Denise Bieniek IST 661 – Leadership Paper

December 4, 2006

Leadership, in its many styles and applications, is ever-evolving. We have come a long way from the time before 1945 when the most common approach to leadership study was that of leader traits. Although many studies were conducted, these investigations have never been fully supported. The biggest concerns of these theories were the fact that some leaders who were considered successful did not possess all the listed traits and some leaders had other traits that were not on the list. Ralph Stodgill’s work showed that one could link clusters of personality traits to success in different situations. And, Gary Yukl found there are certain traits and skills that have been found to be characteristic of effective leaders, including, adaptability to situations, selfconfidence and creativity (1). Studies began shifting their focus from leader traits to leader attitudes and behavior after 1945. This is when Robert R. Blake’s and Jane S. Mouton’s Managerial Grid and Douglas McGregor’s X-Y Theory were formulated. In McGregor’s work, manager attitudes are divided into two opposite approaches: Theory X, in which the manager’s authoritative style is based on workers’ negative attitude toward work, and Theory Y, in which the manager’s participative style is based on workers’ positive attitude toward work. Comparing the Managerial Grid with McGregor’s X and Y styles, one can see that the grid’s two axes, concern for people and concern for task, result in four possible leadership styles: country club management, impoverished management, authority-obedience and team management. The Managerial Grid complements McGregor’s work because it gives one a continuum upon which to move from a Theory

Contingency. If a leader scores a worker with whom s/he did not work well high. Based on a subordinate’s job and psychological maturity. The problem with attitude and behavior models is the fact that neither look at the setting in which the leader and followers are working. Fred Fiedler’s model says that leadership style (task motivation and relationship motivation) and situational favorableness (or situational control) are based on three issues: leader-member relations. the group. and leader position power. and not just a jumping-off point and a finish as in Theory X-Y. a relationship-motivated leadership style is called for. A taskmotivated leadership style works best in either situation.telling subordinates what to do. leaders can adopt the style that best fits that subordinate’s situation.delegating work to them based on their high level of maturity. unfavorable. Selling the idea of the goal to subordinates and participating with them in their work are the middle ground styles. If a leader scores that worker low. to the highest level . Four styles of leadership are offered in this model. task structure. . Fiedler warns that it may be impossible for some leaders to change their style.X attitude toward workers to a Theory Y attitude. progress can be seen as a leader moves on the continuum. When there are high levels of all three factors. the situation is considered favorable and when levels are low. While followers and situation are also key to Hersey-Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model. s/he is considered task-motivated. A leader may find out what type of style s/he possesses by taking a Least Preferred Coworker assessment. For moderate levels. and the situation. s/he is considered relationshipmotivated. or situational models take into account the leader. from the lowest maturity level . they have devised four leadership styles that they say leaders may use regardless of their style orientation.

The questions range from whether or not subordinates should have a say in the decision. if the task is boring or tedious. and if follower effort and satisfaction is high when the task is complex or unstructured – achievement-oriented leadership is the choice. clear and follower autonomy is high – participative leadership can be used. As a leader travels along the tree branches according to the yes or no answers being given. Some have very . Two of those styles are autocratic. One last contingency model is the Vroom-Yetton Normative Decision Model. to whether or not the decision would create conflict among subordinates. Some cultures are highly individualistic. others value family over bureaucratic models. Hersey-Blanchard and Path-Goal theories in that leadership style is dependent on a series of questions which guide a leader toward a decision procedure. if the task is unstructured. two are consultative. the various styles of leadership and how they are based on follower and task concerns are similar to Hersey-Blanchard: if the followers are inexperienced or the task is complex – directive leadership is used. and one is a group effort. Leadership styles are based only on concern for people and concern for the task. In this model. The questions and answers form a kind of tree. This number indicates the leadership style needed to make the decision. stressful or dangerous – supportive leadership is called for. There has been some concern over these contingency theories that they are culturally biased toward a North American viewpoint (2). s/he will reach a number at the end of the last branch upon which s/he lands. It is different from Fiedler. the branches of which end in a number. Sometimes a leader’s culture influences the way s/he will make a decision or approach a situation.The House-Mitchell Path-Goal Theory is another contingency model in which leadership style can be adapted according to the situation.

politics. . motivate followers inspirationally. and treat each follower as an individual. varies according to their gender. which assumes a strong loyalty and interest in team-work and the organization (3). or symbols. s/he must have charisma. contrasts between how men and women lead. stimulate followers intellectually. Perhaps a theory such as William Ouchi’s Theory Z and others like it could pave the way toward more diverse leadership styles. The authentic leader will espouse universal brotherhood. For a leader to be considered truly transformational. Ouchi’s model is a combination of McGregor’s Theory Y and modern Japanese management. Though it has not been proven. Authentic leaders persuade others based on issues. Another bias issue is that of gender. the pseudo leader will set up a we-they dichotomy. Morality and selflessness are important attributes of the transforming leader. Bernard Bass and Paul Steidlmeier compare and contrast the authentic transformational leader with the pseudotransformational leader.different views on how to address and talk to leaders and followers. Transactional and transformational leadership are two very different styles from what has been discussed so far. A last point of concern – some models focus solely on the relationship between leaders and subordinates and do not take into account the issues of structure. Authentic leaders are genuinely concerned about developing their followers into leaders while pseudo leaders are concerned with maintaining the dependency of their followers (4). This style is much like the telling style in Hersey-Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory. and how they follow. Transactional leadership has a clear chain of command and motivates people through punishment and reward. pseudo leaders manipulate their followers.

I would use Vroom’s Decision Tree in my decision-making and force-field analyses to analyze driving and restraining forces that might influence any changes I wished to make. one of my goals would be to find the best ways to motivate my workers. If I were to become a manager within the next five years. I like 360 Degree Feedback because it incorporates many different perspectives of one person’s job. or change the direction of their organizations.” Leaders must depend on themselves and those they assess to be capable of assisting them to make the sometimes difficult decisions. there is an underlying concept of “looking in the mirror” instead of “looking out the window. They must be creative and have vision in order to resist looking out the window to see what others have accomplished with their resources.For many of these leader and leadership theories. and is a more informative process for both the worker and the leader. there is always room for improvement. create goals. I would use Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to discover what they needed and how I could help them move up to the selfactualization phase. . knowing they do not have the same resources and must make do with what is available to them. then look in the mirror and decide how best to move forward. I would incorporate David McClelland’s Needs-Based Motivational Model into my repertoire of employee assessment to make the best fit between person and task. I would strive to grow as a leader in style and innovation and never believe that I have reached the pinnacle. True leaders are able to look out the window to see what is happening in the world outside their organizations. aids in the growth of workers by offering specific developmental goals. Hersey-Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model could guide me through the various circumstances that occur within organizations.

2006 from http://www.htm .” the encyclopedia of informal education.binghamton. p. Retrieved December 1.infed. Blanchard. “Classical Leadership. and Steidlmeier. and Johnson. Bernard M. reviewer. Management of Organizational Behavior Leading Human Resources. 2. “Douglas McGregor original XY Theory model. Table 4-2. 1998.End Notes 1. 2006 from http://www.K. Paul.htm 4. p. M.” Ethics. Chapman. Alan. 90.E. 2001. New Jersey: Prentice 2006 from http://cls.htm 3. 2001. revised September 24. M. 8th ed. Dewey E.” (1995-2005). Character. Bass. Kenneth H. 8. and Authentic Transformational Leadership. Doyle. Retrieved December 1.. Retrieved December 1. “Authentic Versus Pseudotransformational Leadership. and Smith.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful