|
 



    
|

 
  |
 
 
|
 

|
  




 |
 
     |
 
!
 
 "
#
 
1.  
  |
 
 $
 "|
 
Leadership can be defined as either a process or a
property.
As a process, 
 is the use of noncoercive
influence to shape the group's or organization's goals,
motivate behavior toward the achievement of those
goals, and help define group or organization culture.

As a property, leadership is the set of characteristics

attributed to individuals who are perceived to be leaders.
Thus, 
 are people who can influence the
behaviors of others without having to rely on force, and
leaders are people whom others accept as leaders.
 |
 %  &

" $ 
ã rom these definitions, it should be clear that leadership and management
are related, but it should be equally clear that they are also different.
ã Thus, a person can be a manager, a leader, both, or neither.
ã
rganizations around the world are putting a premium on the importance of
leadership. CE
s like Welch and Iacocca make millions of dollars each
year, and companies like General oods, General Electric, Johnson &
Johnson, and Apple spend millions more each year trying to identify
potential leaders and hone their skills.
ã
n the other hand, many critics argue that leadership cannot be developed
in people in a systematic fashion. Their position is that leaders are born or
that they emerge through some random series of events.
ã The truth probably lies somewhere in between. There are no magical
formulas that transform nonleaders into leaders, but it is possible for a
person to change his or her approach to things and assume the leadership
mantle. It is also possible for leadership skills and abilities to be improved
with education and practice.
  
|
 
ã
  '  

 (  
'
 
 
ã  is the ability to affect the behavior of others.

ne can have power without actually using it.

(
 
   
  
  



 
     
 


  


 


  

In organizational settings, there are usually five kinds of power:

ã legitimate,
ã reward,
ã coercive,
ã referent,
ã expert power.
 |
 

| "$
  is power granted through the organizational

hierarchy; it is the power defined by the organization that is to be
accorded people occupying a particular position. A boss can tell a
subordinate to do something, and a subordinate who refuses can be
reprimanded or even fired. Such outcomes stem from the boss's
legitimate power as defined and vested in him by the organization.
Legitimate power, then, is the same as authority. All managers have
legitimate power over their subordinates. The mere possession of
legitimate power, however, does not by itself make someone a
leader. In many cases, subordinates follow only orders that are
strictly within the letter of organizational rules and policies. If asked
to do something outside their defined domain, they refuse or do a
slipshod job. In such cases, their manager is exercising authority but
not leadership.
 ] 


]
 is the power to give or withhold rewards. Rewards

that may be under the control of an individual manager include
salary increases, bonuses, promotion recommendations, praise,
recognition, and interesting job assignments.
In general, the greater the number of rewards controlled by a
manager and the more important the rewards are to subordinates,
the greater is the manager's reward power.
If the subordinate sees as valuable only the formal organizational
rewards provided by the manager, then there is no leadership.
However, if the subordinate also wants and appreciates informal
rewards like praise, gratitude, and recognition from the manager,
then the manager is also exercising leadership.
 
 

   is the power to force compliance by means of

psychological, emotional, or physical threat. In some isolated
settings, coercion can take the form of physical punishment.
Examples include the military and prisons, where first-line
supervisors occasionally strike or beat subordinates until they
comply or as punishment for breaking rules and regulations. The
available means of coercion are limited to verbal reprimands, written
reprimands, disciplinary layoffs, fines, demotion, and termination.
Some managers occasionally go so far as to use verbal abuse,
humiliation, and psychological coercion in an attempt to manipulate
subordinates.
The more punitive the elements under a manager's control and the
more important they arc to subordinates, the more coercive power
the manager pos-sesses.
n the other hand, the more a manager
uses coercive power, the more likely he or she is to provoke
resentment and hostility²and the less likely he or she is to be seen
as a leader.
 ] 


Compared with legitimate, reward, and coercive power, which are

relatively concrete and grounded in objective facets of
organizational life, referent power is more abstract. It is based on
identification, imitation, or charisma. ollowers may react favorably
because they identify in some way with a leader, who may be like
them in personality, background, or attitudes. In other situations,
followers might choose to imitate a leader with referent power by
wearing the same kinds of clothes, working the same hours, or
espousing the same management philosophy.
Referent power may also take the form of charisma, an intangible
attribute in the leader's personality that inspires loyalty and
enthusiasm. Thus, while a manager might have referent power, it is
more likely to be associated with leadership.
 —



