people
refers to how a leader attends to the people in the organization who are trying to achieve its goals.
17 of 72
Blake & Mouton, 1985 - concern for production
refers to how a leader is concerned with achieving organizational tasks.
18 of 72
Blake & Mouton, 1985 - examples on grid
Country club (Performance is facilitated due to lack of conflict and good fellowship); impoverished management; produce or perish; middle of the road (Push for production but don’t go all the way. Be fair but firm) & team management
19 of 72
How does the Style Approach work?
Suggests that leaders should modify their behavioral style in order to increase their effectiveness. People sometimes use different styles just to get what they want at that point in time.
20 of 72
Pros of the Styles Approach
Marked major shift in research Studies validate basic ideas Increased understanding of task/relationship as core to leadership process Heuristic, provides a broad conceptual map to understand complexities of leadership
21 of 72
Cons of the Styles Approach
Does not adequately show how leader style affects outcomes Failed to find universal style effective in almost every situation Implies that most effective style is high-high, research does not support this conclusion
22 of 72
The Contingency Approaches
“Different situations need different leaders” Leaders need to recognize&adapt to different situations or be selected to lead in a certain type of situation. Leadership style AND situation characteristics AND the interaction of both
23 of 72
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1978)
Fiedler’s contingency theory proposes that the effectiveness of a leader is contingent on two elements
24 of 72
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1978) - the two elements
The leaders’ motivational structures (trait) determine their preferred leadership style. The degree to which the leadership situation provides the leader with control&influence over the outcomes determines whether the leader is effective in a situati
25 of 72
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1978) - leader's motivational structure (trait)
Determined by the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Measure
26 of 72
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1978) - high-LPC
High-LPC leaders are primarily motivated to have close, interpersonal relationships.
27 of 72
Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1978) - low-LPC
Low-LPC leaders are primarily motivated by achievement of task objectives.
28 of 72
How does Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1964) work?
Leaders will not be effective in all situations. If the leader’s trait (style) is a good match for the situation in which she/he works, she/he will be effective. If the trait (style) doesn’t match the situation, the leader will most likely fail.
29 of 72
Pros of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1964)
Empirically supported (e.g. Peters, Harke & Pohlman, 1985; Strube & Garcia, 1981).Extends trait&style approaches by considering the situation&the leader-follower relationship.Predictive Power. Lets leaders off the hook
30 of 72
Cons of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1964)
“Black Box” problem -Theory does not account for why some leaders are more effective than others in certain situations. LPC Measure (low validity) Cumbersome to use in real-world settings
31 of 72
Graen et al (1975)
Leader-Member Exchange. Within work units, different types of relationship develop between leaders and subordinates Vary in terms of physical/mental effort and/or emotional support exchanged between leader/subordinate
32 of 72
Graen et al (1975) - LMX - leader-follower relationship
Through a set of exchanges, the leader develops different types of relationship with each person who works for him/her BUT leader must have control over valued outcomes
33 of 72
Graen et al (1975) - LMX - Good quality
with trusted followers who function as assistants, lieutenants or advisors – based on mutual dependency, loyalty and support
34 of 72
Graen et al (1975) - LMX - poor quality
follower asked to only comply with role requirements to receive ‘standard’ benefits
35 of 72
Graen and Cashman’s (1975)
Role-making Model.Grounded in role theory. people accomplish their work through roles of expected behaviors for their position The immediate manager is typically the most significant person to act on the role making process
36 of 72
Liden and Graen (1980)
estimated that over 90% of mangers have significantly different quality relationship with followers
37 of 72
Graen et al (1975) - LMX - development of relationship - phase 1
Initial testing, leader/follower evaluate each other's motives, attitudes, and potential resources to exchange -> mutual role expectations established. Many relationships don't go beyond this -> transactional
38 of 72
Graen et al (1975) - LMX - development of relationship - phase 2
Exchange relationship defined, mutual trust, loyalty, and respect develop
39 of 72
Graen et al (1975) - LMX - development of relationship - phase 3
Mature stage, exchanges based on mutual commitment to mission/objectives of work unit. Relationships at this stage -> transformational
40 of 72
Why do leaders develop different quality relationships? - cognitive
Too many people to manage Unable to spend time with all followers
41 of 72
Why do leaders develop different quality relationships? - motivation
Prejudice Desire to sub-group Divide & conquer ‘Heroic’ leadership strategies Have ‘blame agents’ Enhance in-group membership
42 of 72
Consequences of good LMX
“…having a high-quality relationship with one’s supervisor can affect the entire work experience in a positive manner, including performance and affective outcomes” Gerstner and Day (1997). Consistent and large correlations with: job satisfaction
43 of 72
Factors that affect LMX
Member characteristics, leader characteristics, org. characteristics
44 of 72
Factors that affect LMX - member characteristics
Non-work similarity Performance/ competence – as long as does not compete with leader Personality Upward Influence
45 of 72
Factors that affect LMX - leader characteristics
Relational demography – differences in gender, age, tenure etc. Personality/career development Stereotyping Relationship quality history. Upward LMX quality
46 of 72
Factors that affect LMX - org. characteristics
