A LEVEL ORGANISATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Organisational Psychology: Study Notes

1. Saeednia (2011) - Generating a scale measuring hierarchy of basic needs

●​ Context of the study and relationship to other studies and main theories/explanations included in the study:
○​ Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory proposes that basic needs must be met before individuals can
progress to higher-level needs. Saeednia (2011) aimed to contribute to this theory by developing a
reliable and valid scale to measure the satisfaction of these basic needs, specifically in children.
●​ Aim(s) and hypotheses of the study:
○​ Aim: To develop a reliable scale to measure basic needs satisfaction in children.
●​ Design of the study:
○​ Research Method: A mixed-methods approach, beginning with qualitative interviews and then
developing a quantitative questionnaire.
○​ Sample:
■​ Initial qualitative stage: A total of 13 children plus their parents and educators were
interviewed.
■​ Quantitative stage: A total of 900 participants were randomly sampled for the questionnaire.
○​ Sampling technique: Not explicitly stated as a common named technique, but indicates a random
sample for the quantitative stage.
○​ DV: The satisfaction of basic needs.
○​ Data: Qualitative data from initial interviews (coded and analysed to create items for the scale) and
quantitative data (scores from the questionnaire).
○​ Procedure:
■​ Interviews were conducted with 13 children, their parents, and educators to gather
qualitative data about basic needs satisfaction and desires, focusing on the family and
community's role.
■​ This data was coded and used to construct the Basic Needs Satisfaction Scale for Children
(BNSS).
■​ The BNSS was then distributed to 900 participants to measure their needs satisfaction.
 ●​ Results, findings and conclusions of the study:
○​ Results: The study found that the reliability of the BNSS for use with children was high (0.83), which
suggests it is a consistent measure of the concepts.
○​ Conclusions: The study concluded that qualitative methods can be appropriate for investigating
Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The BNSS is an indicator of life satisfaction, with life satisfaction changes
depending on culture. In poorer nations, love and self-esteem are prioritized, while in wealthier
nations, love and self-esteem are also important, which aligns with Maslow's theory.
●​ Main discussion points of the study:
○​ Methodological Weaknesses:
■​ Limited generalisability: The study's findings may have limited generalisability as the
sample consisted of people who lived in wealthy areas, making it not applicable to
populations in less wealthy areas or countries.
■​ Potential for bias: The study involved interviewing family and educators, who might
influence how children express themselves, potentially affecting the validity of the results.

