ORM6003 Foundations of Leadership Week 3

ORM6003 Foundations of
Leadership
Week 3
Monday, April 20, 2009 1

Compiled by:
Ronald Keith Bolender, Ed.D. (2005)
Nova Southeastern University
www.bolender.com

Important Copyright Note
This set of PowerPoint slides may only

be used in sections of ORM6003
Foundations of Leadership where
each student owns a copy of
Leadership: Theory and Practice
(Northouse, 2004).
References
Fielder, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership
effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The
transformation of professionals into self-
managing and partially self-designing
contributions: Toward a theory of leader-making.
Journal of Management Systems, 3 (3), 33-48.
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and
practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Devotions

Chapter 6: Contingency Theory
ICA 3-1 Least Preferred Coworker (LPC)

Measure
❚ In order to better understand the
presentation of contingency theory, this
exercise needs to be completed prior to
the lecture.
❚ Complete the Least Preferred Coworker
(LPC) Measure assessment on pages 119-
121 in the textbook (Northouse, 2004).

Contingency Theory
❚ Contingency theory is a leader-
match theory, which means it tries to
match leaders to appropriate
situations.
❚ It is called contingency because it
suggests that a leader’s effectiveness
depends on how well the leader’s
style fits the context.
❚ To understand the performance of

leaders, it is essential to understand
the situations in which they lead.
❚ Effective leadership is contingent
on matching a leader’s style to the
right setting.

❚ Fiedler (1967) developed contingency theory by

studying the styles of many different leaders who
worked in different contexts, primarily military
organizations.
❚ He assessed leaders’ styles, the situations in
which they worked, and whether or not they were
effective. After analyzing the styles of hundreds
of leaders who were both good and bad, Fiedler
and his colleagues were able to make empirically
grounded generalizations about which styles of
leadership were best and which styles were worst
for a given organizational context.

❚ Contingency theory is concerned

with styles and situations.
situations It
provides the framework for
effectively matching the leader and
the situation.

❚ Within the framework of contingency theory,

leadership styles are described as task-motivated
or relationship-motivated.
❚ Task-motivated leaders are concerned
primarily with reaching a goal, whereas
relationship-motivated leaders are concerned
with developing class interpersonal relations.
❚ To measure leader styles, Fielder developed the
Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. Leaders
who score high on this scale are described as
relationship-motivated, and those who score low
on the scale are identified as task-motivated.


❚ This theory is supported by a great deal of

empirical research. In an era in which
popular newsstand accounts of “how to be
a successful leader” abound, contingency
theory offers an approach to leadership
that has a long tradition. Many
researchers have tested it and have found
it to be a valid and reliable approach to
explaining how effective leadership can be
achieved.
❚ The contingency theory is predictive and
therefore provides useful information regarding the
type of leadership that will most likely be effective
in certain contexts.
❚ From the data provided by the LPC scale and the
descriptions of three aspects of a situation (i.e.
leader-member relations, task structure and
position power), it is possible to determine the
probability of success for a given individual in a
given situation.
❚ This gives contingency theory predictive
power that other leadership theories do not
have.
❚ This theory is advantageous because it

does not require that people be effective
in all situations.
❚ So often leaders in organizations feel the
need to be all things to all people, which
may be asking too much of leaders.
❚ Contingency theory argues that leaders
should not expect to be able to lead in
every situation.
❚ Companies should try to place leaders in
optimal situations, in situations that are
ideal for their leadership style.
Chapter 7: Path-Goal Theory
Path-Goal Theory
❚ Path-goal theory is about how leaders
motivate subordinates to accomplish
designated goals.
❚ It draws heavily from research on what
motivates employees.
❚ The stated goal of this leadership theory is
to enhance employee performance and
employee satisfaction by focusing on
employee motivation.

❚ In contrast to the situational approach,
which suggests that a leader must adapt to
the development level of subordinates, and
unlike contingency theory, which
emphasizes the match between the
leader’s style and specific situational
variables, path-goal theory emphasizes
the relationship between the leader’s
style and the characteristics of the
subordinates and the work setting.
setting
❚ The underlying assumption of path-goal

theory is derived from expectancy
theory,
theory which suggests that subordinates
will be motivated:
❙ If they think they are capable of performing
their work
❙ If they believe their efforts will result in certain
outcome
❙ If they believe that the payoff for doing their
work is worthwhile
❚ For the leader, the challenge is to use a

leadership style that best meets subordinates’
motivational needs.
❚ This is done by choosing behaviors that
complement or supplement what is missing in
the work setting.
❚ Leaders try to enhance subordinates’ goal
attainment by providing information or rewards
in the work environment; leaders provide
subordinates with the elements they think
subordinates need to reach their goals.
❚ By choosing the appropriate style, leaders
increase subordinates’ expectations for success
and satisfaction.