Contextual variables – group size and composition Type of work Culture
47 of 72
LMX differentation
Traditional LMX theory is dyadic in nature Yet leaders lead groups of followers who interact and discuss (and compare) their relationship with the leader Followers express a sense of powerlessness regarding differential treatment (Sias, 1996)
48 of 72
Correcting/improving performance through LMX - Leader actions
Gather information about the performance problems Try to avoid attributional biases Provide corrective feedback promptly Describe the deficiency briefly in specific terms Stay calm & professional Mutually identify reasons. Ask for suggestions.
49 of 72
Correcting/improving performance through LMX - follower actions
Take initiative to deal with problems Keep the manager informed about decisions Verify the accuracy of information you give to the manager Encourage the manager to provide honest feedback Challenge flawed plans & proposals made by leaders
50 of 72
Managerial implications of LMX
Compliments/challenges top-down approaches Emphasises leadership as a process of relationship building Most managers develop a wide range of quality relationships with their followers Leaders lead groups of people who interact and discuss leader
51 of 72
Influence-based approaches to leadership
Transformational leadership and transactional leadership (leading for stability)
52 of 72
Influence-based approaches to leadership - transformational leadership
Is a set of abilities that allow the leader to recognise the need for change, to create a vision to direct that change and execute that change effectively Provide vision and sense of mission, gain respect and trust, act as models for employees
53 of 72
Influence-based approaches to leadership - transactional leadership (leading for stability)
Is a set of activities that involve assigning work, evaluating performance and making decisions Guide and motivate people to accomplish goals they have been set – reward employees for achieving specified performance level
54 of 72
Transactional Leadership
Contingent reward Active – MBE Passive – MBE (Management by exception). Laisser-faire
55 of 72
Transformational Leadership
Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation. Intellectual stimulation Individualized consideration
56 of 72
Transactional leadership (Bass, 1996)
Contingent reward, management by exception, laissez-faire
57 of 72
Transactional leadership (Bass, 1996) - contingent reward
Leader gives reinforcement for respected behaviour & performance levels “If you do as we agree, I will give you recognition & reward”
58 of 72
Transactional leadership (Bass, 1996) - management by exception
Communicates when performance not conforming to expectations Active “I am systematically watching to see that you don’t….” Passive “If I happen to see that you don’t….”
59 of 72
Transactional leadership (Bass, 1996) - laissez-faire
Leader doesn’t show any responsibility towards subordinates & leaves them to do what they want without offering any form of leadership “It doesn’t matter what you do or don’t do”
60 of 72
Transformational leadership (Bass, 1996)
Idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualised consideration
61 of 72
Transformational leadership (Bass, 1996) - idealised influence
Provides vision and sens of mission, instills pride, gains respect & trust A persistent role model
62 of 72
Transformational leadership (Bass, 1996) - inspirational motivation
Clarifying & communicate the vision Encourage matching of individual & organisational goals
63 of 72
Transformational leadership (Bass, 1996) - intellectual stimulation
Challenges followers to rethink established ways of doing things. Presents new & novel ideas Questions current ways & generates simpler solutions
64 of 72
Transformational leadership (Bass, 1996) - individualised consideration
Amount of attention & support given to followers “I care about your development, as a person & professionally”
65 of 72
***Lambert et al., 2012***
not so much amount of consideration and initiating structure the leader displays, but how much the followers want. Found fit between wanted and received consideration and initiating structure does affect the satisfaction and commitment of followers.
66 of 72
***Yukl, 2013***
The term trait refers to a wide range of individual attributes, involving characteristics of personality, temperament, needs, motives and values
67 of 72
***Rice, 1978***
Alternative interpretation to Fiedler's (1978) contingency model - emphasises leader values rather than motives. Leaders with a low LPC score value task achievement more than interpersonal relations, leaders with high LPC value interpersonal etc.
68 of 72
***Wilson et al., 2010***
LMX-The employee gains benefits e.g. assignment to interesting tasks. In return for receiving these benefits, the subordinate in a high-exchange relationship provides different kinds of benefits to the leader. E.g. more dedicated to task objectives.
69 of 72
***Feingold, 1994***
In response to traits approach. Traits may not be independent. Gender differences occur for intelligence and personality. Biological and sociocultural explanations exist for why men and women score differently on personality and intelligence
70 of 72
***Schmidt & Hunter, 1998***
found that intelligence is one of the greatest predictors of general job performance. the relationship between intelligence&performance is greater for complex jobs.suggesting that intelligence is essential for leadership - leaders do complex tasks
71 of 72
***Dvir et al., 2002***
impact of transformational leadership,with training,on follower development&performance.Found group leaders who received transformational leadership training had greater positive impact on followers development&performance than control group
72 of 72

Other cards in this set

Card 2


Historial overview


1930-1950 Many inconclusive studies. 1950-2002 Improved research designs have yielded more convincing results. Limited evidence that traits predict leadership effectiveness. After 2002: Strong evidence in favour of the trait approach

Card 3


The Traits Approach


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


Costa & McCrae, 1992


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Yukl, 2006


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Ancient History resources:

See all Ancient History resources »See all q resources »