2. Landry et al. (2019) - Applying Self-Determination Theory to understand the motivational impact of cash rewards

●​ Context of the study and relationship to other studies and main theories/explanations included in the study:
○​ Organisations use monetary rewards to attract and motivate their workforce. Previous research has
shown that monetary rewards can sometimes lead to temporary performance improvements or even
decreased intrinsic motivation. Self-determination theory suggests that extrinsic motivators can either
support autonomy (informational) or be perceived as controlling, affecting intrinsic motivation.
●​ Aim(s) and hypotheses of the study:
○​ Aim: To explain whether monetary rewards have a beneficial or detrimental effect on employees'
motivation and performance.
○​ Hypotheses:
■​ Presenting rewards in an autonomy-supportive (informational) way leads to increased
performance compared to rewards presented in a controlling way.
■​ The informational effect of rewards on performance is mediated by psychological need
satisfaction, leading to higher intrinsic motivation, whereas the effect of controlling rewards
on performance is mediated by psychological needs frustration, leading to greater extrinsic
motivation and lower performance.
●​ Design of the study:
○​ Research Method: A laboratory experiment.
 ○​ Sample: 123 university students (mean age 23 years) from a Canadian university. The sample
consisted of 60% females. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
autonomy-supportive (n=65) or autonomy-threatening (controlling).
○​ Sampling technique: Not explicitly stated as a common named technique, but participants were
recruited from a university.
○​ Design type: Independent measures, as participants were allocated to one of the two conditions.
○​ IV: The way monetary rewards were presented (autonomy-supportive/informational vs.
autonomy-threatening/controlling).
○​ DV: Participants' needs satisfaction, needs frustration, extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, and
performance. These were measured using self-reports (questionnaires).
○​ Controls: Control variables were used to assess the perceived value of the reward.
○​ Data: Quantitative data was collected through the use of self-reports (questionnaires).
○​ Procedure:
■​ Participants were initially given an instruction paragraph about a task they would be asked to
perform.
■​ In the autonomy-supportive condition, the monetary reward was presented as "a token of
appreciation" for their contribution.
■​ In the autonomy-threatening (controlling) condition, the monetary reward was described
as a "reinforcement" for meeting performance standards.
■​ The reward was a $10 gift card for a local coffee shop.
■​ After reading instructions, participants completed two 25-item anagram tasks.
●​ Results, findings and conclusions of the study:
○​ Results:
■​ Participants in the autonomy-supportive condition showed significantly higher performance
(0.76) than those in the controlling condition (0.24), supporting Hypothesis 1.
■​ The autonomy-supportive condition significantly predicted greater intrinsic motivation (mean
5.31) and psychological needs satisfaction (mean 5.79) compared to the controlling condition
(mean 4.56 for intrinsic motivation, mean 5.39 for needs satisfaction).
■​ The controlling condition resulted in higher needs frustration (mean 2.83) and extrinsic
motivation (mean 3.95) compared to the autonomy-supportive condition (mean 2.41 for
needs frustration, mean 3.10 for extrinsic motivation).
■​ The informational context of rewards mediated psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic
motivation, and performance.
 ○​ Conclusions: Presenting rewards in an autonomy-supportive (informational) way leads to increased
performance and healthier forms of motivation, as participants exhibit greater psychological need
satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Conversely, controlling rewards can lead to needs frustration and
extrinsic motivation. Individuals tend to engage more in activities when they feel rewarded in a
supportive manner.
●​ Main discussion points of the study:
○​ Methodological Strengths:
■​ Strong controls: The study used a number of control measures, and data was collected on a
three-item scale to value the reward, controlling for individual differences.
■​ Quantitative data: The use of self-reports on Likert scales and statistical tests ensured the
quantitative data was objective and allowed for comparisons to be made, increasing
reliability.
○​ Methodological Weaknesses:
■​ Limited generalisability: The sample consisted solely of university students from one
Canadian university, making it difficult to generalise findings to other populations, cultures,
or universities.
■​ Low ecological validity: Conducted in a laboratory, which is an artificial environment,
potentially reducing the naturalness of participants' responses compared to real-life
workplace situations.
○​ Ethical Strengths:
■​ Informed consent and confidentiality: Detailed explanation of the procedure was given to
all participants, and valid consent was obtained. No deception was used, and confidentiality
was maintained.
■​ Minimizing harm: There was no suggestion of distress or psychological harm, and rewards
were offered in a supportive and encouraging way.
○​ Application to Everyday Life:
■​ The research provides important understanding for managers about motivational rewards in
the workplace. It suggests that monetary rewards, when used to support autonomy and
foster motivation, can improve performance and job satisfaction. Managers should create an
autonomy-supportive atmosphere.
○​ Issues and Debates:
■​ Individual and situational explanations: The study highlights both individual factors (e.g.,
personality, prior experience) and situational factors (e.g., how rewards are framed)
 influencing motivation. However, the explanation can be seen as reductionist if it doesn't
account for all individual differences.
■​ Reductionism versus holism: The study, based on self-determination theory, can be
considered reductionist as it attributes performance to specific factors like psychological
needs satisfaction, potentially overlooking other complex aspects of personality or prior
experience.

3. Cuadrado et al. (2008) - Women’s access to managerial positions: an experimental study of leadership styles and gender

