CHAPTER -1

Leadership Concept and Theories

 CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

“Be the servant while Leading” — Swami Vivekananda

Leadership means many things to many people. This is due to the

changing environment of leaders in different roles in different functions in

different settings starting from leadership of the family to the top positions in

multinational organizations. However, the essentials of leadership are the same

to all leaders in all positions. Nevertheless, due to the variation in the skills

required, roles played, functions performed, issues tackled and the relationships

promoted, different leaders have different perceptions of leadership. As such,

several attributes have been made both for the success and failure of leadership

in the form of properties and processes or traits and styles of leaders. Further,

even these attributes cannot provide a totally satisfactory guidance for the

success of leadership. Hence, theoreticians and practitioners of leadership have

gone to the extent of developing the ‘contingency approach’, which emphasizes

that there is ‘No single best way’. The functions, roles, variables, power,

influence, success and effectiveness of leaders, leadership theories and

leadership in general discussed by different writers, researchers and

practitioners are discussed in the following passages.

 2

DEFINITION OF LEADERSHIP

There are as many definitions of leadership as there are scholars who

have attempted to analyze and understand the concept, but there is no

universally accepted definition of it1.

The word ‘leader’ stems from the root leden meaning ‘to travel’ or

‘show the way’. It has been derived from the verb “to lead.” This also implies

“to advance,” “to expel,” “to stand out,” to guide and govern the actions of

others. A leader is a person who leads a group of followers.

The Oxford English Dictionary (1933) notes that the word "leader”

appeared in the English language as early as 1300 A.D. However, the word

“leadership” did not appear until about 1800 A.D.2 Albeit, leadership appears

to be a rather sophisticated concept, words meaning ‘chief or ‘king’ are the

only ones found in many languages to differentiate the ruler from other

members of society. A preoccupation with leadership occurred predominantly

in countries with Anglo-Saxon heritage. However, leaders have always been

there in all cultures through history and the practice and philosophy of leaders

and leadership can be gleaned from well-known writings as diverse in content,

philosophy, and time as the Greek classic Homer’s Iliad, the Old and New

Testaments of the Bible, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Bhagavatha and

the Kautilya’s Arthashastra in India, essays of Confucius in China,

1 Bennis, W. G. “Leadership Theory and Administrative Behaviour: The Problem of

Authority,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.4,1959, pp. 259-269.

2 Ralph M. Stogdill, Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, The Free
Press, New York, 1974, p.7.
 3

Machiavelli’s The Prince which is concerned with rales and principles for

obtaining and holding power.

But, the understanding, developing, predicting and managing the

behaviour of leaders is still an enigma, despite the fact there are about 33,000

articles and books written about leadership so far in 20th century. The basic

question is ‘what in fact constitutes leadership?’ While Gore and Silander*3 have

mentioned about five thousand entries on the concept of leadership, Stogdill4

reviewed seventy two definitions of leadership. Karmel5 is of the opinion that

it is very difficult to settle on a single definition of leadership that is general

enough to accommodate these many meanings and specific enough to serve as

an operationalisation of the variable. However, there is a certain underlying

unity among the various conceptualizations made in this area.

Hodge and Johnson6 are of the opinion that “Leadership is

fundamentally the ability to form and mould the attitudes and behaviour of

other individuals, whether informal or formal situation and that management

relates to the formal task of decision and command.”

Gore, WJ. and Silander, F.S. “A Bibliographical Essay on Decision-Making,”

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.6,1959, pp.121-129.

4 Stogdill, R.M., Hand Book of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, Free Press,
New York, 1974, p.7.

5 Karmel, B. “Leadership: A Challenge to Traditional Research Methods and Assumptions,”

Academy ofManagement Review, Vol.3,1978, pp.475-482.

6 B J. Hodge and Johnson H.J., Management of Organisational Behaviour, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1970, p. 250.
 4

Ivancevich, Szilagyi and Wallace7, define Leadership as “the

relationship betweeatwo or more people in which one attempts to influence the

other toward the accomplishment of some goal or goals.”

In the words of Keith Davis8, “leadership is the ability to persuade

others to seek defined objectives enthusiastically. It is the human factor that

binds a group together and motivates it towards goals.” In the words of Koontz

O’ Donnell9, “Leadership is the ability to exert interpersonal influence by

means of communication towards the achievement of a goal.” Leadership is

defined by Paul Hersey and K.H. Blanchard10 as “the process of influencing

group activities towards the accomplishment of goals in a given situation.”

Robbins*11 defines Leadership as “the ability to influence a group

towards the achievement of goals”. “Leadership is the interpersonal influence

exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process,

towards attainment of a specific goal or goals” say Tannenbaum and others.12

7 Ivancevich, Szilagyi and Wallace, Organisation Behaviour and Performance, p.273

(Adopted from Dr. M.J. Mathew, “Organisation: Theory and Behaviour,” RBSA Publishers,
Jaipur, 1993, p.181)

8 Keith Davis, Human Behaviour at work, Tata McGraw-Hill Company Ltd., New Delhi,
1975, p.124.

9 Koontz O’ Donnell, Management, McGraw-Hill International Book Company, 1st Printing,

New York, 1984, p.506.

10 Paul Hersey and K.H. Blanchard, Management of Organisational Behaviour, Engle wood
Cliffs, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1977.

11 Robbins, S.P., Organisational Behaviour: Concepts and Controversies, Engle wood cliffs,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1979, p.240

12 Robert Tannenbaum, R. Weschier and Fred Massarik, Leadership and Organisation: A

Behavioural Science approach, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1961, p.24.
 5

According to G.R. Terry13, “leadership is the relationship in which one

person or the leader influences others to work together willingly on related

tasks to attain that which the leader desires”.

In the words of Ivancevich, Donnelly and Gibson14, “Leadership is the

ability to influence through communication the activities of others individually

or as a group, towards the accomplishment of worthwhile, meaningful, and

challenging goals.”

According to James J. Cribbin15, Leadership is “a process of influencing

a group in a particular situation at a given point of time and in a specific set of

circumstances that stimulates people to strive willingly to attain organizational

objectives, giving them the experience of helping attain the common objectives

and satisfaction with the types of leadership provided.”

According to Management Guru, Peter F: Drucker16, “Leadership is the

lifting of man’s visions to higher sights, the raising of a man’s performance to a

higher standard, the building of a man’s personality beyond its normal

limitations.”

13 George R. Terry, Principles ofManagement, Richard, D. Irwin, Inc. Home Wood, Illinois,
1968, p.45.

14 Ivancevich, Donnelly and Gibson, Management Principles and Functions, Fourth edition,
All India Traveller Brook seller, Delhi, 1991, p.296.

15 James J. Cribbin, “Effective Managerial Leadership,” American Management Association,

1972, p.9.

16 Peter Drucker, Practice ofManagement, Allied publishers, New Delhi, 1970, p.159.
 6

Different scholars have focused on multiple aspects of leadership, like

the creative and directive force of morale (Munson717,* 1981);

* * * *the
* * process
** by

which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a desired manner

(Bennis18,1959); the presence of a particular influence relationship between

two or more persons (Hollander and Jullian19,1969); directing and coordinating

the work of group members (Fiedler20,1967); an interpersonal relationship in

which others comply because they want to, not because they have to (Merton21,

1969); transforming followers, creating visions of the goals that may be

attained, and articulating for the followers the way to attain these goals (Bass22,

1985; Tichy and Devanna23, 1986); the process of influencing an organized

group toward accomplishing its goals (Roach and Behling24,1984); actions that

focus resources to create desirable opportunities (Campbell , 1991); the

7 Munson, C.E. “Style and Structure in Supervision”, Journal ofEducation for Social Work,
17,1981 pp.65-72.

18 Bennis, W.G. “Leadership Theory and Administrative Behaviour: The Problem of

Authority,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 4,1959.

19 Hollander, E.P., and Jullian J.W., “Contemporary Trends in the Analysis of Leadership
Processes,” Psychological Bulletin, 71,1996, pp.387-391.

20 Fiedler, F.E., A Theory ofLeadership Effectiveness, McGraw Hill, New York, 1967.

21 Merton, R.K. “The Social Nature of Leadership,” American Journal ofNursing, 69, 1969,
pp.2614-2618.

22 Bass, B.M., Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York,
1985.

23 Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A., The Transformational Leader, Wiley, New York, 1986.

24 Roach, C.F. and Behling, O. “Functionalism: Basis for an Alternative Approach to the
Study of Leadership,” in Leadership and Managers by J.G, Hunt (ed.), Pergamon, New York,
1984.

25 Campbell, D.P. Campbell Leadership Index Manual, National Computer System, 1991.
 7

leader’s job is to create conditions for the team to be effective (Ginnett26,

1996); etc. According to Andrew27 (1998), some view leadership as the

personal relationship between the individual and the group; others as the

process of striving toward common goals and values; still others, as aspects of

behaviour, whether desired and in control of the individual or, alternatively,

reactive and driven by forces in the environment.

The common characteristic that can be found in many of the definitions

is the ‘influence’ exerted by the leader. That is, he tries to influence the

behaviour of others in a specific direction.

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

Though management and leadership are seen as synonyms, however,

there is a difference between the two. The emphasis of leadership is on

interpersonal behaviour. It is often associated with the willing and enthusiastic

behaviour of the followers. But leadership does not necessarily take place

within the hierarchical structure of organization. Many people operate as

leaders without their role ever being clearly established or defined. A leader

often has sufficient influence to bring about long-term changes in people’s

attitudes and to make changes more acceptable. Accordingly leadership can be

seen primarily as an inspirational process.

26 Ginnett, R.C. “Team Effectiveness Leadership Model: Identifying Leverage Points for
Change,” Proceedings of the National Leadership Institute Conference, College Park, MD:
National Leadership Institute, 1996.

27 Kakabadse, Andrew, “Leadership for the Third Millennium,” Essence of Leadership,

International Thompson Publishing, 1998.
 8

Management is more usually viewed as getting things done through and

with others in order to achieve stated organizational objectives. The manager

may react to specific situations and be more concerned with solving short-term

problems. Management is regarded as relating to people working within a

structured organization and with prescribed roles. To people outside the

organization, the manager might not appear in a leadership role28.

The following table explains the differences between leadership and

management.
Table 1.1
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DIFFERENCES
Leadership Management
Creating an Establishes direction: Develops a Plans and budgets: Establishes
Agenda vision and the strategies needed detailed steps and timetables for
for its achievement achieving needed results; allocate
necessary resources
Developing Involves aligning people: Organizes and staffs: Establishes
a Network Communicates direction by structure for achieving the plans;
for words and deeds to all those staffs; delegates responsibility and
Achieving whose cooperation may be authority for implementation;
the Agenda needed to help create teams and develops policies and procedures
coalitions that understand the to guide people; creates
vision and strategies, and accepts monitoring systems
their validity.
Execution Motivates and inspires: Controls and solves problems:
Energizes people to overcome Monitors results against plans, and
major political, bureaucratic, and then plans and organizes to close
resource barriers to change by the gap.
satisfying basic human needs.

Outcomes Produces change, often to a Produces a degree of

dramatic degree: Has the predictability and order: Has the
potential of producing extremely potential to consistently produce
useful change, such as new key results expected by various
products desired by managers stockholders (such as meeting
deadlines for customers and
paying dividends to stockholders)

28 Hunt, J.W., Managing People at Work, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986,
p.38.
 9

Source: John P. Kotter, A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from
Management (New York: The Free Press, 1990): Wayne K. Kirchner, book review of
“A Force for Change,” Personnel Psychology, Autumn 1990, P.655.

According to John P. Kotter, a prominent leadership theorist, today’s

managers must know how to lead as well as manage. Without leading as well

as managing, organizations face the threat of extinction. Kotter29 draws the

following distinctions between management and leadership:

• Management is more formal and scientific than leadership. It relies on

universal skills such as planning, budgeting, and controlling.

Management is an explicit set of tools and techniques, based on

reasoning and testing that can be used in a variety of situations.

• Leadership, in contrast to management, involves haying a vision of what

the organization can become.

• Leadership requires eliciting cooperation and teamwork from a large

network of people and keeping the key people in that network

motivated, using every manner of persuasion.

FUNCTIONS OF LEADERSHIP

Many theorists of leadership have classified the several functions of a

leader and attached to him many roles. Often an overlapping can be seen

among the different classifications.