)  is derived from information or expertise. A

manager who knows how to deal with an eccentric but
important customer, a scientist who is capable of
achieving an important technical breakthrough that no
other company has dreamed of, and a secretary who
knows how to unravel bureaucratic red tape - all have
expert power over anyone who needs that information.
The more important the information and the fewer the
people who have access to it, the greater is the degree
of expert power possessed by any one individual. In
general, people who are both leaders and managers
tend to have a lot of expert power.
 á 


Several methods of using power have

been identified:
ã the legitimate request
ã Instrumental compliance
ã coercion
ã personal identification
ã information distortion
 á 


ã The legitimate request: involves the

manager requesting that the subordinate
comply because the subordinate
recognizes that the organization has given
the manager the right to make the request.
Most day-to-day interactions between
manager and subordinate are of this type.
 á 


 $ 
$
 * This form of exchange is

based primarily on reward power, and it bears out the
reinforcement theory of motivation. Suppose that a
manager asks a subordinate to do something outside the
range of the subordinate's normal duties, such as
working extra hours on the weekend, terminating a
relationship with a long-standing buyer, or delivering bad
news. The subordinate complies and, as a direct result,
acquire praise and a bonus from the manager. The next
time the subordinate is asked to perform a similar
activity, that subordinate will recognize that compliance
will be instrumental in his getting more rewards. Hence
the basis of instrumental compliance is clarifying
important performance-reward contingencies.
 á 


   * When the manager suggests or

implies that the subordinate will be punished, fired, or
reprimanded if he or she does not do something,
coercion is being practiced. Rational persuasion occurs
when the manager can convince the subordinate that
compliance is in the subordinate's best interest. or
example, a manager might argue that the subordinate
should (or should not) accept a transfer because it would
(or would not) be good for the subordinate's career. In
some ways, rational persuasion is similar to reward
power, except that the manager does not really control
the reward. Elements of expert power are also present in
that the manager may be seen as a knowledgeable
person.
 á 


 
 
 * A manager who recognizes

that he or she has referent power over a subordinate can
shape the behavior of that subordinate by engaging in
desired behaviors - that is, the manager consciously
becomes a model for the subordinate and exploits
personal identification. Sometimes a manager can
induce someone to do something through inspirational
appeal because it is consistent with a set of higher ideals
or values. or example, a plea for loyalty represents an
inspirational appeal. Referent power plays a role in
determining the extent to which an inspirational appeal is
successful, because its effectiveness depends at least in
part on the persuasive abilities of the leader.
 á 


$
  * A dubious method of using

power is through information distortion. The manager
withholds or distorts information to influence
subordinates' behavior.
or example, if a manager has agreed to allow everyone
to participate in choosing a new group member but
subsequently finds one individual whom she really
prefers, she might withhold some of the credentials of
other qualified applicants so that the desired member is
selected. This use of power is dangerous. It may be
unethical, and if subordinates find out the manager has
deliberately misled them, they will lose their confidence
and trust in that manager's leadership.
 j. THE SEARCH
R
LEADERSHIP TRAITS
The first organized approach to studying leadership was
to analyze the personal, psychological, and physical
traits of strong leaders. The underlying assumption of the
trait approach was that there existed some basic trait or
set of traits that differentiated leaders from nonleaders. If
those traits could be defined, potential leaders could be
identified. It was thought that leadership traits might
include intelligence, assertiveness, above-average
height, good vocabulary, attractiveness, self-confidence,
and similar attributes.
During the first several decades of this century, literally
hundreds of studies were conducted in an attempt to
identify important leadership traits. or the most part, the
results of the studies were disappointing.
 THE SEARCH
R LEADERSHIP
TRAITS
ã or every set of leaders who possessed a common trait, a long list
of exceptions was also found, and the list of suggested traits soon
grew so long that it had little practical value. Alternative explanations
usually existed even for relations between traits and leadership that
initially appeared valid.
or example, it was observed that many leaders have good
communication skills and are assertive. Rather than those traits
being the cause of leadership, however, it might be that successful
leaders begin to display those traits after they have achieved
leadership positions.
ã As it was determined that such traits vary with the situation, many
researchers gave up trying to identify traits as predictors of
leadership ability. However, many people still explicitly or implicitly
adopt a trait orientation.
or example, politicians are all too often elected on the basis of
personal appearance, speaking ability, or an aura of self-confidence.
 r. LEADERSHIP BEHAVI
RS
ã Spurred on by their lack of success in
identifying useful leadership traits,
researchers soon began to investigate
other variables, especially the behaviors or
actions of leaders. The new hypothesis
was that the behaviors of effective leaders
were somehow different from the
behaviors of less effective leaders. Thus,
the goal was to develop a fuller
understanding of leadership behaviors.
 r. LEADERSHIP BEHAVI
RS
 &"
  
The studies identified two basic forms of leader behavior:
ã +,-   
 , 
When using this behavior,  
leader pays close attention to subordinates' work, explains work
procedures, and is keenly interested in performance.
ã $' -   
 , 
In this case, the leader is
interested in developing a cohesive work group and ensuring that
employees are satisfied with their jobs. Thus, the leader's primary
concern is the welfare of subordinates.

The two styles of leader behavior were presumed to be at the ends

of a single continuum. Although this suggests that leaders may be
extremely job-centered, extremely employee-centered, or
somewhere in between, Likert studied only the two end styles for
contrast. He found that employee-centered leader behavior
generally tended to be more effective.
 LEADERSHIP BEHAVI
RS
 
   
The studies suggested that there are two basic
leader behaviors or styles:
ã  
 "-   , 
When using this
behavior, the leader clearly defines the leader-
subordinate role so that everyone knows what is
expected, establishes formal lines of
communication, and determines how tasks will
be performed
ã   
 , 
In this instance, the
leader shows concern for subordinates and
attempts to establish a friendly and supportive
climate
 LEADERSHIP BEHAVI
RS
 
   
ã The job-centered and employee-centered behaviors
identified at Michigan are similar to the initiating-structure
and consideration behaviors recognized at
hio State,
but there are significant differences. The most obvious
difference is that the forms of leader behavior are not
seen by the
hio State researchers as being at opposite
ends of a single continuum. Rather, they are assumed to
be independent variables. A leader can exhibit varying
levels of initiating structure and at the same time varying
levels of consideration. igure shows the
hio State
view of leader behavior.
At first, the
hio State researchers thought that leaders
who exhibit high levels of both behaviors would tend to
be more effective than other leaders.
LEADERSHIP BEHAVI
RS
 
   
 A study at International Harvester
ã A study at International Harvester (now Navistar),
however, suggested a more complicated pattern. The
researchers found that employees of supervisors who
ranked high on initiating structure were higher
performers but expressed lower levels of satisfaction.
Conversely, employees of supervisors who ranked high
on consideration had lower performance ratings but had
fewer absences from work.
ã Later research isolated other variables that make
consistent prediction difficult and determined that
situational influences also occurred.
 LEADERSHIP BEHAVI
RS
 &

" 
.
The Managerial Grid can also be seen as a
model of leadership based on two forms of
leader behavior:
ã      (similar to employee-
centered and consideration behavior)
ã      (similar to job-centered
and initiating-structure behaviors).
By combining the two forms of behavior, the
Managerial Grid offers a way to analyze leader
behavior in ongoing organizations.
The Role of the Leader-
Leader-behavior
Theories
The leader-behavior theories have played an important role in the
development of contemporary thinking about leadership. In particular, they
urge us not to be preoccupied with what leaders are (the trait approach) but
to concentrate on what leaders do (their behaviors).

Unfortunately, they also fall prey to the trap of making universal

prescriptions about what constitutes effective leadership. When we are
dealing with complex social systems composed of complex individuals,
there are few if any consistently predictable relationships, and certainly
there are no infallible formulas for success. Yet the behavior theorists tried
to identify consistent relationships between leader behaviors and employee
responses, in the hope of finding a dependable prescription for effective
leadership. As we might expect, they often failed. Thus, other approaches to
understanding leadership were needed. The catalyst for these new
approaches was the realization that, although interpersonal and task-
oriented dimensions might be useful to describe the behavior of leaders,
they were not useful for predicting or prescribing it. The next step in the
evolution of leadership theory was the creation of situational models.
 =. SITUATI
NAL APPR
ACHES
T
LEADERSHIP
ã The basic assumption of situational
models is that appropriate leader behavior
varies from one situation to another.
ã The goal of a situational theory is to
identify key situational factors and to
specify how they interact to determine
appropriate leader behavior.
 SITUATI
NAL APPR
ACHES T

LEADERSHIP
ã In 1958 Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt proposed a continuum
of leadership behavior in the decision-making process.
ã Their model is much like the original Michigan framework. However, besides
purely job-centered behavior (or "boss-centered" behavior, as they termed
it) and employee-centered (which they termed "subordinate-centered")
behavior, they identified several intermediate possibilities that a manager
might consider. These are shown on the leadership continuum in igure.
ã This continuum of behavior moves from the one extreme of having the
manager make the decision alone to the other extreme of having the
employees make the decision with minimal guidance. Each point on the
continuum is influenced by factors relating manager, subordinates, and
situation. Managerial factors include the manager's value system,
confidence in subordinates, personal inclinations, and feelings of security.
Subordinate factors include the subordinates' need for in-dependence,
readiness to assume responsibility, tolerance for ambiguity, interest in the
problem, understanding of goals, knowledge, experience, and expectations.
Situational factors that affect the decision making include the type of
organization, group effectiveness, the problem itself, and time pressures.
Tannenbaum and Schmidt's
Leadership Continuum
(  /  " ' '
iedler's   " ' '
 was the
first true situational theory of leadership. Beginning with
a combined trait and behavior approach, iedler
identifies two styles of leadership:
ã task-oriented (analogous to job-centered and initiating-
structure behavior)
ã relationship-oriented (similar to employee-centered and
consideration behavior).

However, he goes beyond the leadership-behavior

approaches by arguing that the style of leader behavior
is a reflection of the leader's personality and is basically
constant for any person - that is, a leader is presumed to
be task-oriented or relationship-oriented all of the time.
 (  /  " ' '
ã iedler measures leader style by means of a controversial
questionnaire called the 
   - 0 1| measure.
To use the measure, a manager or leader is asked to describe the
person with whom he or she is able to work least well²the LPC²by
filling a set of sixteen scales anchored at each end by a positive or
negative adjective.
ã The leader's LPC score is then calculated by adding up the numbers
below the line checked on each scale. The higher numbers are
associated with the "good" words (helpful, relaxed, and interesting),
whereas the "bad" words (frustrating, tense, and boring) have low
point values. A high total score is assumed to reflect a relationship
orientation and a low score a task orientation on the part of the
leader.
(  /  " ' '
( 
   
The underlying assumption of situational
models of leadership is that appropriate leader
behavior varies from one situation to another.
According to iedler, the key situational factor is
the favorableness of the situation from the
leader's point of view which is determined by
three things:
ã leader-member relations,
ã task structure,
ã position power.
(  /  " ' '
|
 -$ $,  
 
   
    
 ,   

 
  0" *
ã
 
 
 " 
 
" " 
$ 
 (  (
   (
 '0 
 
 ( 
 
 
 $ , "
ã
    (  (   (

 ' 0  
 ( 
 
 
 $ 
, 
ã . 
 
 
 $ , 

, 

 
  

, 
(  /  " ' '
Task structure
is the degree to which the group's task is well defined:
ã When the task is routine, easily understood, and
unambiguous, and when the group has standard
procedures and precedents to rely on, the task is
considered to be structured.
ã An unstructured task is the opposite: nonroutine,
ambiguous, complex, with no standard procedures or
precedents.
ã High structure results in a more favorable position for the
leader; low structure is more unfavorable.
(  /  " ' '
Position power
is the power vested in the leader's position:
ã If the leader has the power to assign work, reward and
punish employees, and recommend employees for
promotion or demotion, position power is assumed to be
strong.
ã If the leader must get job assignments approved by
someone else, does not administer rewards and
punishment, and has no voice in promotions or
demotions, position power is weak.
ã rom the leader's point of view, strong position power is
clearly favorable and weak position power is
unfavorable.
(  /  " ' '
( 
  | 

iedler and his associates have conducted
numerous studies linking the
favorableness of various situations to
leader style and group effectiveness.
The results of these studies - and the
overall framework of the theory - are
shown in igure
(  /  " ' '
 (  /  " ' '
( 
  | 

ã To interpret the model, look first at the situational
factors at the bottom of the figure. Note that
good or poor leader-member relations,
structured or unstructured task, and strong or
weak leader-position Leadership power can be
combined to yield eight unique situations.
ã Above each situation is shown the form of leader
behavior found to be most strongly associated
with effective group performance in that
situation.
 (  /  " ' '
( 
  | 

ã Above each situation is shown the form of leader
behavior found to be most strongly associated with
effective group performance in that situation. When the
situation includes good relations, structured task, and
strong power, iedler has found that a task-oriented
leader is most effective. However, when relations are
good but the task is unstructured and position power is
weak, a relationship-oriented leader is predicted to be
most effective.
ã A task-oriented leader is supposedly effective when the
situation is very favorable and when the situation is very
unfavorable. The relationship-oriented style is most
effective under the intermediate conditions.
 (  /  " ' '
( | 

ã iedler argues that leader style is essentially fixed and
cannot be changed, that a leader cannot change her or
his behavior to fit a particular situation.
ã When a leader's style and the situation do not match,
iedler argues that the situation should be changed to fit
the leader's style. When leader-member relations are
good, task structure low, and position power weak, the
leader style most likely to be effective is relationship-
oriented. If the leader is task-oriented, a mismatch
exists. According to iedler, the leader can make the
elements of the situation more congruent by structuring
the task (by developing guidelines and procedures, for
instance) and increasing power (by requesting additional
authority or by other means).
 (  /  " ' '

2


" *
ã It is not always supported by research,
ã His findings are subject to other interpretations, the LPC
measure lacks validity,
ã That his assumptions about the inflexibility of leader
behavior are unrealistic.


" *
ã iedler's theory was one of the first to adopt a situational
perspective on leadership.
ã It has helped many managers recognize the important
situational factors they must contend with.
ã It has fostered additional thinking about the situational
nature of leadership.
  
-

-.
 '
ã The 
-"
 '
 - associated most
closely with Martin Evans and Robert House - is a direct
extension of the expectancy theory of motivation.
ã Recall that the primary components of expectancy
theory included the likelihood of attaining various
outcomes and the value associated with those
outcomes. The path-goal theory of leadership suggests
that the primary functions of a leader are to make valued
or desired rewards available in the workplace and to
clarify for the subordinate the kinds of behavior that will
lead to goal accomplishment and valued rewards - that
is, the leader should clarify the paths to goal attainment.
  
-

-.
 '
|


The most fully developed version of path-goal theory identifies four
kinds of leader behavior:
ã Directive leader behavior - letting subordinates know what is
expected of them, giving guidance and direction, and scheduling
work.
ã Supportive leader behavior - being friendly and approachable,
showing concern for subordinate welfare, and treating members as
equals.
ã Participative leader behavior - consulting subordinates, soliciting
suggestions, and allowing participation in decision making.
ã Achievement-oriented leader behavior - setting challenging goals,
expecting subordinates to perform at high levels, encouraging
subordinates and showing confidence in subordinates' abilities.
  
-

-.
 '
|


In contrast to iedler's theory, path-goal theory assumes that leaders can
change their style or behavior to meet the demands of a particular situation.

or example, when encountering a new group of subordinates and a new

project, the leader may be directive in establishing work procedures and in
outlining what needs to be done.

Next, the leader may adopt supportive behavior in an effort to foster group
cohesiveness and a positive climate.

As the group becomes more familiar with the task and as new problems are
encountered, the leader may exhibit participative behavior to enhance group
members' motivation.

inally, achievement-oriented behavior may be used to encourage

continued high performance.
  
-

-.
 '
˜ ( 

Two general categories of situational
factors that receive special attention in
path-goal theory are:
ã the personal characteristics of
subordinates
ã the environmental characteristics of the
workplace.
  
-

-.
 '
˜ ( 

Two important personal characteristics are the subordinates' perception of
their own ability and their locus of control.

If people perceive that they are lacking in ability, they may prefer directive
leadership to help them understand path-goal relationships better. If they
perceive themselves to have a lot of ability, however, employees may
resent directive leadership.

Locus of control is a personality trait. People who have an internal locus of

control believe that what happens to them is a function of their own efforts
and behavior. Those who have an external locus of control assume that fate
or luck or "the system" determines what happens to them. A person with an
internal locus of control may prefer participative leadership, whereas a
person with an external locus of control may prefer directive leadership.
Managers can do little or nothing to influence the personal characteristics of
subordinates, but they can shape the environment to take advantage of
these personal characteristics.
  
