Leadership

Editor's Notes

• #6: 08884048652
• #32: Task-oriented behavior Effective managers studied did not do the same kind work as their subordinates. Their tasks were different, and included planning and scheduling work, coordinating activities and providing necessary resources. They also spent time guiding subordinates in setting task goals that were both challenging and achievable. Relationship-oriented behavior Effective managers not only concentrated on the task, but also on their relationship with their subordinates. They were more considerate, helpful and supportive of subordinates, including helping them with their career and personal problems. They recognized effort with intrinsic as well as extrinsic reward, thanking people for effort. Overall, the effective preferred a general and hands-off form of supervision rather than close control. They set goals and provided guidelines, but then gave their subordinates plenty of leeway as to how the goals would be achieved. Participative leadership Effective leaders use a participative style, managing at the group level as well as individually, for example using team meetings to share ideas and involve the team in group decisions and problem-solving. By their actions, such leaders model good team-oriented behavior. The role of the manager is more facilitative than directive, guiding the conversation and helping to resolve differences. The manager, however, is responsible for results and is not absolved of responsibility. As such, they may make final decisions that take recommendations from the team into account. The effect of participative leadership is to build a cohesive team which works together rather than a set of individuals. Although an early study, this is still often referenced. It is notable that the two factors correlate with the people-task division that appears in other studies and also as preferences (although the preference scale generally assumes an either-or structure rather than two independent scales). The Michigan studies were conducted around the same time as the Ohio State Leadership Studies, which also identified the focus on task ('Initiating Structure') and people ('Consideration'). The Michigan studies added 'Participative leadership' to the Ohio findings, moving the debate further into the question of leading teams rather than just individuals.
• #33: Contingency theories are a class of behavioral theory that contend that there is no one best way of leading and that a leadership style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others. An effect of this is that leaders who are very effective at one place and time may become unsuccessful either when transplanted to another situation or when the factors around them change. This helps to explain how some leaders who seem for a while to have the 'Midas touch' suddenly appear to go off the boil and make very unsuccessful decisions. Contingency theory is similar to situational theory in that there is an assumption of no simple one right way. The main difference is that situational theory tends to focus more on the behaviors that the leader should adopt, given situational factors (often about follower behavior), whereas contingency theory takes a broader view that includes contingent factors about leader capability and other variables within the situation.
• #34: Fiedler identified the a Least Preferred Co-Worker scoring for leaders by asking them first to think of a person with which they worked that they would like least to work with again, and then to score the person on a range of scales between positive factors (friendly, helpful, cheerful, etc.) and negative factors (unfriendly, unhelpful, gloomy, etc.). A high LPC leader generally scores the other person as positive and a low LPC leader scores them as negative. High LPC leaders tend to have close and positive relationships and act in a supportive way, even prioritizing the relationship before the task. Low LPC leaders put the task first and will turn to relationships only when they are satisfied with how the work is going. Three factors are then identified about the leader, member and the task, as follows: Leader-Member Relations: The extent to which the leader has the support and loyalties of followers and relations with them are friendly and cooperative. Task structure: The extent to which tasks are standardised, documented and controlled. Leader's Position-power: The extent to which the leader has authority to assess follower performance and give reward or punishment.