In order to understand the process of leadership it is necessary to

analyze the functions and responsibilities of leadership. These functions

AQ

John P. Kotter, A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, The Free
Press, New York, 1990; Warren Bennis, “An Invented Life: Reflections on Leadership and
Change,” Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1993)...
 10

require different emphases in different situations according to the nature of the

groups. A leader’s position in the same group may also change over a period

of time. It is possible, however, to list a range of general functions which are

served by the leader. A useful summary is provided by Krech30 who has

identified fourteen functions.

1. The leader, as an executive, is a top coordinator of group activities and

an overseer of the execution of policies.

2. The leader, as a planner, decides the ways and means by which the group

achieves its both short-term and long-term ends through proper action

and proper planning.

3. The leader, as a policy-maker, establishes the group goals and policies.

4. The leader, as an expert, is a source of information and skills.

5. The leader, as a representative is the official spokes-person for the

group, the representative of the group and the channel for both

outgoing and incoming communications.

6. The leader, as a controller of internal relations,; determines specific

aspects of the group structure.

7. The leader, as purveyor of rewards and punishment, exercises controls

over the group members by the power vested in him to give rewards

and impose punishments.

8. The leader, as arbitrator and mediator, controls inter-personal conflict

within the group.

30 Krech, D., Crutchfield, R.S. and Ballachey, E.L., Individual in Society, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1962, pp.26-34.
 11

9. The leader, as exemplar is a role model for members of the group,

setting an example of what is expected.

10. The leader, as a symbol of the group, enhances the group unit by

providing some kind of cognitive focus and establishing the group as a

distinct entity.

11. The leader, as a substitute for individual responsibility, relieves the

individual member of the group from the necessity of, and

responsibility for, personal decision.

12. The leader, as an ideologist, serves as the source of beliefs, values and

standards of behaviour for individual members of the group.

13. The leader, as a father figure, serves as focus for the positive emotional

feelings of individual members and the object for identification and

transference.

14. The leader, as a scapegoat, serves as a target for aggression and

hostility of the group, accepting blame in the case of failure.

Herbert G. Hicks refers to the following as the common leadership activities:

1. Arbitrating: Often members disagree on the best decision for an

organizational matter. An effective leader often will resolve such

disagreement by arbitrating on making the decision on the course of

action to be taken.

31 Herbert G. Hicks and C. Roy Gullet, The Management of Organizations, 3rd edition,
McGraw-Hill Series in Management, New York, pp.447-449.
 12

2. Suggesting: Suggestions are often employed by an adroit leader for a

long-term. Suggestion is likely to be a powerful tool in the manager’s

kit.

3. Fixing objectives: A manager often personally fixes the objectives for his

organization. He must see to it that the organization has always specific

and suitable objectives before it.

4. Catalyzing: In organizations some force is required to start or accelerate

their movement. A leader is expected to be a catalyser and provide such

a force.

5. Providing security: In organizations the personal security of followers is

very important. A true leader can provide a large measure of security by

maintaining a positive and optimistic attitude towards them even in the

face of adversities.

6. Representing: A leader is usually treated as the representative of his

organization.

7. Inspiring: In organization many persons work more productively in

organizations when their leader makes them feel that the work they do is

worthwhile and important.

8. Praising: Managers can help to satisfy the needs of their assistants and
i

fellow employees by sincerely praising them for the work they do.
 13

Stogdill32 says, “Leadership is consistent with problems of human

performance and interactions.” He33 suggested that it is the function of the

leader to maintain group structure and goal direction and to reconcile

conflicting demands arising outside the group.

LEADERSHIP ROLES

Henry Mintzberg34 offers a number of interesting insights into the nature

of managerial roles. He concludes that managers play ten different roles,

which fall into three basic categories: interpersonal, informational and

decisional.

(i)Interpersonal Roles:

There are three interpersonal roles inherent in the manager’s job. They

are roles of figurehead, leader, and liaison, which involve dealing with other

people.

First, the manager is often asked to serve as a figurehead—taking

visitors to dinners, attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies, and the like. These

activities are typically more ceremonial and symbolic than substantive.

32 Stogdill, R.M and Coons, A.E. (eds) “Leader Behaviour its Perception and Measurement,”
Columbus, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957.

33 Stogdill, R.M., Individual Behaviour and Group Achievement, Oxford University Press,
New York, 1959.

34 Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, 1973; J.
Kenneth Graham, Jr., and William L. Mihal, “The CMD Managerial Job Analysis Inventory,”
Rochester Institute of Technology, Center for Management Development, Rochester, New
York, 1987, pp.2-6.
 14

The manager is also asked to serve as a leader—hiring, training, and

motivating employees. A manager who formally or informally shows his

subordinates how to do things and how to perform under pressure is leading

them. Finally, the manager has a liaison role to play, which often involves

serving as a coordinator or link between people, groups, or organizations.

(ii) Informational roles:

The three informational roles of the manager identified by Mintzberg

flow naturally from the interpersonal roles: the roles of monitor, disseminator,

and spokesperson, which involve the processing of information. The process

of carrying out these, roles places the manager at a strategic point to gather and

disseminate information. As monitor, the manager actively seeks information

that may be of value to the organization. He questions his subordinates, and is

receptive to unsolicited information. As disseminator of information, he

transmits relevant information to others in the workplace. When the roles of

monitor and disseminator are viewed together, the manager emerges as a vital

link in the organization’s chain of communication. The third informational role

as spokesperson focuses on external communication. The spokesperson

formally relays information to people outside the unit or outside the

organization.

(iii) Decisional roles:

Mintzberg identifies four decisional roles: entrepreneur, disturbance

handler, resource allocator, and negotiator. All of them primarily relate to

making decisions. First, the manager has the role of entrepreneur, the
 15

voluntary initiator of change. His second role as disturbance handler is

initiated not by him but by other individuals or groups. The manager responds

to his role as disturbance handler by handling such problems as strikes,

copyright infringements, and energy shortages, etc. In his third decisional role

as resource allocator, the manager decides how resources are to be distributed,

and with whom he or she should work most closely. A fourth decisional role is

that of negotiator. In this role the manager enters into negotiations with other

groups or organizations as a representative of the company.

Apple White (1965) had summarized much of the research on

leadership roles and functions, the question of why people attempt to lead,

leadership under stress conditions, the relationship of communication to

leadership, the problem of leader assessment and the concept of leadership

styles.

LEADERSHIP VARIABLES

Every group of people that performs to its total capacity has some person

as its head who is skilled in the art of influencing. This seems to be a

compound of at least four major components: (1) to use power effectively and

responsibly; (2) to comprehend that human beings have different motivational

forces at different times and in different situations; (3) to inspire; and (4) to act

35 Apple White, Phillip B., Organisational Behaviour, Engle Wood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, 1965 (Chapter 6).
 16

in a manner that will develop a climate conducive to responding to and

arousing motivations36.

According to Douglas McGregor37 there are at least four variables

involved in leadership. They are: (i) characteristics of the leader; (ii) the needs,

attitudes and other personal characteristics of the followers; (iii) the

characteristics of an organization, such as its purpose, its structure and the

nature of the task to be performed; and (iv) the social, economic and political

environment. He38 also notes that leadership is not a property of the individual,

but a complex relationship among these variables. He identifies two major

perpetual structures, which are labeled Theory X for the authoritarian approach

and Theory Y for the participative approach.

POWER AND INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP

Leadership influence depends upon the type of power that the leader can

exercise over other people in his organization. The exercise of power is a social

process, which helps to explain how different people can influence the

behaviour of others. Leadership has long been considered as one of the most

important factors influencing organizational performance and achievement of

goals. As such, it constitutes an important aspect of managing. The ability to

36 Koontz, H. and Weihrich, H., Management, 9th Edition, McGraw-Hill Company, Yew
York, 1989, p.438.

37 Douglas McGregor., The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill International Book

Company, New York, 1960, p.182.

38 Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw Hill Book Company, New
York, 1960.
 17

lead effectively is one of the keys to become an effective manager. Effective

direction is not possible by managers unless they are effective leaders. The

need for effective leadership would be evident if one looks into the

comparative use of authority, power and influence by managers in any

organization.

Power is the capacity of one party to influence other parties to act as it

wants39. Power can influence behaviour through compliance, identification and

internationalization. It is a function of ties of mutual dependence in social

relationship. Power is the ability of one to control the actions of others40.

Robbins41 defines power as the ability to influence and control anything that is

of value to others. From an organizational point of view, it can be defined as

the degree of influence an individual or group has in decision-making, without

being authorised by the organisation to do so. There are multiple sources of

power in leadership roles.

Henry Mintzberg’s42 classic study of what managers do on the job fails to

describe the influence tactics used. French and Raven43 propose that social

power is used to influence others. They state that the bases of power include

39 Szilagyi and Wallace, “Organisational Behaviour and Performance,” Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Homewood, Illinois, 1968. p.333.

40 V.S.P. Rao and P.S. Narayana, Organisation Theory and Behaviour, Vikas Publishing
House, New Delhi, 1986, p.656.

41 S.P. Robbins, Organisational Behaviour, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 1979, p.263.

42 Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial work, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1980.

43 John R.P. French and Betram Raven, “The Basis of Social Power,” in studies in Social
Power. D. Cart Wright, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1959, pp. 150-167.
 18

reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power and expertise

power. Seven influence strategies have been proposed as particularly vital for

practising leadership roles44. These strategies are:

i) Reason: Using facts and data to develop a logically sound

argument;

ii) Friendliness: Using supportiveness; flattery and the creation of

goodwill;

iii) Coalition: Mobilizing others in the organization;

iv) Bargaining: Negotiating through the use of benefits or favours;

v) Assertiveness: Using a direct and forceful approach;

vi) Higher, Authority: Gaining the support of higher levels in the

hierarchy to add weight to the requests; and

vii) Sanctions: Using rewards and punishment.

Managerial influence is exercised through persuasion, suggestions and

advice with the intention of affecting the subordinates’ behaviour. In the case

of influence, the subordinates will have the option of either rejecting or

accepting the proposition. Chester I Bernard45 has remarked that every

management comes across “a zone of influence for authority acceptance.”

44 Davis Kipnis, Stuart M. Schmidt, Chris Swaffin-Smith, and Ian Wilkinson, “Pattern of
Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacicians, and By Standards,” Organisational
Dynamics, Winter 1984, pp.58-67.

45 Chester I Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
1946, pp. 168-169.
 19

SUCCESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIP

Factors that influence leadership effectiveness include the leader’s

personality, past experience and expectations; the superior’s expectations and

behaviour; the subordinate’s characteristics, expectations and behaviour; the

requirements of the task; the organizational climate and policies; and the

expectations and behaviour of peers46. These factors also influence the leader in

turn. The influence process is reciprocal involving leaders and group members.

Leader’s personality, past experiences and expectations:

The leader’s personality or past experience helps his or her leadership

style. It does not mean that the style is unchangeable. It is important to note

that managers who attempt to adopt a style that is very inconsistent with their

basic personality, are unlikely to use that style effectively.

The leader’s expectations are another component of leadership. Evidence

has shown that, for a variety of reasons, situations tend to work out the way we

expect them to; this is sometimes referred to as self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact,

one study found that new leaders who were told that their subordinates were

low performers managed in a much more attractive manner than new leaders

who were told that their subordinates were high performers47.

46 Joseph Reitz, H. “Behaviour in Organizations,” Rev. Ed. (Home Wood D3. Irwin, 1981) and
Paul Heresy and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behaviour, 3rd Ed.
Engle Wood Cliffs, Prentice- Hall, N.J., 1977, pp. 133-143.

47 George, F. Farris and Francis, G. Lim, Jr. “Effects of Performance on Leadership,

Cohesiveness, Satisfaction and Subsequent Performance,”' Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol.53, No.6, December 1969, pp.490-497.
 20

Expectations and behaviour of superiors

The leadership style that a manager’s superiors approve of is very

important in determining the orientation a manager will select. For example, a

superior who clearly favours a task-oriented style may cause the manager to

adopt that type of leadership. A superior who favours an employee-oriented

style encourages the manager to adopt a more employee-centred orientation.

One study found that the supervisors who learned new behaviors in a

human relations training program tended to give up those behaviors quickly if

they were not consistent with their immediate superior’s leadership style48.

Subordinate’s characteristics, expectations and behaviour

Subordinates play a crucial role in influencing the manager’s leadership

style. They are, after all, the people whom that the style is supposed to affect.

The characteristics of subordinates affect the manager’s leadership style

in a number of ways. Highly capable employees will normally require a less

directive approach. Secondly the attitude of subordinates will also be an

influencing factor.

The expectations of subordinates are another factor in determining how

appropriate a particular style will be. Subordinates who have had employee-

centered managers in the past may expect a new manager to have a similar

style. Similarly, highly skilled and motivated workers may expect the manager

not to ‘meddle’. The reactions of subordinates to their manager’s leadership

style will usually signal to him how effective his style is.

48 Fleishman, E.A. “Leadership Climate, Human Relations Training, and Supervisory

Behaviour,” Personnel Psychology, Vol.6, No.2, Summer, 1953, pp.205-222.
 21

Task requirements

The nature of the subordinates’ job responsibilities will also affect the

type of leadership style a manager will adopt. Similarly, where much

cooperation and teamwork are involved, as in new product development,

employees generally prefer people-centered supervision, whereas those

working in isolation prefer more task-oriented direction.

Organizational climate and policies

The ‘personality’ or climate of an organization influences the

expectations and behaviour of the organization members. The stated policies of

the organizations also affect a manager’s leadership style. In organizations

where climate and policies encourage strict accountability for expenses and

results, managers usually supervise and control subordinates tightly.

Peer’s expectations and behaviour

One’s fellow managers are an important reference group. They form

friendship with their colleagues in the organization, whose opinions matter to

them. In addition, the attitude of the manager’s peers can often affect how

effectively he performs; hostile colleagues may compete aggressively for

organization resources, harm the manager’s reputation, and prove

uncooperative in other ways. In many ways, the behaviour of managers affects

and influences that of their associates.

According to Hersey and Blanchard, there is a difference between a

successful leader and an effective leader. A successful leader is one who

merely changes the behaviour of his followers (and not their attitudes) by using
 22

largely his positional power. On the other hand, an effective leader is one who

not only changes the behaviour of his followers but also their attitudes largely

by using his personal power. The result is that in the first case the change is

short-lived whereas in the second case it is enduring. Thus, all successful

leaders are not effective leaders. But all effective leaders are also successful

leaders,. Effective leadership is a function of the leader, the followers and

situations.

According to Koontz and O’ Donnell49, “leadership” can be effective

only when the following principles are complied with in the area of leading as

It applied to managers:

(i) Principle of Harmony of objectives: It calls for a careful and sincere attempt

on the part of the managers desirous of proving themselves as effective leaders

to enable members of the organization to see and understand that their personal

goals are in harmony with enterprise objectives.

(ii) Principle of maximum clarity and integrity in communications: Managerial

leading should ensure that their communication is clear, and unambiguous so as

to support understanding by the individuals for enabling them to achieve and

maintain the co-operation that is required to meet the enterprise goals.

(iii) Principle of supplemental use of informal organization: In order to make

the communication most effective, the manager should make the best use of

informal organization as a supplement to the communication channels of

formal organization.

49 Harold Koontz .and Cyril O’ Donnell, Essentials of Management, Tata McGraw-Hill

Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1978, PP.454-455.
 23

(iv) Principle of motivation: Motivation is not a simple “cause and effect”

process. Hence, managers who are keen on emerging as effective leaders

should make the motivational program very effective by:

(a) carefully assessing the reward structure;

(b) looking upon it from a situational and contingency point of view;

(c) integrating it into the entire system of managing;

(d) understand correctly as to what motivates their individual

subordinates;

(e) how and in what way these motivators operate; and

(f) most sincerely reflect such an understanding in carrying out their

managerial actions.

Types of Leaders:

Conway50 (1915) has mentioned three types of Crowd leaders, viz., Crowd-

compeller, Crowd-exponent and Crowd-representative.

Bogardus51 (1918) has suggested four types of leaders:

1. The autocratic type who rises to office in a powerful

organization;

2. The democratic type who represents the interests of a group;

3. The executive type who is granted leadership because he can get

things done; and

50 Conway, M., The Crown in Peace and War, Long-mans Green, New York, 1915.

51 Bogardus, E.S., Essentials of Social Psychology, University of Southern California Press,

Los angels, 1918.
 24

4. The reflective intellectual type who may fincl it difficult to recruit

a large following.

Sanderson and Nafe52 (1929) have proposed four types of leaders: the

static, the executive, the professional and the group leaders.

Pigors53 (1936) has observed that leaders in-group work tend to act either

as master or educator.

Levine54 (1949) has identified four types of leaders. The charismatic

leader helps the group rally around a common aim, but tends to become

dogmatically rigid. The organizational leader highlights and tends to drive

people to effective action. The intellectual leader usually lacks skill in

attracting people. The informal leader tends to adopt his style of performance

to group needs.

Harding55 (1949) enumerated twenty types of educational leaders as

follows: autocrat, cooperator, elder statesman, eager beaver, pontifical,

muddled, loyal staff man, prophet, scientist, mystic, dogmatist, open-minded,

philosopher, business expert, benevolent despot, child protector, community-

minded, cynic, optimist and democrat.

52 Sanderson, D. and Nafe, R.W. “Studies in Rural Leadership,” Publ. Amer. Social. Soc., 23
(1929), pp. 163-175.

53 Pigors, P. “Types of Leaders in Group Work,” Sociology and Social Research, 21 (1936),
pp.3-17.

54 Levine, S. “An Approach to Constructive Leadership,” Journal of Sociological Issues, 5

(1949), 46-53.

55 Harding, L. W. “Twenty-One Varieties of Educational Leadership,” Educational

Leadership, 6 (1949), pp. 299-302.
 25

Maier56 (1950) investigated the effects of training group leaders in

democratic leadership techniques on group problem solving quality and

decision acceptance. His subjects role-played an assembly line situation, and it

was found there from that decision quality and decision acceptance were

greater under leaders trained to use democratic techniques than under untrained

leaders.

Bales57 (1950) at Harvard and Hare58 et. al. (1955) had done work on the

study of small group. They found that in small groups two different kinds of

leaders emerge. One kind was the task-leader characterized by those who talk

more and who offer suggestions, and the other kind was called socio-emotional

leader represented by those who make it easier for others to talk and offer

psychological support.

Haiman59 (1951) suggested that five types of leaders are needed in a

democracy. These are: 1. The executive, 2. The judge, 3. The advocate, 4.

The expert, and 5. The discussion leader.

Cattell60 (1954) explored four types of leaders in experimental groups.

These are: (1) persistent-momentary problem solvers, high in interaction rate,

56 Maier, N.F.R. “The Quality of Group Decisions as Influenced by the Discussion Leader,”
Human Relations, 6, (1950), pp.161-173.

57 Bales, R.F. “Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the study of Small Groups,”
Cambridge, 1950.

58 Hare, A.P. Borgatta, E.E., and Bales, R.F. “Small Groups Studies in Social Group
Interaction,” New York, 1955.

59 Haiman, F.S., Group Leadership and Democratic Action, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1951.

60 Cattell, R.B. and Stice, G.F. “Four formulae for Selecting Leaders on the basis of
Personality,” Human Relations, 7(1954).
 26

(2) salient leaders picked-up by observers as exerting the most powerful

influence on the group, (3) socio-metric leaders-nominated by their peers and

(4) elected leaders-attaining office by election.

LEADERSHIP THEORIES:

Leadership has been discussed, analysed and understood from several

dimensions. The varied experiences of people involved in the process through

changing times have provided different perceptions of the subject.

Consequently theoreticians and practitioners have approached the subject from

their own perspectives resulting in many theories of leadership. As a result

leadership has come to mean different things to different people in different

contexts. Though the idea of leadership has been known from times

immemorial and practiced, it is in the 20th century that it has been

explored/studied in depth and theorized from many angles. Economists,

sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, and anthropologists and others

have been investigating into the subject. Nevertheless, there has been no

consensus among them regarding it except that leadership is the relationship

between a leader and his followers. Whatever may be one’s position in the

organizational hierarchy or institutional context, he guides, directs, or

influences others towards specific objectives. However, the controversy

relating to leadership regarding its meaning, inputs, processes and outputs and

their impact on the motivation of people, organizational performance and

 27

executive effectiveness and success, has continued with the result that search

for new theories, comprehensive and adequate, too has been going on.

In simple terms, leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the

achievement of a goal. It is essential to business, government and countless

groups and organizations that shape the way we live, work and play61. The

source of influence may be formal, such as that provided by virtue of his

position by the manager of an organization or informal as in other social and

political organizations.

Approaches to Leadership:

From the voluminous literature on leadership three basic approaches can

be. identified to explain what makes an effective leader. The first approach

seeks to find universal personality traits that leaders have and non-leaders do

not have. The second approach tries to explain leadership in terms of the

behaviour that a person is engaged in. Both approaches have been considered

as ‘false starts’, because they are based on erroneous and over-simplified

conceptions . The third one is contingency model which has been evolved not

only to explain the inadequacies of earlier theories but also to identify which of

the situational factors is most important for leadership and to predict which

leadership style will be most effective in a given situation.

61Fiedler, F.E. “Style or Circumstance: The Leadership Enigma”, Psychology Today, March,
1969, p.39

62 Vroom, V.H., The Search for a Theory of Leadership in Contemporary Management:

Issues and Viewpoints, Ed. Joseph W. McGuire, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1974,
p.396.
 28

In the early twentieth century with the development of the Scientific

Management Movement, increasing emphasis was laid on organizational

leadership. F.W. Taylor initiated time and motion studies to analyze work

tasks to improve performance in every aspect of organizational functioning.

The primary aim of the leader was to improve organizational efficiency and not

individual efficiency. The most notable function of the leader under the

Scientific Management or the classical theory was to enhance organizational

effectiveness.

In the 1930’s Taylor’s emphasis was drastically modified by the Human

Relations Movement that was initiated by Elton Mayo and his colleagues.

Mayo emphasized that for an organization to enhance its effectiveness it has to

take into account human feelings, attitudes and processes involving inter­

personal interaction. Therefore, in the Human Relations School, the focus of

the leader was not only on the development of the organization, but also on the

growth of the individuals manning such an organization.

In recent years the assumption of Human Relations Approach has been

challenged by a number of researchers like McGregor, Argyris, Schein, Likert,

etc., who highlight the Human Resources Approach rather than the over­

simplified approach of human relations. This approach views that human

beings are influenced by a set of complex and interrelated factors. These

factors take into account the enormous talent, and potential that an individual

brings to his work-place with him. It is a question of giving him opportunities

 29

to utilise his talent, creativity and potentials by giving him a meaningful work

assignment and by adding greater responsibility, autonomy, variety, etc.

The theories of leadership can be conveniently divided into three viz., (i)

Trait theory (ii) Behavioural theory (lii) Contingency theory.

(i) TRAIT THEORY

“Great enterprise, boundless courage, tremendous energy, and above all,

s

perfect obedience-these are the only traits that lead to individual regeneration”

-Swami Vivekananda

Early studies of leadership in the 1940s and the 1950s concluded that

leadership is largely a matter of personality, a function of specific traits. A

successful leader not only secures the desired behaviour from his followers but

succeeds in creating a sense of satisfaction among them. Leadership traits

cannot be fixed with certainty for all leaders. But a leader cannot be effective

unless he possesses certain basic qualities. The following are some of the

studies that attempted to identify these traits:

Ordway Tead63 has suggested ten qualities of a good leader:

(a) Physical and nervous energy,

(b) Sense of purpose and direction,

(c) Enthusiasm,

(d) Friendliness and affection,

(e) Integrity,

63 Ordway Tead, The Art ofLeadership, McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc. New York, 1953,
p.83.
 30

(f) Technical mastery,

(g) Decisiveness,

(h) Intelligence,

(i) Teaching skill, and

(j) Faith.

Chester I. Barnard64 has indicated two aspects of leadership traits:

(a) Commanding subordinates’ admiration includes outstanding qualities

in respect of physique, skill, technology, perception, knowledge,

memory and imagination,

(b) Individual superiority in determination, persistence, endurance and

courage.

Henry Fayol65 regards the following as the qualities of a good leader:

1. Health and physical fitness,

2. Intelligence and mutual vigour,

3. Moral qualities,

4. Knowledge, and

5. Managerial ability.

George R. Terry66 has suggested the following qualities:

1. Energy - both mental and physical

2. Emotional stability

64 Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
1946, p.260.

65 Henry Fayol, General and Industrial Management, Pitman and Sons, London, 1949.

66 George R. Terry, Principles ofManagement, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Home Wood, Illinois,
1968, pp.461-463.
 31

3. Knowledge of human relations

4. Empathy

5. Objectivity

6. Personal motivation

7. Communication skills

8. Teaching ability

9. Social skills and technical competence.

Stogdill67 identifies through research the following traits:

1. Physical characteristics such as age, appearance, height and

weight;

2. Social background - education, social status and mobility;

3. Intelligence - superior judgement, decisiveness, knowledge and

fluency of speech;

4. Personality - alertness, self-confidence, personal integrity, self-

assurance and dominance needs;

5. Task related characteristics - high need for achievement and

responsibility, initiative and a high task orientation; and

6. Social characteristics.

Keith Davis68 lists the following as the characteristics of leadership:

67 Ralph M. Stogdill, “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the

Literature”, Journal ofPsychology, Jan.1948, pp.35-71.

68 Keith Davis, Human Behaviour at work, 4th edition, Me Graw Hill, New Delhi, 1972,
pp.102-104.
 32

a) Intelligence: Leaders tend to have higher intelligence than their

followers.

b) Social maturity and breadth: Leaders have a tendency to be

emotionally mature and to have a broad range of interests.

c) Inner motivation and achievement drives: Leaders want to

accomplish things; when they achieve one goal, they seek out

another. They are not primarily dependent on outside forces for

their motivation.

d) Human relations attitudes: Leaders are able, to work effectively

with other persons. They respect individuals and realize that to

accomplish tasks they must be considerate to others.

Leadership Skills:

Some researchers have mixed the skills with the traits resulting from the

development of human relations by a leader with the subordinates.

Chris Argyris69 mentions the following characteristics of a leader:

1. The leader is constantly interacting and commanding.

2. The leader makes the organization a part of his self image.

3. The leader’s personal goals, values and feeling are

organizationally centred.

4. The leader handles the supervisors as individuals.

■ 5. The leader controls the transmission of important information.

6. The leader emphasizes the present.

69 Chris Argyris, Executive Leadership, Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 1953,
pp.4-5.
 33

7. The leader sets realistic goals.

According to Harold Koontz70, every group of people that performs near

its total capacity has some person as its head who is skilled in the art of

leadership. This skill seems to be a compound of at least four major

ingredients: (1) the ability to use power effectively and in a responsible

manner, (2) the ability to comprehend that human beings have different

motivation forces at different times and in different situations, (3) the ability to

inspire followers,. and (4) the ability to act in a manner that will develop a

climate conducive to responding to and arousing motivations.

Katz71, in his classic study of managers identifies three important types

of managerial skills: technical, interpersonal, and conceptual. Diagnostic

skills are also prerequisites to managerial success.

Technical skills. These are the skills necessary to accomplish or understand

the specific kind of work being done in an organization.

Interpersonal skills. The ability to communicate with, understand, and

motivate both individuals and group.

Conceptual skills. These depend on the manager’s ability to think in the

abstract. Managers need the mental capacity to understand the overall

workings of the organization and its environment, to grasp how all the parts of

the organization fit together, and to view the organisation in a holistic manner.

70 Harold Koontz and Heinz Weihrich, Essentials ofManagement, 5th Edition, McGraw Hill
Series in Management, New York, 1990, p.345.

71 Robert L. Katz, “The Skills of an Effective Administrator,” Harvard Business Review,

September-October 1974, pp.90-102.
 34

Diagnostic skills. These are skills that enable a manager to visualize the most

appropriate response to a situation. Successful managers have them.

Gary Yukl72 (1981) summarising the research in the field till his times,

identified the following traits and skills as characteristic of successful leaders:

Traits Characteristic of Successful Leaders:

1. Adaptable to situations

2. Alert to the social environment

3. Ambitious and achievement-oriented

4. Assertive

5. Cooperative

6. Decisive

7. Dependable

8. Dominant (the desire to influence others)

9. Energetic (high activity level)

10. Persistent

11. Self-confident

12. Tolerant of stress

13. Willing to assume responsibility

Skills Characteristic of Successful Leaders:

1. Clever (intelligent)

2. Conceptually skilled

3. Creative

72 Yukl, Gaxy., Leadership in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1981.
 35

4. Diplomatic and tactful

5. Fluent in speaking

6. Knowledgeable about the group task

7. Organized (administrative ability)

8. Persuasive

9. Socially skilled

Michael and Dean73 suggest a number of leadership skills critical to

success in the global economy. They include the following:

1. Cultural flexibility. In international assignments this skill refers

to cultural awareness and sensitivity. In domestic organizations

the same awareness could be increasing diversity. Leaders must

have the skills not only to manage but also to recognize and

celebrate the value of diversity in their organizations.

2. Communication skills. Effective leaders must be able to

communicate, in writing, orally, and nonverbally.

3. Human, resource development (HRD) skills. Since human

resources are so much a part of leadership effectiveness, that

leaders must have the HRD skills of developing a learning

climate, designing training programs, transmitting information

73 Michael J. Marquart and Dean W. Engel, “HRD Competencies for a Shrinking World,”
Training and Development, May 1993, pp.62-64.
 36

and experience, assessing results, providing career counseling,

creating organizational change, and adapting learning materials74.

4. Creativity. Problem solving, innovation, and creativity provide

the competitive advantage in today’s global marketplace.

Leaders must possess the skills to not only be creative themselves

but also provide a climate that encourages creativity and assist

their people to be creative.

5. Self-management of learning. This skill refers to the need for

continuous learning of new knowledge and skills. In the times of

dramatic change and chaos, leaders [Link] continuous

change themselves. They must be self-learners.

•ne
An academic analysis made by Kanungo and Misra noted “the

prevailing conceptualizations of skills required for successful managerial

performance hinders our understanding of the phenomenon”. To get over this

problem, Whetten and Cameron provide a more empirical derivation of

effective leadership skills. On the basis of an interview study of over 400

highly effective managers, the following ten skills were identified

1. Verbal communication (including listening)

2. Managing time and stress

74 Ibid., p.63

75 Rabindra M. Kanungo and Sasi Misra, “Managerial Resourcefulness: A

Reconceptualization of Management Skills,” Human Relations, December 1992, pp.1311-
1332. '

76 David A. Whetten and Kim S. Cameron, Developing Management Skills, Harper Collins,
New York, 1991, p.8.
 37

3. Managing individual decisions

4. Recognizing, defining, and solving problems

5. Motivating and influencing others

6. Delegating

7. Setting goals and articulating a vision

8. Self-awareness

9. Teambuilding

10. Managing conflict.

Follow-up studies and related research have found skills similar to the

ten above. Through statistical techniques, the results of various research

studies were combined into the following four categories of effective

leadership skills:

1. Participative and human relations

2. Competitiveness and control

3. Innovativeness and entrepreneurship

4. Maintaining order and rationality77

Traits Research and Results:

In general, the search for leadership traits has been largely unsuccessful.

It has failed to demonstrate a consistent and definite relationship between

leadership ability on one, hand and physical traits or personality characteristics

77 Ibid., [Link].
 38

or a combination of the two on the other78. Byrd79, in a critical assessment of

research on Trait theory upto 1940, identified a long list of traits made by

studies, which had differentiated between leaders and the led. He found that

only 5 per cent of the traits listed in them were common to four or more of the

studies. Another study, by Jennings80, concluded: ‘fifty years of the study have

failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to

discriminate between leaders and non-leaders5.

Later studies identified some correlation between leadership and certain

personality traits: for example a significant correlation was seen between

leadership effectiveness and such traits as intelligence, supervisory ability,

initiative, self-assurance and individuality81. A definite correlation was

observed in some cases between the traits of intelligence, scholarship,

dependability, responsibility, social participation and socio-economic status of

leaders, as compared with non-leaders82. But even these correlations between

traits and leadership are not really pervasive. Most of the so-called traits are in

78 Gibb, C.A. “Leadership” in Hand Book of Social Psychology Edited by Lindzey, G. and
Aronson, Vol.4, Addison-Wesley, Mass, 1969, pp.215-229.

79 Byrd, C., Social Psychology, Appleton- Century- Crofts, 1940, ppl83-188.

80 Jennings, E.E. “The Anatomy of Leadership”, Management ofPersonnel Quarterly, Vol.l,

Autumn, 1961, p.2.

81 Gheselli, E.E. “Management Talent”, American Psychologist, Vol.18, Oct, 1963, pp.631-
642.

82 Stogdill, R.M. “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of Literature”,

Journal ofPsychology, Vol.25,1948, pp.35-71.
 39

essence the pattern of behaviour that one would expect from a leader,

particularly in a managerial position83.

Bhatt and Pathak84 (1962) found high intelligence and dependability as

important perceived characteristics of effective supervision.

Sequeria85 (1962), who worked with Ganguli, has outlined the

characteristics of the effective supervision. He has come to the conclusion that

effective supervisory practice is less ambiguous and less relative. The main

criterion seems to be the level of supervisor in the hierarchy.

Amin86 (1963) reports on the behaviour and traits of jobbers who were

liked by the workers. Qualities perceived in successful jobbers were high

technical knowledge and ability to co-ordinate supply of materials, good

behaviour, politeness and straightforward and persuasive approach. They were

not expected to pass on duties to workers under them but were expected to give

freedom to workers in their work.

In general, studies of leader’s traits have not been a very fruitful

approach to explain leadership. Not all leaders possess all the traits, and many

non-leaders may possess most or all of them. Also, the trait approach gives no

guidance as to how much of a particular trait a person should have to be a

83 Koontz, H. and O’ Donnel, C., Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976, p.591.

84 Bhatt L. J. and Pathak, N.S. “A Study of Functions of Supervisory Staff and Characteristics
Essential for Success as viewed by a Group of Supervisors,” Manas, 9 (1962), pp.25-31.

85 Sequeria, C.E. “Functions of a Supervisor,” Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, 1,

(1962), pp.46-54.

86 Amin, D.L. “Perception of the First Line Supervisor about His Job,” Industrial Relations,
DDBM, Calcutta, 1963.
 40

leader. Furthermore, the dozens of studies that have been made do not agree as

to what traits are leadership traits or what their relationships are to actual

instances of leadership. Most of these so-called traits are really patterns of

behaviour.

(ii) BEHAVIOURAL THEORY:

It is evident that effective leaders did not seem to have any distinguished

traits or characteristics peculiar to them. The researchers tried to isolate the

behaviors that made leaders effective. In other words, rather than try to figure

out what effective leaders were, researchers tried to determine what effective

leaders did - how they delegated tasks, how they communicated with and tried

to motivate their subordinates, how they carried out their tasks, and so on.

Unlike traits, however, behaviors can be learnt; if followed, therefore, that

individual trained in appropriate leadership behaviors would be able to lead

more effectively87. '

The following are the important studies, which come under the

behavioral approach to leadership.

McGregor’s theory V and theory ‘y’:

This theory is related to both leadership and motivation. From the

leadership point of view it emphasizes the assumptions of managers regarding

the behavioural patterns of subordinates. From the motivation point of view it

provides directions to managers to deal with subordinates of different types as

87 James Owen, “The Uses of Leadership Theory”, Michigan Business Review, Vol.25, No.l,
January, 1973, pp.13-19.
 41

perceived by the managers. McGregor identified two major perceptual

structures which he labeled ‘theory X’ and ‘theory Y’88. The manager who

perceives people according to either structure, regardless of whether or not he

recognizes or acknowledges such perceptions, will behave in predictable

patterns because of his personal assumptions, beliefs and attitudes.

The assumptions about the nature of man which underlie the two theories

are as follows;

Theory ‘X’ assumptions

a. The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid

it if he can.

b. Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people

must be coerced, directed, threatened with punishment to get them to put

forth adequate effort towards the achievement of organizational

objectives.

c. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid

responsibility,' has relatively little ambition and wants security above all.

Theory ‘Y’ assumptions

a. The average human being does not have inherent dislike of work.
t

Depending upon controllable conditions, work may be a source of

satisfaction (and will be voluntarily preferred) or a source of punishment

(and will be avoided if possible).

88 McGregor, D., The Human Side ofEnterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960, pp.33-57.
 42

b. External control and threat of punishment are not the only means to bring

about efforts towards the organizational objectives. Any person will

exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to

which he is committed.

c. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with

their achievements.

d. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination,

ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is

widely distributed in the population.

e. The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to

accept but also to seek responsibility.

f. Under the conditions of modem industrial life, the intellectual

potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized.

According to McGregor, the assumptions of a given manager that may

be inferred in his actions are traced backward from how he must perceive

people to cause him to act that way. If he is strongly authoritarian, he insists on

giving orders and commands, rather than suggestions and counseling. In this

one would predict theory ‘x’ perceptual structure. The manager who is less

aloof; spends time, teaching and training his subordinates emphasizes obtaining

results rather than following procedures, and delegates authority, shows signs

of embracing theory ‘y’ assumptions. Thus theory ‘x’ approximates closely to

‘authoritarian’, and theory ‘y' to 'participative’ leadership styles of managing.