-

-.
 '
˜ ( 

ã Environmental characteristics include factors outside the
subordinate's control.
ã Task structure is one such factor. When structure is high, directive
leadership is less effective than when structure is low. Subordinates
do not usually need their boss to continually tell them how to do an
extremely routine job.
ã The formal authority system is another important environmental
characteristic. Again, the higher the degree of formality, the less
directive is the leader behavior that will be accepted by
subordinates.
ã The nature of the work group also affects appropriate leader
behavior. When the work group provides the individual with social
support and satisfaction, supportive leader behavior is less critical.
When social support and satisfaction cannot be derived from the
group, the individual may look to the leader for this support.
The Path-
Path-Goal ramework
 %$--3 
%$  --4
"$ 
1%34$ 
ã The third major situational theory of leadership that we
discuss is the %$-3  -4
"$ (or %34
$ This model was first proposed by Victor Vroom
and Philip Yetton in 197r and was revised and expanded
in 1988 by Vroom and Arthur G. Jago. The VYJ model is
somewhat narrower than the other situational theories in
that it focuses on only one part of the leadership process
- how much decision-making participation to allow
subordinates. Drawing from the Tannenbaum and
Schmidt continuum of leadership behaviors, the model
predicts what kinds of situations call for what degrees of
group partic-ipation. The VYJ model, then, sets norms or
standards for including subordinates in decision making.
 %$--3 
%$  --4
"$ 
1%34$ 
ë 

ã The VYJ model argues that decision effectiveness is
best gauged by the quality of the decision and by
employee acceptance of the decision.
ã Decision quality is the objective effect of the decision on
performance.
ã Decision acceptance is the extent to which employees
accept and are committed to the decision. To maximize
decision effectiveness, the VYJ model suggests that
managers adopt one of five decision-making styles. The
appropriate style depends on the situation. As
summarized in Table, there are two autocratic styles (AI
and All), two consultative styles (CI and CII), and one
group style (Gil).
 Decision Styles in the VYJ Model
2  ' 2  


Manager makes the decision alone.

 Manager asks for information from subordinates

but makes the decision alone. Subordinates may
or may not be informed about what the situation
is.

Manager shares the situation with individual
subordinates and asks for information and
evaluation. Subordinates do not meet as a group,
and the manager alone makes the decision.

Manager and subordinates meet as a group to
discuss the situation, but the manager makes the
decision.
GII Manager and subordinates meet as a group to
discuss the situation, and the group makes the
decision.

A = autocratic; C = consultative; G = group

 %$--3 
%$  --4
"$ 
1%34$ 
— 
The original version of the VYJ model has been widely
tested. Indeed, one recent review concluded that it had
received more scientific support than any other
leadership theory.
However, even the original version was criticized
because of its complexity, and the revised VYJ model is
far more complex than the original. To aid managers,
computer software has been developed to facilitate their
ability to define their situation, answer the questions
about problem attributes, and develop a strategy for
decision-making participation. Still, the inherent
complexity of the model presents a problem for many
managers.
 


 
In addition to those three major theories,
other situational models have been
developed in recent years. Two of the best
known are:
ã the vertical-dyad linkage model
ã the life cycle model.
 The  


--'
 0
"
$ (or
(or %2|
ã stresses the fact that leaders have different
kinds of relationships with different subordinates.
Each manager-subordinate relationship
represents one vertical dyad. The model
suggests that leaders establish special working
relationships with a handful of subordinates
called the in-group.
ther subordinates remain
in the out-group. Those in the in-group receive
more of the manager's time and attention and
also tend to be better performers. Early research
on this model is quite promising.
 R |  R 

ã This model suggests that appropriate leader behavior
depends on the maturity of the followers. In this context,
maturity includes motivation, competence, and
experience. The theory suggests that as followers
become more mature, the leader needs to gradually
move from a high level of task orientation to a low level.
Simultaneously, employee-oriented behavior should start
low, increase at a moderate rate, and then decline again.
This theory is well-known among practicing managers,
but it has received little scientific support from
researchers.
5. NEW PERSPECTIVES
N LEADERSHIP

ã The concept of  ,  
 was developed in

response to the fact that existing leadership models and theories do
not account for situations in which leadership is not needed. They
simply try to specify what kind of leader behavior is appropriate.
ã The substitute concepts, however, identify situations in which leader
behaviors are neutralized or replaced by characteristics of the
subordinate, the task, and the organization.

(
 
  
 

 

  
     
 

  
     
 


 







 



 NEW PERSPECTIVES
N
LEADERSHIP
 ,  |
 
ã 

   ,
 
$
'   
# 
 , 

   
,'( )   (      ( 
 
 (

    
"
#


( )
$ ( $'  

"  
,'
 )   $
'  ,  

$
'(
 "      ,'  ,
 $
'  

 , 
   

  
0
$
' ,  

      ( 


,' ,
0(
  


 5  +,  
$ (  ,
 $
'  
  5  
0
 " "
     
'
' "(
  ,
 $
'  

 $

 
ã "
#



 
$
'  
 ,     
$
#
 ("   (  ),'(

"
   5 
 

 
 $

  ), ( )
$ (
 $
'
,   $
'(
"
' $$
', 
 / 

 (  ,' 
 " $
   
ã  $
' 

     ,  

 
 NEW PERSPECTIVES
N
LEADERSHIP

$

|
 
ã        
 
, 

 ,'
 $, 
, *
$

 (
 


 ('$,
 (


$


 
ã 5      $
$


 

  

 
" , ' 
'
) 
 ,'
$ "
  $ (
$ 
 "
  " )   (
  " 

' 0 "
ã 
$


 
  
 "',  "
 

   ,  
 NEW PERSPECTIVES
N
LEADERSHIP

$

|
 
ã ( )
$ (
   
- 
   
  0 '   
 *  "
 ,
 (   "
 (0  "(
 
" "0(,  "
 ) (  " (

$' " " "
,
 
 
$
 " 
  
  (
         $ 
 ' "
$


 
ã . ,  






" 
 (   
$



   , $   $  

 å. P
LITICAL BEHAVI
R IN

RGANIZATI
NS
Another common influence on behavior, even if one that is often less
appealing than leadership, is politics and political behavior.


, 
is activities carried out for the specific purpose of

acquiring, developing, and using power and other resources to
obtain one's preferred outcomes.

Decisions ranging from where to locate a manufacturing plant to

where to put the company coffeepot are subject to political action. In
any situation, individuals may engage in political behavior to further
their own ends, to protect themselves from others, to further goals
they sincerely believe to be in the organization's best interest, or
simply to acquire and exercise power. And power may be sought by
individuals, by groups of individuals, or by groups of groups.
 P
LITICAL BEHAVI
R IN

RGANIZATI
NS
A recent survey provides some interesting insights into how political
behavior is perceived in organizations: Some rr percent of the
respondents (=j8 managers) felt that politics influenced salary
decisions in their firms, and j8 percent felt that politics influenced
hiring decisions.

The respondents also felt that the incidence of political behavior was
greater at the upper levels of their organizations and less at the
lower levels.

Well over half of the respondents felt that organizational politics was
bad, unfair, unhealthy, and irrational; but most suggested that
successful executives have to be good politicians and that one has
to be political to "get ahead."
 $$ 
 

Research has identified four basic forms of political behavior widely practiced in
organizations:
ã
  $  occurs when a manager offers to give something to someone else in
return for that individual's support.
(
 
 
  

 

 
 



 
ã  
 relies on emotion and logic.
(
  
 
  
   


 
 
  
  
  
 
 
ã 
 
,"
 .
(
  


   





   
    
 

     
  



 

 ! !
    

ã   is the use of force to get one's way.
(
 

  
 

 
 


 
 
   
 &

" "
 

By its very nature, political behavior is tricky to approach in a rational and
systematic way. As practical guidelines, several actions have been
suggested:
ã Managers should be aware that even if their actions are not politically
motivated, others may assume that they are.
ã By providing subordinates with autonomy, responsibility, challenge, and
feedback, managers reduce the likelihood of political behavior by
subordinates.
ã Managers should avoid using power if they want to avoid charges of political
motivation.
ã Managers should get disagreements out in the open so that subordinates
will have less opportunity for political behavior, using conflict for their own
purposes.
ã Managers should avoid covert activities. Behind-the-scene activities give
the impression of political intent even if none really exists.
ã Use clearly communicating the bases and processes for performance
evaluation, tying rewards directly to performance, and minimizing
competition among managers for resources.