●​ Context of the study and relationship to other studies and main theories/explanations included in the study:
○​ Historically, leadership has been associated with masculine traits, leading to stereotypes that
disadvantage female leaders, especially when they adopt traditionally male leadership styles. This study
aimed to investigate the "congruity theory" of prejudice, which posits that women adopting
stereotypically masculine leadership roles are evaluated less favourably than men.
●​ Aim(s) and hypotheses of the study:
○​ Aim: To verify the congruity theory of prejudice towards female leaders, specifically examining how
gender and leadership style influence evaluations.
○​ Hypotheses:
■​ Female leaders adopting a stereotypically masculine leadership style would receive less
favourable evaluations than male leaders with the same style.
■​ Male leaders adopting a stereotypically feminine leadership style would receive less
favourable evaluations than female leaders with the same style.
■​ Female leaders would receive worse evaluations from male evaluators than from female
evaluators.
■​ Male leaders would receive similar evaluations from male and female evaluators.
●​ Design of the study:
○​ Research Method: An experimental design, specifically an experimental study with four conditions,
using structured questionnaires.
○​ Sample: 136 second-year social psychology students from the National Open University of Spain. The
mean age was 29 years, with 53% female and 47% male. Participants were randomly assigned to one
of four experimental conditions.
○​ Sampling technique: Not explicitly stated as a common named technique, but appears to be an
opportunity sample from university students.
○​ IVs:
 ■​ The gender of the leader described in the narrative (male or female).
■​ The leadership style described (stereotypically masculine/autocratic/task-oriented or
stereotypically feminine/democratic/relationship-oriented).
○​ DV: Participants' evaluations of the leader's leadership effectiveness, leadership capacity, and
leadership efficacy. Also, a list of 14 adjectives was used to describe the leader. These were measured
using 7-point Likert scales (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree).
○​ Procedure:
■​ Participants were randomly allocated to one of four conditions, each receiving a narrative
describing a leader in an emergency service in a public hospital.
■​ The four conditions involved combinations of male/female leaders and masculine/feminine
leadership styles.
■​ Participants were instructed to imagine themselves in the scenario.
■​ After reading, they completed a questionnaire using 7-point Likert scales to rate the leader's
effectiveness, capacity, and efficacy, and also selected adjectives to describe the leader.
●​ Results, findings and conclusions of the study:
○​ Results:
■​ Hypothesis 1 was supported: Female leaders adopting stereotypically masculine leadership
styles were evaluated significantly less favourably than male leaders with the same style.
■​ Hypothesis 2 was not fully supported: There were no significant differences in evaluations for
males, regardless of whether they adopted masculine or feminine styles.
■​ Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not supported: There was no significant difference in leader
evaluation based on the gender of the evaluator.
○​ Conclusions: Female leaders do not receive less favourable evaluations than males when using
stereotypically feminine leadership styles. Males are not evaluated differently when adopting female
leadership styles. Stereotypically female leadership styles are often seen as more valued and effective
than stereotypically masculine leadership styles in modern organisations.
●​ Main discussion points of the study:
○​ Methodological Strengths:
■​ Quantitative and objective data: The use of structured questionnaires and numerical rating
scales for dependent variables ensured objective data collection for leadership effectiveness,
capacity, and efficacy.
■​ Strong controls: The experimental design allowed for careful manipulation of IVs (leader
gender and style) and control over other variables, enhancing the validity of the findings.
 ○​ Methodological Weaknesses:
■​ Low ecological validity: The study used hypothetical narratives and images, rather than
real-life interactions, which may not reflect natural responses in actual workplace settings.
■​ Limited generalisability: The sample consisted predominantly of white American
psychology students, limiting the generalisability of findings to other age groups, ethnicities,
or cultures.
■​ Narrative bias: The narrative was written by the researcher, which could introduce bias or
fail to capture the full dynamics of leadership, potentially affecting the validity of results.
○​ Ethical Strengths:
■​ Confidentiality: All data collected remained confidential, with no identifiable details
recorded.
■​ No invasion of privacy/harm: The study used hypothetical scenarios, meaning participants'
privacy was not invaded, and their experience was not disrupted. Participants' consent was
implied by their participation.
○​ Application to Everyday Life:
■​ The research has significant implications for understanding leadership in the workplace,
suggesting that stereotypically female leadership styles might be more highly valued. It can
help managers and organisations promote diverse leadership styles and develop effective
training programs.
○​ Issues and Debates:
■​ Idiographic versus nomothetic: The study's experimental and quantitative approach is
primarily nomothetic, aiming to establish general laws about leadership. However, the
narrative method could potentially be used to gather some idiographic insights if more
open-ended responses were collected.
■​ Reductionism versus holism: While the study breaks down leadership into specific gender
and style components (reductionist), the complex interaction of these factors in a social
context touches on more holistic understandings.