As an addition to ‘x’ and ‘y’, theory ‘z’ has been introduced.

 43

Theory ‘z’:

In contrast to the traditional, more bureaucratic American organization

environment, Ouchi89 recommends a Japanese style Theory ‘z’ environment.

The problem of productivity in the United States will not be solved with

monetary policy or through more investment in research and development. It

will only be remedied when we learn how to manage people in such a way that

they can work together more effectively.

The characteristics of Theory ‘z’ are:

• Long-term, life time-employment;

• Slow process of evaluation and promotion;

• Development of company-specific skills, and moderately specialized

career path;

• Implicit, informal control mechanisms supported by explicit, formal

measures; -

• Participative decision-making by consensus;

• Collective decision-making but individual ultimate responsibility;

• Broad concern for the welfare of subordinates and co-workers as a

natural part of a working relationship, and informal relationship

among people.

89 Ouchi, W.G., Theory Z: How American Business can meet the Japanese Challenge,
Addison-Wesley, 1981. p.4
 44

Lewin, Lippitt and White study:

One of the earliest attempts to delineate the dimensions of leadership

behaviour was made by Lewin and others.90 This research, in addition to

triggering off many other studies based on the same model, was also picked by

managerial practitioners. As a result of their observations of the behaviour of a

small group of children in a laboratory situation, the following three categories

of leaders were identified.

a. The authoritarian leader: He himself makes all the decisions that

relate to the group and is probably the only source of influence in the

group’s activities. His most effective technique in maintaining this

leadership position is by withholding knowledge of goals, not sharing

information required for the task, and not providing feedback to

members on their progress.

b. The democratic leader: He makes decisions jointly with his

subordinates, showing his power and influence with the group. The

participative process, although time-consuming, effectively encourages

each member’s input and familiarity with the problem. The leader gains

additional information from group members as well as a greater

commitment to the decision than would occur under authoritarian

conditions.

90 Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R.K. “Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour in

Experimentally Created ‘Social Climates’”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.10, 1939,
pp.271-299.
 45

c. The laissez-faire leader: He allows subordinates to make all the

decision. His role becomes that of a general supervisor who establishes

merely the broad policies and . outline of things to be done and then

delegates the implementation to his subordinates. As the term, ‘laissez-

faire’ implies, such a leader is a figurehead and makes no contribution to

the group goal attainment. No direction is given to the group members.

According to their study of Lewin and others, the democratic style of

leadership is more effective than the other styles.

Bhusan91 (1968) in his study concluded that persons in the middle age

with higher education and those coming from urban areas have shown

significantly greater preference for a democratic style of leadership.

Ohio state studies:

The most comprehensive and replicated of the behavioural theories

resulted from research that began at Ohio State University in the late 1940s92.

These studies sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behaviour.

Beginning with over a thousand dimensions, they eventually narrowed the list

down to two categories that substantially accounted for most of the leadership

behaviour described by subordinates. They called these two dimensions

initiating structure and consideration.

91 Bhusan, L.I. “Leadership Performance as related to Age, Education, Residence and Sex,”
Indian Journal ofSocial-Work, July, Volume 1, (1968), pp.193-196.

92 Steven Kerr, Chester, A. Schniesheim, Charles J. Muiphy, and Ralph. M. Stogdill. “Toward
a Contingency Theory of Leadership based upon the Consideration and Initiating Structure
Literature”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, August 1974, pp.62-82.
 46

The Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to

define and structure his or her role and those of subordinates in the search for

goal attainment. It includes behaviour that attempts to organize work, work

relationships and goals. The leader characterized as high in the initiating

structure could be described in terms such as, ‘assigns group members to

particular tasks’; ‘expects workers to maintain definite standards of

performance’; ‘and emphasizes the meeting of deadlines’.

The Consideration is described as the extent to which a person is likely to

have job relationships that are characterized by mutual trust, respect for

subordinates’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. He shows concern for his

follower’s comfort, well-being, status and satisfaction. A leader high in

consideration could be described as one who helps subordinates with personal

problems, being friendly and approachable and treats all subordinates as equals.

Consideration and initiating structures were found to be uncorrelated

and independent dimensions. They are separate behavioral categories and give

rise to four types of leadership behaviour. Leaders may be.

Low on consideration and low on structure;

Low on consideration and high on structure;

High on consideration and high on structure; or

High on consideration and low on structure.

Leadership behaviour could, therefore, be shown on two separate axes

instead of along a single continuum. As a result four quadrants were developed

 47

which illustrated the-different combinations of ‘consideration’ and ‘structure’,

(see Appendix 1.1)

Extensive research based on these definitions found that leaders high in

initiating structure and consideration tended to achieve high subordinate

performance and satisfaction more frequently than those who rated low on

either consideration, initiating structure or both. The Ohio State studies

suggested that the ‘high - high’ style generally resulted in positive outcomes,

but enough exceptions were found to indicate that situational factors needed to

be integrated into the theory.

YuM93 (1968) found that task-oriented leaders tend to be described high

in structure and low in consideration.

Rambo94 (1958) found that executives in different departments of an

organization differ in consideration and structure. However, no significant

differences were found between executives in different echelons of the vertical

structure.

Anderson95 (1964) found that those who prefer nursing care activities

are described high in consideration. Those supervisors who prefer coordinating

activities are not described high in structure.

93 Yuld, G.A. “Leader Personality and Situational Variables as Co-Determinants of Leader

Behavior,” Dissertation Abstract, 29 (1968), p.406.

94 Rambo, W.W. “The Construction and analysis of a Leadership Behavior Rating Form,”
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 42 (1958), pp.409-415.

95 Anderson, L.R. “Some Effects of Leadership Training on Intercultural Discussion Groups,”

University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, Technical Report, Urbana,
(1964).
 48

Siegel96 (1969) found that neither consideration nor structure is related

to personality measures, but those managers described high in consideration

and structure report higher degrees of need satisfaction.

Fleishman and Simmons97 (1970) studied the effectiveness of Israeli

foremen. Those high in both consideration and structure were most effective.

Those low on both scales were least effective.

A theory of effective management known as “Managerial Grid” was

advocated by Blake and Mouton98 (1964). The two dimensions of effective

leadership are concern for people and concern for production. Managerial Grid

was popularized depicting five types of styles viz., Impoverished, Task, Team,

Country Club and Middle of the Road Managers.

Brunson and Wickhert" (1973) supported the contingency theory and

Likert’s Participation theory. The most effective division with a short-term

orientation and manufacturing goal orientation appeared to be least

participative, while the most effective division with the longer-term time

orientation and scientific goal orientation appeared to be most participative.

95 Siegel, J. P. “A Study of the Relationship among Organizational Factors, Personality Traits,

Job and Leadership Attitudes,” Dissertation Abstracts, 29 (1969), pp.2662-2663.

97 Fleishman, E.A. and Simmons, J. “Relationship between Leadership Patterns and

Effectiveness ratings among Israeli foreman,” Personnel Psychology, 23 (1970), pp.169-172.

98 Blake, R.R. and Mouton, S.J., The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,
Taxaus, 1964.

99 Brunson, R.W. and Wickhert, F.R. “The Empirical Investigation at the Contingency Theory
within a Conglomerate,” Paper Presented at the American Psychological Association, 1973.
 49

Michigan studies:

Leadership studies undertaken at the University of Michigan’s Survey

Research Center, at about the same time as those being done at Ohio State, had

similar research objectives: to locate behavioural characteristics of leaders that

appeared to be related to measure of performance effectiveness. Effective

supervisors (measured along dimensions of group morale, productivity and cost

reduction) appeared to display four common characteristics:

1. delegation of authority and avoidance of close supervision;

2. interest and concern in their subordinates as individuals;

3. participative problem-solving; and

4. high standards of performance.

The Michigan group came up with two dimensions of leadership

behaviour which they labeled ‘employee-oriented’ and ‘production-

oriented’100. Leaders who were employee-oriented were described as

emphasizing interpersonal relationships; they took personal interest in the

needs of their subordinates and accepted individual differences among

members, the production-oriented leaders, in contrast, tended to emphasizing

the technical or task aspects of the job keeping their main concern over

accomplishing their group’s task through the means of group members.

100 Khan, R. and Katz D. “Leadership Practices in Relation to Productivity and Morale” in
Group Dynamics, Research and Theory, 2nd Ed. D. Cartwright and A. Zander Elonsford,
Row, Paterson, New York, 1960, pp.93-98.
 50

The conclusions arrived at by the Michigan researchers strongly favoured

the leaders who were employee-oriented in their behaviour. Employee-

oriented leaders were associated with high group productivity and higher job

satisfaction. Production-oriented leaders tended to be associated with low

group productivity and lower worker satisfaction.

Likert system 4 management:

Rensis Likert101, again incorporating the basic style , categories of task

orientation and employee orientation, devised a four-level model of

management effectiveness.

In System 1 managers make all the work-related decisions and order their

subordinates to carry them out. Standards and methods of performance are also

rigidly set by them. Failure to meet the managers’ goals results in threats or

punishment. The managers feel little trust or confidence in their subordinates,

and the subordinates, in turn, fear the managers and feel that they have little in

common with them.

In System 2 managers still issue orders, but their subordinates have some

freedom to comment on those orders. The subordinates are also given some

flexibility to carry out their tasks but within carefully prescribed limits and

procedures. Those subordinates who meet or exceed the manager’s goals may

be rewarded. In general, the managers have a condescending attitude towards

their subordinates, and the subordinates are cautious when dealing with their

managers.

101 Rensis Likert, New Pattern ofManagement, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961, pp.5-25.
 51

In System 3, managers set the goals and issue general orders after

discussing them with their subordinates. The subordinates can make their own

decisions about how to carry out their task, since only broad and major

decisions are made by high-level managers. Rewards, rather than the threats of

punishment, are used to motivate the subordinates. The subordinates feel free

to discuss most work-related matters with their managers, who, in turn, feel

that to a larger extent the subordinates can be trusted to carry out their tasks

properly.

System 4 is Likert’s ideal system towards which organizations should

work. Goals are set and work-related decisions are made by the group. If

managers formally reach a decision, they do so after incorporating the

suggestions and opinions of the other group members. Thus, the goal they set

or the decision they reach may not always be the one they personally favour.

To motivate the subordinates, managers not only use economic rewards but

also try to give their subordinates the feeling of worth and importance.

Performance standards exist to permit self-appraisal by subordinates, rather

than to provide the managers with a tool to control them. Interaction between

the managers and subordinates is frank, friendly and trusting.

Rensis Likert102 (1967) on the basis of intensive research, he has shown

that high producing departments in several organizations are marked by system

4 (democratic).

102 Rensis Likert, The Human Organization,'McGraw Hill, New York,. 1967, P.47.
 52

Managerial grid:

The managerial grid identifies a range of management behaviours

based on the various ways that task-oriented and employee-oriented styles

(each expressed as a continuum on a scale of 1 to 9) can interact with each

other (see Appendix 1.2). Thus, style 1,1 management is an impoverished

management with low concern for people and low concern for tasks or

production. This style is some times called laissez-faire management, because

the leader abdicates his or her leadership role.

Style 1, 9 management is country club management in which there is

high concern for employees but low concern for production. Style 9,1

management is task or authoritarian management with high concern for

production and efficiency but low concern for employees. Style 5,5 is middle-

of-the-road management in which there is an intermediate amount of concern

for both production and employee satisfaction.

Style 9,9 management is team or democratic management in which is

found a high concern for both production and employee morale and

satisfaction. Blake and Mouton argue strongly that the 9, 9 management style

is the most effective , type of leadership behaviour. This approach will, in

almost all situations, result in improved performance, low absenteeism and

turnover, and high employee satisfaction.

103 Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton., The Managerial Grid, (Gulf Publishing, Houston,
1978) Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White “Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour in
Experimentally Created Social Climates”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.10, No.2, May,
1939, pp.271-299.
 53

Leadership continuum:

Another important work on leadership styles is that of Tannenbaum and

Schmidt104. They suggest a continuum of possible leadership behaviour

available to a manager and along which various styles of leadership may be

placed. At one extreme of the continuum is the boss-centered leadership

(authoritarian) and at the other extreme is the subordinate-centered leadership

(democratic).

The continuum presents a range of action related to the degree of

authority used by the manager and to the area of freedom available to the

subordinates in arriving at decisions. Moving along the continuum, the

manager may be characterized according to the degree of control that is

maintained over the subordinates. Neither extreme of the continuum is

absolute as there is always some limitation on authority and on freedom. This

approach can be seen as identifying four main styles of leadership by the

manager: tells, sells, consults, and joins.

Tells - the manager identifies the problem, chooses a decision and

announces this to his subordinates, expecting them to

implement it without an opportunity for participation.

Sells - the manager still chooses a decision but recognizes the possibility

of some resistance from those faced with the decision and

attempts to persuade his subordinates to accept it

104 Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W.H. “How to Choose a Leadership Pattern,” Harvard
Business Review, May-June, 1973. pp.162-175,178-180.
 54

Consults - the manager identifies the problem but does not choose a

decision until the problem is presented to the group, and the

manager has listened to the advice and solutions suggested by

the subordinates.

Joins - the manager defines the problem and the limits within which the

decision must be chosen and then passes on to the group, with

the manager as a member, the right to make decisions.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt suggested that there are three factors or forces,

of particular importance in deciding what types of leadership are practicable

and desirable. These are: forces in the manager; forces in the subordinates;

forces in the situation

Forces in the manager: The manager’s behaviour is influenced by his own

personality, background, knowledge and experiences. These internal forces

will include: value systems; confidence in subordinates; leadership inclinations;

and feelings of security in an uncertain situation.

Forces in the subordinates: The subordinates are influenced by many

personality variables- and their individual set of expectations about relationship

with the manager. Characteristics of the subordinates are: the strength of the

needs for independence; the readiness to assume responsibility for decision

making; the degree of tolerance for ambiguity; interest in the problem and the

feelings as to its importance; understanding and identification with the goals of

an organization; necessary knowledge and experience to deal with the problem;

and the extent of learning to expect to share in decision making.

 55

Forces in situation: The manager’s behaviour will be influenced by the

general situation and environmental pressures. Characteristics in the situation

include: type of organization; group effectiveness; nature of the problem; and

pressure of time.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt105 conclude that successful leaders are keenly

aware of those factors or forces which are most relevant to their behaviour at a

particular time. Successful managers are both perceptive and flexible.

Further, more attention would be given to the interdependency of . the

forces in the manager, in the subordinates and in the situation (see Appendix

1.3).

Behavioural Research and Results:

Leadership consists of patterns of behavior of a person that influence other

entities such as individuals and teams. It is common to conceptualize leadership

as a typology, which defines patterns or clusters of leader behaviors (Yukl,

2002). Leadership typologies have changed and evolved over the past few

decades. From the very beginning of the Ohio State leadership behaviors (e.g.,

consideration and initiating structure), articulated by a group of Ohio State

researchers (Fleishman, 1973; Judge, Piccolo, & lilies, 2004), to the currently

dominant transactional- transformational paradigm identified by Bass and his

colleagues (Bass, 1981; 1998; Bass, & Avolio, 1990), researchers have

explored and articulated typologies that could clearly delineate classes or

patterns of leader behavior. Although there is no “one best” typology, the

105 Ibid., Retrospective Commentary, pp.166-168.

 56

more we can capture the conceptual representations of leadership, the more

effectively real leaders can behave in practice (Pearce et al., 2003)

The research conducted in the early part of 19th century was replete with

identification of certain personality traits essential for leadership. Research

studies conducted at the Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University

have attempted to identify initiating structure and consideration106.

A series of pioneering leadership studies were conducted on high school

children in the late 1930s by Ronald Lippitt and Ralph. K. White under the

direction of Kurt Lewin at the University of Iowa107. They studied the

decision-making component of the leader’s behaviour and classified leaders

into three types as authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire. One definite

finding was the boys’ over-whelming preference for the democratic leader. In

individual interviews, nineteen of the twenty boys stated they like the

democratic leader better than the authoritarian leader. The boys also chose the

laissez-faire leader over the autocratic one in seven out of ten cases.

Leadership studies undertaken at the University of Michigan’s Survey

Research Centre108 divided leadership into employee-Centered and production-

centered. The conclusions arrived at by the Michigan researchers strongly

favoured the leaders who were employee-oriented in their behaviour.

106 Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Ed) “Leader Behaviour: Its Description and
Measurement,” Research Monograph No.88, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State
University, Columbus, 1957.

107 Lewin, Lippitt, R., and White, R.K. “Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour in Experimentally
Created ‘Social Climates’,” Journal ofPsychology, 1939, pp.271-299;.

108 Daniel Katz et. al. “Productivity, Supervision and Morale in Office Situation,” Survey
Research Centre, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1950.
 57

Employee-oriented leaders were associated with higher group productivity and

higher job satisfaction. Production-oriented leader tended to be associated with

low group productivity and lower work satisfaction.

In 1945, the Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University

initiated a series of studies on leadership. Stogdill and Coons (1957)109

tentatively started with nine dimensions.. Factor analysis of the nine subscales

revealed two dimensions. They were initiating structure and consideration.

The research studies also showed that initiating structure and consideration are

two separate distinct dimensions and not mutually exclusive. The study found

that leaders high in initiating structure and consideration tended to achieve high

subordinate performance and satisfaction more frequently than those who rated

low either on consideration, initiating structure or both.

Hemphill110 (1949) and his associates at Ohio State Leadership Studies

developed a list of approximately 1,800 items describing different aspects of

leader behaviour. The items were sorted by the research team into nine

different categories or hypothetical subscale, with most items assigned to

several subscales. However, 150 items were found on which sorters were

agreed to subscale for assigning an item. These items were used to develop the

first form of the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ)

109 Stogdill, R.M. and Coons. A.E. (Eds.) “Leader Behaviour: Its Perception and
Measurement,” Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1957.

110 Hemphill, J.K. “The Leader and his Group,” Journal ofEducational Research, 28 (1949).
 58

111
A study by Katz, Maccoby, and Morse (1950) investigated the

relationship between the productivity of clerks in an insurance company and

various leadership characteristics. Twelve pairs of work groups which

performed the same type of work but which differed in their productivity were

studied. The supervisors of the high producing groups employed were rated as

less ‘production centered’ and more ‘employee centered’; exercised better

judgment; were more rational and less arbitrary, and were more democratic and

less authoritarian than supervisors of low-producing sections.

Kidd and Christy112 (1961) used an air controller simulator and

investigated into three types of leader behaviour-autocratic, democratic, and

ffee-reign on several measures of air controller effectiveness. They found that

free reign-pattern of leadership allowed the controller to concentrate on

maintaining a quick flow through the system but produced high error scores.

The autocratic behaviour, on the other hand, reduced the total number of errors

and at the same time resulted in inhibiting the rapidity of flow. The

participative style was found to result in an intermediary situation.

111 Katz. D.N., Maccoby and Morse, N. “Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office
Situation,” Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan,
Ann Arber, Michigan, 1950.

112 Kidd, J.S., and Christy, R.T. “Supervisory Procedures and Work Team Productivity,”
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 45, (1961), pp.388-392.
 59

Stogdill113 (1965) found in 27 organizations that leader structure is

related to follower satisfaction with organization, while consideration is

associated with satisfaction with freedom of action.

Korman114 (1966) reviewed the research in which consideration and

structure scores of industrial supervisors were related to various criteria of

supervisory effectiveness and work group performance. It was found that

ratings made by peers of supervisory and group performance are not related to

the supervisor’s consideration and initiation of structure. However, evaluations

by superiors and subordinates, as well as various objective criteria tend to be

related significantly to the supervisor’s leader behaviour as described by

subordinates.

Skinner115 (1969) found that supervisory consideration bears a

curvilinear relationship to employee turnover and grievances as consideration

increases, grievances decrease to a point and then level off.

(iii) CONTINGENCY THEORY:

The disillusionment with the ‘great man’ trait and behavioural

approaches to understanding leadership has turned the attention to the study of

113 Stogdill, R.M. “Managers, Employees, Organisations,” Bureau of Business Research, Ohio
State University, Columbus, 1965.

114 Korman, A.K. “Consideration, Initiating Structure and Organizational Criteria: A review,”
Personnel Psychology, 19 (1966).

115 Skinner, Elizabeth, W. “Relationships between Leadership Behaviour Patterns and

Organizational Situational Variables,” Personnel Psychology, 22 (1969), pp.489-494.
 60

situations and the belief that leaders are the product of given situations. The

contingency approaches to leadership attempt

1. to identify which of these factors is most important under a given

set of circumstances; and

2. to predict the leadership style that will be most effective under

those circumstances.

In this process several theories like Fiedler’s Contingency Model,

Vroom and Yetton Contingency Model, Path Goal Model, Life Cycle Theory,

Tri-Dimensional Model and Learning Model have been advanced, though all of

them are woven around the theme of ‘No Best Way’.

Fiedler’s contingency model:

One of the first leader-situation models was developed by Fiedler116 in

his Contingency theory of leadership effectiveness.

Fiedler suggested that leadership behaviour is dependent upon the

favorability of the leadership situation. There are three major variables which

determine the favourability of the situation and which affect the leader’s role

and influence.

Leader-Member Relations - The degree to which the leader is trusted and

liked by the group members, and their willingness to follow the leader’s

guidance.

116 Fiedler, F.E., A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967,
pp.43-54.
 61

The task structure - the degree to which the task is clearly defined for the

group and the extent to which it can be carried out by detailed instructions.

Position power - the power of the leader by virtue of his position in the

organization, and the degree to which the leader can exercise authority to

influence. For ex: Rewards and punishments or promotion and demotions.

From these three variables, Fiedler constructed eight combinations of

group-task situations through which to relate leadership style (see Appendix

1.4). When the situation is very favourable (good leader-member relations,

structured task, strong position power) or very unfavourable (poor leader-

member relations, unstructured task, weak position power), then a task-oriented

leader (low LPC) with a directive controlling style will be more effective.

When the situation is moderately favourable and the variables are mixed, then

the leader with an interpersonal relationship orientation (high LPC) and a

participative approach will be more effective.

Fiedler’s Contingency model was based on studies of a wide range of

group situations, and concentrated on the relationship between leadership and

organizational performance. In order to measure the attitudes of the leader,

Fiedler developed a ‘least preferred co-worker’ (LPC) scale. This measures the

rating given by leaders about the person with whom they could work the least

well. The questionnaire contained 20 items. Each item was given a single

ranking between one to eight points, with eight points indicating the most

favourable rating. For example

Pleasant 87654321 Unpleasant

 62

The LPC score is the sum of the numerical ratings on all the items for

the ‘least preferred co-worker’. The less critical the rating of the least preferred

co-worker and the more favourably evaluated, the higher the leader’s LPC

score.

Fiedler’s work has been subjected to much criticism117 but it does

provide a further dimension to the study of leadership. The best style of

leadership will be dependent upon the variable factors in the leadership

situation. Fielder argues that leadership effectiveness may be improved by

changing the leadership situation. Position power, task structure, leader-

member relations can be changed to make the situation more compatible with

the characteristics of the leaders.

Meuwese and Fiedler118 (1965) reported that leaders who are high and

low on Fiedler’s LPC (Least Preferred Co-worker) measure tend to differ

significantly on specific items of the LBDQ (Leader Behaviour Description

Questionnaire), but not in the total scores for consideration and structure.

Graham119 (1969) found that high LPC (Least Preferred Co-worker)

leaders were described higher in consideration and structure than low LPC

leaders.

117 Filley, A.C., House, R.J. and Kexx, S., Managerial Process and Organizational
Behaviour, 2nd Ed. Scott, Foresman, 1976, p.223.

118 Meuwese, W.A.T. and Fiedler, F.E. “Leadership and Group Creativity under varying
conditions of Stress,” University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory,
Technical Report, Urbana 1965.

119 Graham, W.K. “Leader Behavior, Esteem for Least-Preferred Co-Worker, and Group
Performance,” American Psychological Association, 1968, pp.33-40.
 63

Vroom and Yetton contingency model:

Vroom and Yetton120 base their analysis on two aspects of a leader’s

decision: its quality and its acceptance.

Decision quality, or rationality, is the effect that the decision has on group

performance.

Decision acceptance refers to the motivation and commitment of group

•\

members in implementing the decision.

A third consideration is:

The amount of time required to make the decision. This model suggests

five main management decision styles.

Autocratic

A I. The Leader- solves the problem or makes the decisions alone using

information available at the time.

AII. The Leader obtains information from the subordinates but then decides on

solution alone.

Consultative

C I. The problem is shared with the relevant subordinates, individually. The

leader then makes the decision which may or may: not reflect the influence of

subordinates.

C II. The problem is shared with subordinates as a group. The leader then

makes the decision which may or may not reflect the influence of subordinates.

120 Vroom V.H. and Yetton P.W., Leadership and Decision Making, University of Pittsburgh
Press, 1973, pp.64-69.
 64

Group

G I. The problem is shared with subordinates as a group. The leader acts as

chairperson, rather than an advocate. Together the leader and subordinates

generate and evaluate alternatives and attempt to reach group consensus on a

solution.

Vroom and Yetton suggest seven decision rules to help the manager

discover the most appropriate leadership style in a given situation. The first

three rules protect the quality of decisions and the last four the acceptance of

decisions. These rules indicate decision styles that a manager should avoid in a

given situation and indicate the use of others. Decision tree charts are

introduced to help in the application of the rules and to relate the situation to

the appropriate leadership style (see Appendix 1.5).

Vroom and Yetton121 (1973) proposed the leadership participation

model. It relates leadership behaviour and participation to decision-making. It

provides a sequential set of rules that should be followed in determining the

form and amount of participation in decision-making, as determined by

different types of situations.

121 V.H. Vroom and P.W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision-Making,.University of Pittsburgh
Press, Pittsburgh, 1973.
 65

Path-goal model:

The Path-goal theory of leadership, espoused by House,122 and House and

Dessler123 together is based on the belief that the individuaFs motivation is

dependent upon the expectations that increased effort to achieve an improved

level of performance will be successful, and the expectations that improved

performance will be instrumental in obtaining positive rewards and avoiding

negative outcomes.

It suggests that the performance of subordinates is affected by the extent

to which the manager satisfies their expectations. The Path-goal theory holds

that subordinates will see leadership behaviour as a motivating influence to the

extent that it satisfies their expectations. Satisfaction of their needs is

dependent upon effective performance; and the necessary direction, guidance,

training and support, which would otherwise be lacking, are provided.

House identifies four main types of leadership behaviour.

Directive leadership involves letting the subordinates khow exactly what is

expected of them and giving specific directions to them. The subordinates are

expected to follow rules and regulations.

Supportive leadership involves a friendly and approachable manner,

displaying concern for the needs and welfare of the subordinates.

122 House RJ. “A Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Effectiveness”, Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol.16, Sep.1971, pp.321-338.

123 House R J. and Dessler G. “The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership”, in Hunt J.G. and
Larson, L. (Eds) Contingency Approaches to Leadership, Souther Illionois, University Press,
1974, pp.43-52.
 66

Participative leadership involves consulting the subordinates and the

evaluation of their opinions and suggestions before the manager makes the

decision.

Achievement-oriented leadership involves setting challenging goals for the

subordinates, seeking improvement in their performance and showing

confidence in their ability to perform well.

This theory suggests that the different types of behaviour can be

practised by the same person at different times in varying situations (see

Appendix 1.6).

Leadership behaviour is determined by two main situational factors: the

personal characteristics of subordinates and the nature of the task.

- The personal characteristics of subordinates determine how they will

react to the manager’s behaviour and the extent to which they see such

behaviour as an immediate or potential source of need satisfaction;

- The nature of the task to the extent that it is routine and structured, or

non-routine and unstructured.

Effective leadership behaviour is based, therefore, on both the willingness

of the manager to help his subordinates and the needs of the subordinates for

help. Leader behaviour will be motivational to the extent that it provides the

necessary direction, guidance and support, helps clarify path-goal relationships

and removes any obstacles, which hinder the attainment of goals. By using one

of the four styles of leadership behaviour the manager attempts to influence

 67

subordinates’ perceptions and motivation, and smooth out the path to their

8°alS' 13G922
Evans124 (1970) tested the path-goal hypothesis in two organizations. It

was found that consideration and structure do not interact in path-goal

facilitation but, rather, both consideration and structure acted separately to

enhance path-goal instrumentality. NOT FOR LOAN

According to R. J. House theory125 (1971) (called Path-goal theory) it is

the leader’s job to assist his followers in attaining their goals and to provide

necessary direction and support to ensure that their goals are compatible with

the overall objectives of the group or organization. According to path-goal

theory when leaders demonstrate high consideration, subordinates are likely to

experience greater satisfaction whereas high initiating structure provides role

clarity and should lead to higher performance. Four kinds of leadership

behaviour are identified under this theory. There are: directive, supportive,

participative, and achievement-oriented.

Life-cycle theory of leadership:

Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard126 have deVel^SS^^ffiSfional

theory of leadership. They call it the “Life-Cycle theory”. This theory is based

124 Evans, M.G. “The Effect of Supervisory Behaviour on the Path-Goal Relationship,”
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 5 (1970), pp.277-297.

125 R.J. House, “A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness,” Administrative Science

Quarterly, September 1971, pp.321-338, and R.J. House and [Link], “Path-Goal Theory
of Leadership,” Journal of Contemporary Business, Autumn, 1974, p.86.

126 Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organisational Behaviour, Engle
Wood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1979.
 68

on the belief that the most effective leadership style varies with the maturity of

followers. Maturity is viewed as consisting of two components, job-related

maturity and psychological maturity. Job-related maturity refers to the ability

to perform a task. Psychological maturity refers to a person’s willingness to

perform a job.

Hersey and Blanchard considered task and relationship behaviour as

either high or low and then combined them into four specific leadership styles:

telling, selling, participating and delegating. They are described as follows:

1. Telling (high task-low relationship) the leader defines roles and

tells people what, how, when and where to do various tasks. It

emphasizes directive behaviour.

2. Selling (high task-high relationship): The leader provides both

directive behaviour and supportive behaviour.

3. Participating (low task-high relationship): The leader and the

follower share in decision-making, with the main role of the leader

being facilitating and communicating.

4. Delegating (low task-low relationship): The leader provides little

direction or support.

Four distinct levels of maturity are:

Rl: Person is unwilling and unable to perform the job.

R2: Person is unable but willing to perform the job.

R3: Person is able but unwilling to perform the j ob.

R4: Person is able and willing to perform the j ob.

 69

The life-cycle theory suggests that as the individual matures, the

leadership style will change. When an employee is first brought into an

organization, he is considered immature (Rl). Therefore, a high task-low

relationship style of leadership (telling) is most appropriate to make the

employee learn the new job. After he has learned the job, a high task-high

relationship style (selling) is most appropriate (R2).

In the third phase, the employee has now matured (R3) to the point of

seeking responsibility and taking the initiative to do the job. The leader should

provide emotional support, but must not over-direct and initiate structure in

terms of task completion (participating style).

Finally, as the follower becomes confident, experienced, and self-

motivated, the leader can practice a low task - low relationship style

(delegating). A fully matured person (R4) expects to be able to operate with

minimum influence from the leader. This can be considered a situation in

which the follower’s maturity and self-direction .area substitute for

leadership127. A person with a high level of skill, experience and self-

motivation does not need a leader to structure the job (See Appendix 1.7).

127 Steven Kerr and John M. Jermier, “Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and
Measurement”, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, December 1978,
pp.375-403.
 70

Tri-dimensional model:

Reddin128 (1970) conceptualized a three-dimensional grid borrowing

some of the ideas from the managerial grid. Three-dimensional axes represent

task-orientation, relationship-orientation and effectiveness. By adding an

effectiveness dimension to the task-oriented behaviour dimensions, he has

integrated the concept of leadership styles with the situational demand of a

specific environment.

In his 3-D management styles theory, William J. Reddin129 has stressed

the dimensions of effectiveness. In this, model, the concept of leadership style

is integrated with the situational demands of a specific environment. When the

style of a leader is appropriate to a given situation, it is termed as effective.

Conversely, when the style is inappropriate to a given situation, it is termed as

ineffective: If the effectiveness of a leader’s behaviour style depends upon the

situation in which it is used, it would follow that any of the basic styles may be

effective or ineffective depending on the situation. The difference between

effective and ineffective styles often lies not in the actual behaviour of the

leader but in the appropriateness of his behaviour to the environment in which

it takes place. Thus, essentially, the third dimension in the leader behaviour

style syndrome is the environment.

Although effectiveness appears to be in either situation in this model, in

reality it should be represented as a continuum. Any given style in a particular

128 WJ. Reddin, Managerial Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.

129 Reddin J. William. “The 3-D Management Style Theory,” Training and Development
Journal, April 1967, pp.8-17.
 71

situation could fall somewhere in this continuum from ‘extremely effective’ to

‘extremely ineffective’. Effectiveness, therefore, is a matter of degree, and

there could be an infinite number rather than only three facets to effective

dimension. To illustrate this point, the effectiveness dimension has been

divided in quartiles ranging on the effective side from +1 to +4 and on the

ineffective side from -1 to -4

The four effective and four ineffective styles, in essence, show how

appropriate a leader’s basic style is in a given situation, as seen by his or her

followers, superiors, or associates. A model such as the Tri-dimensional leader

effectiveness model, is distinctive because it does not depict a single ideal

leader behaviour style as appropriate in all situations. For example, the high

task and high relationship styles are appropriate only in certain situations.

Learning model of leadership:

Argyris130 and his associate Schon131 recognize a dichotomy in leadership

styles. Instead of emphasizing the contingent situations for effectiveness, they

have advanced people-oriented style as a learning model and named their

conceptual constructs as Model-I versus Model-II or theory-in-use versus

theory-espoused.

The two models have been differentiated in terms of governing values,

action strategies, consequences on individual and his environment and

130 Argyris, C. “Theories in Action that Inhibit Individual Leaving”, American Psychologist,
Vol.31,1976, pp.638-654.

131 Argyris C. Schon D “Theory in Practice”, Jossy-Bass, San-Francisco, California, 1974,

pp.73-81.
 72

consequences on learning and group effectiveness. Model-II is normative and

ideal and supports that man by himself tends to keep on learning and growing

and that his all-round growth is the primary value. But this model lacks

supportive empirical evidence.

Charismatic leadership:

Robert House132 first proposed the theory of charismatic leadership in

1977 based on the research findings of a variety of social science disciplines.

His theory suggests that charismatic leaders are likely to have a lot of self-

confidence, firm conviction in their beliefs and ideals, and a strong urge to

influence people.

Charisma means:

1. A devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary

character of an individual person and of the normative patterns revealed or

ordained by that person133.

2. Endowed with divine grace134.

Charismatic leadership means:

132 Robert J. House, “A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership,” in J. G. Hunt and

[Link] (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge (Southern Illinois University Press,
Carbondale, Illinois, 1977), pp.189-207.

133 Max Weber, cited in S.N. Eisenstaedt, ’’Max Weber: On Charisma and Institution
Building,” University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1968.

134 Bernard M. Bass, “Evolving Perspectives on Charismatic Leadership”, in Charismatic

Leaders, eds. Jay A. Conger, Rabindra N. Kanungo, et. al. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
1988), p.40
 73

1. The process of influencing major changes in the attitudes and assumptions

of organization members, and building commitment for the organization’s

objectives135.

2. Leadership that has a magnetic effect on people136.

3. In combination with individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation,

and inspirational leadership, a component of transformational leadership137.

Robert J. House138 defines charisma in terms of its effects. A charismatic

leader, according to House, is any person who brings about certain outcomes to

an unusually high degree. The nine charismatic effects are as follows:

i. Group members’ trust in the correctness of the leader’s beliefs

ii. Similarity of group members’ beliefs to those of the leader

iii. Unquestioning acceptance of the leader

iv. Affection for the leader

v. Willing obedience to the leader

vi. Identification with and emulation of the leader

vii. Emotional involvement of the group member or constituent in the

mission

135 Gary A. Yukl, Leadership in Organisations, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1989,p.204.

136 James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge: How to Get
Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1987, p.123.

137 Bernard M. Bass, cited in Kenneth E. Clark and Miriam B. Clark (eds.), Measures of
Leadership, A center for Creative Leadership Book, Leadership Library of America, West
Orange, New Jersey, 1990.

138 Robert J. House,”A-1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership,” in J. G. Hunt And L. L.

Larson (eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale,
1977, pp.185-207.
 74

viii. Heightened goals of the group members

ix. Feeling on the part of group members that they will be able to

accomplish, or contribute to, the accomplishment of the mission.

The characteristics of charismatic leaders which apply to leaders in

general are vision, masterful communication skills, ability to inspire trust,

ability to make group members feel capable, energy and action orientation,

emotional expressiveness and warmth, willingness to take personal risks, use of

unconventional strategies, self-promoting personality, propensity to emerge

during crisis and minimum internal conflict139.