ICA 3-2 Path-Goal Leadership

Questionnaire
❚ Complete the Path-Goal Leadership
Questionnaire assessment on pages
142-143 in the textbook (Northouse,
2004).
❚ Share with the class what style of
leadership you use most often and
which you use less frequently.
ICA 3-3 In-class Writing Assignment Over Case Study
7.3
❚ Grade: This assignment is worth a
maximum of 20 points.
❚ Read Case Study 7.3 on pages 138-140 in
Northouse (2004).
❚ On paper, write out the questions and
your answers to the questions listed at the
end of this case study.
❙ PLEASE PRINT
❚ Break into groups of four to five and
discuss this case study.
Chapter 8: Leader-Member
Exchange Theory (LMX)
Leader-Member Exchange Theory

(LMX)
❚ Up to this point, most of the theories
presented have emphasized
leadership from the view of the
leader (trait approach, skills
approach and style approach) or the
follower and the context (situational
leadership, contingency theory and
path-goal theory).
❚ Leader-member exchange (LMX)

theory takes still another approach
and conceptualizes leadership as a
process that is centered on the
interactions between leaders and
followers. LMX theory makes the
dyadic relationship between
leaders and followers the focal point
of the leadership process.

❚ Prior to LMX theory, researchers treated
leadership as something leaders did
toward all of their followers.
❚ This assumption implied that leaders
treated followers in a collective way, as a
group, using an average leadership style.
❚ LMX theory challenged this assumption
and directed researchers’ attention to the
differences that might exist between the
leader and each of her or his followers.

In-Group and Out-Group

❚ The LMX theory is based on the difference
between the leader/follower linkage
known as an in-group versus the out-
group leader/follower linkage.
❚ In-group
❙ Those that are based on expanded and
negotiated role responsibilities (extra-roles).
❚ Out-group
❙ Those that are based on the formal
employment contract (defined roles).


❚ LMX theory works in two ways:

❙ It describes leadership
❙ It prescribes leadership
❚ In both instances, the central concept is
the dyadic relationship that a leader forms
with each of her or his subordinates.
❚ Descriptively, LMX theory suggests it is
important to recognize the existence of
in-groups and out-groups within a
group or organization. IMPORTANT
CONCEPT!
❚ The difference in how goals are accomplished
using in-groups as compared with out-groups is
substantial.
❚ Working with an in-group allows a leader to
accomplish more work in a more effective
manner than working without one.
❚ In-group members are willing to do more than is
required of their job description and look for
innovative ways to advance the group’s goals.
❚ In response to their extra effort and devotion,
leaders give them more responsibilities and more
opportunities.
❚ Leaders also give in-group members more of
their time and support.
❚ Out-group members act quite differently from in-

group members.
❚ Rather than trying to do extra work, out-group
members operate strictly within their prescribed
organizational roles. They do what is required of
them, but nothing more.
❚ Leaders treat out-group members fairly and
according to the formal contract, but they do not
give them special attention.
❚ For their efforts, out-group members receive the
standard benefits as described by the job
description.
❚ Prescriptively, LMX theory is best understood

within the leadership-making model of Graen and
Uhl-Bien (1991). The authors advocated that
leaders should create a special relationship with
all subordinates, similar to those relationships
described as in-group relationships.
❚ Rather than focusing on the differences between
in-group and out-group members, the leadership-
making model suggests that leaders should look
for ways to build trust and respect with al of their
subordinates, thus making the entire work unit
an in-group.

ICA 3-4 Review of HWA 3-4
Interview Assignment
❚ Break into groups of four or five.
❚ Share the HWA 3-4 interview
experience.
❚ Discuss how the information from
the interview will be incorporated
into the HWA 5-2 Interview and
Analysis of a Leader Project.
Review of the other homework
assignments (HWAs) for Week Four.

ORM6003 Foundations of Leadership Week 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORM6003 Foundations of Leadership Week 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORM6003 Foundations of

Monday, April 20, 2009 1

Monday, April 20, 2009 2

This set of PowerPoint slides may only

Monday, April 20, 2009 4

Monday, April 20, 2009 5

ICA 3-1 Least Preferred Coworker (LPC)

Monday, April 20, 2009 6

❚ To understand the performance of

Monday, April 20, 2009 8

❚ Fiedler (1967) developed contingency theory by

Monday, April 20, 2009 9

❚ Contingency theory is concerned

Monday, April 20, 2009 10

❚ Within the framework of contingency theory,

Monday, April 20, 2009 11

Monday, April 20, 2009 12

❚ This theory is supported by a great deal of

❚ This theory is advantageous because it

Monday, April 20, 2009 16

❚ The underlying assumption of path-goal

❚ For the leader, the challenge is to use a

Monday, April 20, 2009 20

Monday, April 20, 2009 21

Monday, April 20, 2009 22

ICA 3-2 Path-Goal Leadership

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

❚ Leader-member exchange (LMX)

Monday, April 20, 2009 27

Monday, April 20, 2009 28

In-Group and Out-Group

Monday, April 20, 2009 29

Monday, April 20, 2009 30

❚ LMX theory works in two ways:

❚ Out-group members act quite differently from in-

❚ Prescriptively, LMX theory is best understood

Monday, April 20, 2009 34

Monday, April 20, 2009 36

You might also like