Organisational Psychology: Theory Notes

9.1 Motivation at work

9.1.1 Maslow's hierarchy of needs

●​ Description of Theory: Abraham Maslow (1943) proposed a motivational theory that describes five basic human
needs, arranged in a hierarchy. Individuals must meet lower-level needs before progressing to higher ones.
○​ Physiological Needs: Basic survival requirements such as food, air, water, and sleep. Without these, a
person cannot function properly.
○​ Safety Needs: The need for a secure and stable environment, including financial security, and freedom
from threat.
○​ Love and Belongingness Needs: The need for social connections, including friendships, family,
intimacy, and being part of a group.
○​ Esteem Needs: The need to feel respected, recognised, and to achieve something worthwhile, fostering
feelings of accomplishment and mastery.
○​ Self-Actualisation Needs: The highest level, representing the fulfilment of one's full potential and
achieving everything one is capable of.
●​ Key Concepts:
○​ Deficiency Needs: The first four levels of needs (physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem) are
deficiency needs, meaning a person is motivated to obtain them if they are unmet.
○​ Growth Need: Self-actualisation is a growth need, which motivates individuals to grow and develop as
a person.
●​ Application to the workplace:
○​ Managers can motivate employees by ensuring their needs are met at appropriate levels.
○​ Physiological needs: Providing a safe workplace and adequate wages.
○​ Safety needs: Offering job security and a safe working environment.
○​ Love and belongingness: Fostering teamwork, social interaction, and a sense of community among
employees.
○​ Esteem and self-actualisation: Providing recognition, opportunities for promotion, skill development,
and autonomy to encourage personal and professional growth.
●​ Evaluating Maslow's needs theory:
○​ Maslow's theory may not be valid in all cases, as individuals may not strictly follow the hierarchy; for
example, people in poverty can still experience love and belongingness.
○​ Mother Teresa is cited as an example of someone who achieved self-actualisation despite living in
poverty, challenging the rigid hierarchy.
●​ Issues and Debates:
 ○​ Cultural differences: The definition of self-actualisation can vary across cultures. In individualistic
societies (e.g., USA), it may focus on personal achievement, while in collectivist societies (e.g., China),
it may involve contributing to the group.
○​ Application to everyday life: The theory has significantly contributed to understanding motivation in
the workplace, helping to design work environments and management practices that address employee
needs.
○​ Reductionism versus holism: Maslow's theory is considered more holistic than some other
motivation theories because it encompasses a wide range of human needs (physiological,
psychological, social) rather than just physiological or cognitive factors.
○​ Determinism versus free will: Humanistic psychologists, including Maslow, emphasize free will and
the ability to self-actualise. However, the requirement to meet basic physiological needs suggests an
element of environmental determinism.

9.1.1 McClelland's theory of achievement motivation (1961)

●​ Description of Theory: McClelland (1961) proposed that individuals are motivated by three dominant needs,
which vary in strength from person to person.
○​ Need for achievement (nAch): The desire to excel, to accomplish tasks, and to achieve high standards.
○​ Need for affiliation (nAff): The desire for friendly relationships, belonging, and social interaction.
○​ Need for power (nPow): The desire to influence, control, or have an impact on others. This can be
personal power (controlling others) or institutional/social power (organising efforts for a common
goal).
●​ Measurement: The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), a projective test where individuals describe ambiguous
pictures, is used to reveal unconscious motives and needs.
●​ Evaluating McClelland's theory of achievement motivation:
○​ Cultural differences: The theory was developed in individualistic, Western cultures and may not
generalise to collectivist cultures where different motivations (e.g., group harmony) might be
prioritised.
○​ Individual and situational explanations: The theory primarily focuses on individual personality traits
(needs). However, situational factors (e.g., social support, job design) can also influence the expression
and development of these needs.
○​ Methodological weaknesses: The TAT, as a projective measure, can be subjective in interpretation,
leading to potential reliability issues.
 ○​ Application: McClelland's theory is useful for identifying individuals with high nPow and low nAff, who
may be well-suited for leadership and managerial roles. It also helps in understanding what motivates
employees in different roles.