Two behavioural scientists, Rabindra Kanungo and Jay Conger, have

tried to ‘strip the aura of mysticism from charisma’ and ‘deal with it strictly as

a behaviour process’. According to them, charisma of the leader lies mainly in

the eyes of the followers. Attribution of charisma is a result of the interplay

between the leader’s attributes, and the needs, values and perceptions of his

followers. In effect, one man’s naked fakir is another’s Mahatma.

Conger and .Kanungo140 in their paper, “Toward a Behavioural Theory

of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings,” have identified several

interrelated behavioural components that characterize charismatic vis-a-vis

non-charismatic leaders within organizations.

139 Conger, The Charismatic Leader; Jane M. Howell and Bruce Avolio, “The Ethics of
Charismatic Leadership: Submission or Liberation?” The Executive, May 1992, pp.43-52.

140 Conger, Jam. and Kanungo, R. ‘Toward A Behavioural Theory of Charismatic Leadership
in Organizational Setting,” Academy of Management Review, Vol.12, No.4, October 1987,
pp.637-648.
 75

First, charismatic leaders oppose status quo and strive for radical

changes, while the non-charismatic leaders try to maintain the status quo.

Second, charismatic leaders want their organizations to achieve some ambitious

goals which are highly discrepant from the status quo. This component is

perhaps closest to what others mean by ‘vision’ of the charismatic leader. The
!

greater the discrepancy between the status quo and the goal advocated by the

leader, the greater the propensity of the followers to attribute extraordinary

vision to him. Charisma is an attribute of the leader if his advocacy succeeds

but madness if it fails.

Charismatic leaders tend to take high personal risks and engage in self-

sacrifice. They tend to use unconventional and out-of-the ordinary means to

achieve organizational goals. Such behaviour should also be perceived to have

high probability of harming the leader’s self interest.

Conger and Kanungo, offer suggestions for identifying potentially

charismatic leaders within organizations and developing them through training

in various skill areas, such as critical evaluation, communication and

empowering other members of the organization. Kunhert and Lewis141 have

labeled leaders as transactional and transformational.

141 Kunhert, K.W. and Lewis, P. ‘Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A

Constructive and A developmental Analysis,” Academy of Management Review, Vol.12,
No.4,1987, pp.648-657.
 76

Transactional vs. transformational leadership:

Yet another perspective on leadership has been called by a number of

labels: charismatic leadership, inspirational leadership, symbolic leadership,

and transformational leadership.

Bums142 initially identified two types of political leadership:

transactional and transformational. The transactional leadership is more

concerned with the management of individuals and centers around the leader’s

ability to influence his followers to behave in the way he wants in return for

something the follower wants. This type of leadership is fairly synonymous

with people management in general. The term transformational leadership is

defined as “leadership that goes beyond ordinary expectations by transmitting a

sense of mission, stimulating learning experiences, and inspiring new ways of

thinking”. Transformational leadership may manifest itself, as Bums puts it,

‘when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and

followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality’. .

The more traditional transactional leadership involves an exchange

relationship between leaders and followers, but transformational leadership is

based more on the leaders’ shifting the values, beliefs, and needs of their

followers. Bernard Bass143 concludes that transactional leadership is a

prescription for mediocrity and that transformational leadership leads to

superior performance in organizations facing demands for renewal and change.

142 J. M. Bums, Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, 1978.

143 Bernard M. Bass, “From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share

the Vision,” Organizational Dynamics, Winter 1990, pp. 19-31.
 77

He suggests that fostering transformational leadership through policies of

recruitment, selection, promotion, training, and development will pay off in the

health, well-being, and effective performance of today’s organizations.

Tichy and Devanna144 find that effective transformational leaders share

the following characteristics.

a. They identify themselves as change agents.

b. They are courageous.

c. They believe in people.

d. They are value-driven.

e. They are lifelong learners.

f. They have the ability to deal with complexity, ambiguity, and

uncertainty.

g. They are visionaries.

Pearce et al. (2003) extended the transactional-transformational model

of leadership by deductively developing four theoretical behavioral types of

leadership based on a historical analysis of the leadership literature: directive

leadership, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and

empowering leadership.

Directive leadership describes leader behaviors that primarily rely on

position or coercive power. Directive leaders define and organize the roles of

followers and emphasize direction, command, assigned goals, and punishments

144 Noel M. Tichy and Mary Anne Devanna, “The Transformational Leader,” Training and
Development Journal, July 1986, pp.30-32.
 78

(Sims Jr. & Manz, 1996). Followers rarely exert control over their jobs and

have almost no chance to participate in decision-making processes.

Transactional leadership refers to the behaviors that establish the

conditions of the exchange relationship between leaders and followers. In line

with expectancy theory and reinforcing theory, transactional leaders exert

influence in terms of specifying expectation, clarifying responsibilities,

negotiating contracts, providing feedback, and exchanging rewards and

recognitions for accomplishments (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003).

In contrast, transformational leadership goes beyond the exchange of

inducements for desired performance (Bass, 1985) and involves developing,

intellectually stimulating, and inspiring followers to transcend their own self-

interests for a higher collective purpose, mission, or vision (Howell & Avolio,

1993). In addition, transformational leaders exhibit charismatic behaviors that

provide a sense of vision, encourage followers to view problems from new

perspectives to challenge the status quo, and help them to reach their potential

and generate the highest level of performance (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir,

2002; Pearce et al., 2003). Finally, empowering leadership emphasizes the

development of followers’ self-management or self-leadership skills,

encourages opportunity thinking, self-rewards, participative goal setting, and

teamwork. Consequently, empowering leadership builds subordinates into

effective self-leaders who are capable of creativity, initiative, and the ability to

act on their own volition (Pearce et al., 2003).

 79

Earlier formulations of transformational leadership did not include

empowerment as an important aspect. However, some more recent views have

extended the concept of transformational leadership to include empowering

behaviors (Bass, 1997; Dvir et al., 2002; Kark et al., 2003). In contrast, Pearce

et al. (2003), and Manz and Sims Jr. (2001) have maintained that empowering

leadership is conceptually and empirically distinct from transformational

leadership. Therefore, they do not treat empowering leadership as a subset of

transformational leadership, but view it as a conceptually and behaviorally

distinct type of leadership.

In sum, Pearce et al. (2003) indicated that these four types of leadership

are conceptually and empirically different from each other and that they

represent distinctively separate constructs.

Visionary leadership:

Visionary leadership145 is the ability to create and articulate a realistic,

credible, attractive vision of the future for an organization or organizational

unit, which grows out of and improves upon the present. This vision, if

properly selected and implemented, is so energizing that it “in effect jump-

starts the future by calling forth the skills, talents, and resources to make it

happen.”

145 Nanus. B., Visionary Leadership, Free Press, New York, 1992, p.8
 80

Self-leadership

A unique substitute for leadership is the idea of self-leadership. This

process has two thrusts: leading one to perform naturally motivating tasks, as

well as managing oneself to do work that is required but not naturally

rewarding. Self-leadership may involve employees’ observing their own

behaviour, setting their own goals, cueing themselves to perform, rehearsing

effective behaviours, and administering rewards and punishments to

themselves.

Social learning theory:

Social learning theory of leadership can provide a model for the

continuous, reciprocal interaction between the leader (including his or her

cognitions), the environment (including subordinates/followers and macro-

organizational variables), and behaviour itself146.

Leadership of leadership:

Charles C. Manz and Henry P. Sims, Jr.147 have formulated what they

refer to as the Super Leadership Theory. A Super Leader is one who leads

other leaders by acting as a teacher and a coach, not a director.

A super leader inspires others to motivate themselves and when people

are self-directing, they require a minimum of external control.

146 Fred Luthans, “Leadership: A Proposal for a Social Learning Theory Base and
Observational and Functional Analysis Techniques to Measure Leader Behaviour,” in J.G.
Hunt And L.L. Larson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in Leadership, Southern Illinois University
Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, Illinois, 1979, pp.201-208.

147 Charles C. Manz and Henry P. Sims, Jr., “Super Leadership: Beyond the Myth of Heroic
Leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1991, P. 18.
 81

Super leadership requires the leader to take risks with people: to believe

that if given a chance to be self-directing, workers will rise to the occasion.

Leaders and individual contributors alike should be able to practice self­

leadership by incorporating the following attitudes and behaviours:

(i) Identification and replacement of destructive beliefs and

assumptions. Negative thoughts are identified and then replaced

with more accurate and constructive ones.

(ii) Positive and constructive self-talk. Negative thoughts are converted

into positive ones.

(iii) Visualization of methods for effective performance. One imagines

oneself moving effortlessly through a challenging assignment using

methods that have worked in the past

In summary, the super leader helps create conditions whereby the team

members require very little leadership. Achieving such a goal is important

because organizations have reduced the number of managers. Also,

organizational structures such as work teams and horizontal structures require a

high degree of self-management.

A super leader is one who leads others to lead themselves. Teaching team

members to develop productive thought patterns helps develop self-leadership.

For example, the leader encourages people to talk to themselves positively and

constructively.

During the past 60 years, organizational scholarship on leadership has

shifted from a focus on the significance of leadership for meaning-making to

 82

the significance of leadership for economic performance. This shift has been

problematic for two reasons. First, it has given rise to numerous conceptual

difficulties that now plague the study of leadership. Second, there is now

comparatively little attention to the question of how individuals find meaning

in the economic sphere even though this question should arguably be one of the

most important questions for organizational scholarship.

Contingency Research and Results:

Lanzetta and Roby148 (1960) concluded that both time and error scores

for problem solving groups were better under participative than authoritarian

leadership. The researchers observed, however, that the best performing

groups were those in which leadership and power sharing in decision-making

was in keeping with the variations in the abilities of members of the group.

Thus when the most skilled members of the group used maximum influence in

decision-making, the participation was effective.

Vroom149 (I960), using a sample of 108 supervisors found that

participation was significantly correlated with performance for the total sample,

but the correlations were significantly higher for supervisors high in autonomy

than for supervisor low in autonomy, and for those low in .authoritarianism than

high in authoritarianism.

148 Lanzetta, J.T. and Roby, T.B. “The Relationship Between Certain Group Process Variables
and Group Problem Solving Efficiency,” Journal of Social Psychology, 52, (1960), pp.135-
148. ,

149 Vroom, V., Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1960.
 83

A study by Vroom and Mann150 (1960) investigated the effects of

■leadership style on employee attitudes. They used two samples of employees.

It was found that highly interdependent employees in small work groups

having great deal of interaction among them, and between themselves and their

supervisors had more favourable attitudes toward democratic leaders.

Employees had more positive attitudes toward authoritarian leaders. However,

in large groups the members of these groups worked independently and there

was very little interaction between them and their supervisors.

SUMMARY:

This chapter discussed the concept of leadership and theories of

leadership. To lead means to guide, direct and precede. Leadership is a process

of influencing the behaviour, beliefs and feelings of the members of a group.

The functions of leadership however, cover wide range of activities like

coordinating, decision-making, policymaking, group representing, controlling,

arbitrating, etc. Leadership, not being a single phenomenon, is affected by

many variables and involves several skills like technical, human, conceptual,

designing, creative, communicative and decision making. The main aspect of

influencing people by a leader is the power, which has many sources. The

leadership effectiveness covers the personality of leader, past experience,

expectations of superiors, the characteristics of subordinates, the requirements

of the task, and the organisational climate and policies.

150 Vroom, V. and Mann, F. “Leader Authoritarianism and Employee Attitudes,” Personnel
Psychology, 13 (1960), pp.125-140.
 84

Twentieth century has witnessed several theories oh leadership which is

a complex concept having a bearing on motivation, morale, organizational

climate, human relations, and communication. The ability to influence people

in a group is indispensable in organizations. Beginning with scientific

management the evolutionary process of leadership can be traced with three

theories viz., trait theory, behavioural theory and contingency theory. The trait

theory has been put to rigorous research by Byrd, Jennings, Gheselli, Stogdill

etc., and resulted in the development of behavioral theory. Likert’s system 4

theory, McGregor x and y theory, Continuum theory of Tannenbaum and

Schmidt, etc. has opened new vistas on the behavioural dimensions, of

leadership. The confusion and controversy of trait and behavioural theories

„ i ■

have given way to the contingency models of leadership like Fiedler’s

contingency model, Vroom and Yetton contingency model, path goal theory,

life cycle theory, tri-dimensional model, learning model, etc.