9.1.2 Cognitive theories - Latham and Locke’s goal-setting theory

●​ Description of Theory: Locke and Latham (1990) proposed that specific, difficult goals, along with feedback,
lead to higher performance than vague, easy goals. Five principles for effective goal-setting:
○​ Clarity: Goals should be clear, specific, and measurable.
○​ Challenge: Goals should be difficult enough to be motivating but still achievable.
○​ Commitment: Individuals must understand and be committed to achieving the goals.
○​ Feedback: Regular feedback on progress is essential for staying on track.
○​ Task complexity: For complex tasks, sub-goals and sufficient time are needed.
●​ SMART goals: Goals should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
●​ Evaluating goal-setting theory:
○​ Strength: Supported by extensive evidence over 50 years. It provides practical guidelines for managers
to increase motivation and performance.
●​ Issues and Debates:
○​ Reductionism versus holism: The theory can be seen as reductionist, focusing primarily on cognitive
factors (goals) and overlooking other motivational aspects like physiological or emotional needs.
However, it does link these cognitive factors to observable outcomes (performance).
○​ Cultural differences: The effectiveness of goal-setting may vary across cultures, as individualistic
cultures might respond differently to goal setting than collectivistic ones.

9.1.2 Vroom’s VIE (expectancy) theory of motivation (1964)

●​ Description of Theory: Victor Vroom (1964) proposed that an individual’s motivation is determined by their
expectation that effort will lead to performance, and performance will lead to valued rewards. It involves three
key beliefs:
○​ Valence: The value or attractiveness an individual places on a particular outcome or reward (e.g., a
bonus, promotion).
○​ Instrumentality: The belief that successful performance will lead to the desired outcome or reward.
○​ Expectancy: The belief that one's effort will lead to successful performance.
●​ Motivation Formula: Motivation = Valence × Instrumentality × Expectancy. If any of these three factors are low,
motivation will be low.
 ●​ Evaluating Vroom's expectancy theory:
○​ Weakness: The theory is complex and may not always be practical or easy to apply in real-life
situations. It may not fully account for all factors influencing motivation, such as indirect rewards or
responsibility.
○​ Strength: It acknowledges individual differences in what motivates people and highlights that
individuals make rational, conscious choices about their effort. Research by Redmond (1969) suggests
a correlation between VIE factors and task performance.
●​ Issues and Debates:
○​ Individual and situational explanations: The theory recognises individual factors (e.g., personality,
skills, beliefs) that influence motivation, but also considers situational factors such as the nature of
rewards and job expectations.
○​ Idiographic versus nomothetic: While the theory proposes general laws of motivation (nomothetic),
it also implicitly allows for individual differences in valence, instrumentality, and expectancy, making it
somewhat flexible.
○​ Determinism versus free will: The theory suggests that behaviour is largely determined by
expectations of rewards and costs (environmental determinism). However, it also implies that
individuals actively choose their actions based on these expectations, suggesting an element of free
will.

9.1.3 Motivators at work

●​ Intrinsic motivation: Refers to performing an activity for its inherent satisfaction, pleasure, or challenge,
without external rewards.
●​ Extrinsic motivation: Refers to engaging in an activity to achieve a separable outcome, such as receiving
money, praise, or avoiding punishment.
●​ Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory (SDT)
○​ Description of Theory: SDT proposes that people are motivated to grow and achieve, and that
autonomous motivation (self-chosen actions) is crucial for well-being. It differentiates between
intrinsic motivation and various forms of extrinsic motivation.
○​ Three basic psychological needs: SDT identifies three innate psychological needs that, when satisfied,
foster intrinsic motivation and well-being:
1.​ Autonomy: The need to feel in control of one's own behaviour and decisions.
2.​ Relatedness: The need to feel connected to others, to belong, and to experience care from
others.
 3.​ Competence: The need to feel capable, effective, and skilled in one's interactions with the
environment and tasks.
●​ Evaluating Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory:
○​ Strength: Research shows that extrinsic rewards can sometimes reduce intrinsic motivation if they are
perceived as controlling. However, if rewards are delivered in an autonomy-supportive way (e.g., as
recognition), they can increase intrinsic motivation.
○​ Cultural differences: While the basic needs are universal, the ways they are expressed and satisfied
can vary across individualistic and collectivist cultures.
○​ Application to everyday life: SDT provides valuable insights for managers to enhance employee
motivation by fostering autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the workplace, for example, by
providing choices, positive feedback, and team-building activities.
●​ Issues and Debates:
○​ Determinism versus free will: SDT suggests that behaviour is partly determined by the type of
motivation (e.g., extrinsic motivation can increase performance but decrease intrinsic motivation).
However, it also emphasizes individual choice and the pursuit of self-determined goals, supporting
free will.
○​ Individual and situational explanations: The theory addresses both individual differences in
motivation and situational factors (e.g., how rewards are administered) that influence motivation.
○​ Reductionism versus holism: SDT can be seen as somewhat reductionist as it focuses on specific
psychological needs, although it attempts to integrate various motivational factors into a broader
framework.

9.2 Leadership and management

9.2.1 Traditional and modern theories of leadership

●​ Universalist theories: These theories assume that there are inherent characteristics or traits that define
effective leaders, regardless of the situation.​

○​ Great Person Theory: Posits that leaders are born, not made, possessing innate, often inherited,
characteristics that qualify them for leadership. Examples include historical figures like Martin Luther
and Napoleon.
○​ Charismatic Leadership Theory: Describes leaders who inspire followers through their personal
charm, vision, and ability to influence. Main characteristics include: charisma, ability to attract followers,
sensitivity to environment, good communicators, risk-takers, and setting high performance standards.
 ○​ Transformational Leadership Theory: Focuses on leaders who inspire and motivate followers to
transcend their self-interest for the good of the organisation, leading to higher levels of performance
and self-actualisation. Key components include:
1.​ Idealised influence: Leaders act as role models, embodying shared values.
2.​ Inspirational motivation: Leaders communicate an appealing vision, inspiring followers.
3.​ Intellectual stimulation: Leaders encourage creativity and challenge existing assumptions.
4.​ Individualised consideration: Leaders act as mentors, attending to individual follower
needs.
●​ Evaluating universalist theories:​

○​ Weakness: Great person theory is often criticised for suggesting leadership cannot be learned or
developed. Research indicates that leadership skills can be acquired.
●​ Issues and Debates:​

○​ Nature versus nurture: Great person theory strongly supports a 'nature' explanation for leadership.
Charismatic and transformational theories blend elements of innate qualities with learned behaviours
and skills (nurture).
○​ Individual and situational explanations: These theories primarily focus on individual traits and
characteristics of the leader, often neglecting the influence of situational factors or context.
○​ Reductionism versus holism: Universalist theories can be reductionist by trying to identify a limited
set of traits or behaviours. Transformational leadership, with its broader scope, moves towards a more
holistic view.
○​ GeneraliSations from findings: Universalist theories often assume that effective leadership traits are
universal, but this may not apply across all cultures or situations.
●​ Behavioural theories of leadership: These theories focus on what leaders do rather than who they are,
suggesting that leadership behaviours can be learned and developed.​

○​ Ohio University behavioural explanations: Identified two main dimensions of leader behaviour:
1.​ Initiating (Structural) Behaviours: Task-related actions, such as defining roles, setting
clear performance standards, emphasising deadlines, and coordinating tasks.
2.​ Consideration (Listening) Behaviours: Relationship-oriented actions, such as building
trust, showing respect for ideas, being empathetic, and supporting followers.
○​ Michigan University behavioural explanations: Identified two orientations of leadership behaviour:
 1.​ Employee Orientation: Leaders focus on human relations, valuing employees, building trust,
and showing concern for their well-being.
2.​ Production Orientation: Leaders focus on the technical aspects of the job, emphasising
tasks, deadlines, and efficiency.
●​ Evaluating behavioural theories:​

○​ Strength: Quantitative research using rating scales enhances the scientific rigor and reliability of these
findings.
○​ Weakness: The Ohio University explanation can be reductionist by focusing solely on specific
behaviours, potentially overlooking other complex factors. Both theories sometimes ignore situational
factors, assuming that certain behaviours are effective in all contexts.
●​ Issues and Debates:​

○​ Reductionism versus holism: These theories can be reductionist by breaking leadership into
observable behaviours, but a more holistic view would consider the interplay of traits, behaviours, and
situations.
○​ Individual and situational explanations: Behavioural theories primarily highlight situational factors
(the impact of leader behaviours on followers) but sometimes overlook individual differences among
leaders or followers.
○​ Nature versus nurture: These theories lean towards 'nurture', suggesting that leadership behaviours
can be learned and trained.
○​ Application to everyday life: Provides practical guidance for training leaders to adopt effective
behaviours in the workplace.
●​ Heifetz’s six principles in meeting adaptive challenges​

○​ Description of Theory: Heifetz's theory focuses on "adaptive leadership," which addresses complex,
systemic problems ("adaptive challenges") that require changes in values, beliefs, or behaviours within
an organisation. Adaptive leaders help people navigate these changes.
○​ Adaptive challenges: These are difficult changes that require people to modify their habits and ways
of thinking, rather than just solving a technical problem.
○​ Six principles for leaders:
1.​ Get on the balcony: Leaders need to step back and observe the bigger picture of their
organisation and its environment.
 2.​ Identify adaptive challenges: Distinguish between technical problems (which have known
solutions) and adaptive challenges (which require fundamental change).
3.​ Regulate distress: Leaders manage the stress and discomfort that comes with change,
keeping it within a productive range without overwhelming people.
4.​ Maintain disciplined attention: Leaders keep the focus on difficult and uncomfortable
issues that people might want to avoid.
5.​ Give the work back to employees: Leaders empower followers to take responsibility for
solving problems and making changes.
6.​ Protect creative deviants: Leaders support individuals who challenge the status quo and
offer new, innovative solutions.
●​ Evaluating Heifetz's six principles:​

○​ Strength: Provides clear, actionable recommendations for leaders facing complex organisational
changes. Successfully applied, for instance, in British Airways to improve customer satisfaction and
productivity.
○​ Weakness: The model can be abstract and difficult to measure directly. It may also underemphasise the
role of individual leader traits or skills.
●​ Issues and Debates:​

○​ Individual and situational explanations: Primarily focuses on situational factors (adaptive challenges,
organisational context) but could integrate individual leadership styles.
○​ Reductionism versus holism: The principles break down adaptive leadership into distinct actions,
which can be seen as reductionist. However, the overall framework aims to address complex, holistic
organisational problems.
○​ Nature versus nurture: Emphasises learned behaviours and strategies ('nurture') for leaders to apply
in challenging situations.
○​ Application to everyday life: Offers a practical framework for managers to lead through change and
improve organisational effectiveness.
9.2.2 Leadership style

●​ Muczyk and Reimann’s four styles of leader behaviour​

○​ Description of Theory: Muczyk and Reimann (1987) proposed four leadership styles based on two
dimensions:
1.​ Direction: The degree to which a leader oversees and controls the execution of tasks.
2.​ Participation: The degree to which a leader allows subordinates to participate in
decision-making.
○​ Four Leadership Styles:
1.​ Directive Autocrat: High direction, low participation. The leader makes decisions and closely
monitors execution without input from subordinates.
2.​ Permissive Autocrat: Low direction, low participation. Subordinates make decisions, but the
leader does not monitor execution, which can be problematic for complex tasks.
3.​ Directive Democrat: High direction, high participation. Subordinates participate in
decision-making, and the leader provides strong guidance and monitors execution.
4.​ Permissive Democrat: Low direction, high participation. Subordinates make decisions and
have considerable control over execution, with the leader providing support rather than direct
control. This style is often effective for highly competent and motivated teams.
●​ Evaluating Muczyk and Reimann's theory:​

○​ Strength: It offers a balanced view of leadership, considering both decision-making and execution, and
suggests that different styles may be appropriate in different contexts, including cultural variations.
○​ Weakness: The model's classification into only four styles may be reductionist and oversimplify the
complex range of leader behaviours.
●​ Issues and Debates:​

○​ Reductionism versus holism: The theory simplifies leadership into four distinct categories
(reductionist). A holistic approach might consider a wider range of behaviours and the dynamic
interplay with situational factors.
○​ Individual and situational explanations: The model acknowledges situational factors (e.g., employee
competence) in determining the most effective style, moving beyond purely individual explanations.
●​ Scouller’s levels of leadership​
 ○​ Description of Theory: James Scouller (2011) proposed a "3Ps Model" of leadership, which describes
leadership at three interconnected levels:
1.​ Public Leadership: Focuses on visible actions a leader takes with a group, such as setting a
vision, achieving group tasks, building trust, and maintaining high performance standards.
2.​ Private Leadership: Focuses on one-on-one interactions with individuals, including
coaching, feedback, and understanding individual needs and motivations. It involves fostering
self-confidence, resilience, and addressing individual development.
3.​ Personal Leadership: Focuses on the leader's inner world, including their technical skills,
psychological skills (e.g., self-mastery, empathy), emotional intelligence, and moral intent.
This level influences the other two.
●​ Evaluating Scouller's theory:​

○​ Weakness: The model may be considered reductionist as it categorises leadership into distinct levels,
which might not fully capture the fluidity of leadership in practice. It may also be based on Western
values and traditional approaches, limiting its generalisability to all cultures and types of work.
●​ Issues and Debates:​

○​ Reductionism versus holism: Scouller's theory is more holistic than some other theories because it
integrates the leader's inner self with public and private behaviours. However, by defining distinct
levels, it still breaks down a complex phenomenon.

9.2.3 Leaders and followers

●​ Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)​

○​ Description of Theory: Kouzes and Posner’s research on exemplary leaders led to the identification of
five practices that leaders use to achieve extraordinary results, measured by the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI).
○​ Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership:
1.​ Model the Way: Leaders clarify values and set an example for others through their actions.
2.​ Inspire a Shared Vision: Leaders envision an exciting future and articulate a compelling
vision that motivates followers.
3.​ Challenge the Process: Leaders seek out opportunities for innovation, growth, and
improvement, taking risks and learning from mistakes.
 4.​ Enable Others to Act: Leaders foster collaboration, build trust, and empower others to
achieve success.
5.​ Encourage the Heart: Leaders recognise contributions and celebrate achievements,
fostering a sense of community and appreciation.
●​ Evaluating Kouzes and Posner's theory:​

○​ Strength: The LPI is a well-researched psychometric measure, showing good reliability and validity,
and is used globally in leadership development.
○​ Weakness: As a self-report psychometric test, it can be susceptible to social desirability bias, where
participants might present themselves in a more favourable light. Its findings on leadership practices
might also be influenced by cultural differences.
●​ Issues and Debates:​

○​ Cultural differences: Research suggests that while the LPI identifies general leadership practices,
their specific manifestation and perceived importance can vary across cultures.
○​ Idiographic versus nomothetic: The LPI is a nomothetic tool, aiming to identify general leadership
practices. However, its application in real-world contexts can lead to idiographic insights into
individual leaders' development.
○​ Application to everyday life: The LPI provides a practical framework for leadership development,
helping individuals and organisations understand and improve leadership effectiveness.
●​ Kelley’s (1988) followership​

○​ Description of Theory: Robert Kelley (1988) argued that followership is an active and crucial
component of organisational success, not merely passive obedience. He identified two dimensions of
followership:
1.​ Independent, critical thinking vs. Dependent, uncritical thinking: Reflects the extent to
which followers think for themselves and challenge ideas.
2.​ Active vs. Passive participation: Describes the level of engagement and initiative a follower
takes.
○​ Five Followership Styles:
1.​ Passive (Sheep): Low on both dimensions; dependent, uncritical thinking, and passive
participation.
 2.​ Alienated: High on independent, critical thinking but passive in participation; often cynical
and negative.
3.​ Pragmatic Survivor: Exhibits a blend of all four extremes, adapting their style to the
situation. They tend to remain in the middle of the road.
4.​ Conformist: Low on independent, critical thinking but high on active participation;
'yes-people' who are eager to please.
5.​ Exemplary: High on both dimensions; independent, critical thinkers who are actively engaged
and self-managed. These are considered the most effective followers.
●​ Evaluating Kelley's followership theory:​

○​ Strength: Kelley's theory was one of the first to highlight the importance of followership and provide a
framework for understanding different follower behaviours, offering insights into effective workplace
dynamics.
○​ Weakness: The model simplifies followers into five distinct categories, which can be reductionist and
may not fully capture the complexity and fluidity of individual behaviours in a diverse workplace. It may
also have limited generalisability across all cultures, as different cultures might value different follower
traits.
●​ Issues and Debates:​

○​ Cultural differences: The effectiveness and perception of followership styles can vary across cultures;
for example, what is considered 'exemplary' in one culture might differ in another.
○​ Reductionism versus holism: The theory categorises followership into five types, which is a
reductionist approach to a complex human behaviour. A more holistic view would consider the nuances
and individual variations beyond these categories.
○​ Application to everyday life: The theory helps managers identify and develop different followership
styles, promoting more effective collaboration and organisational success.