LEADERSHIP

LEADING:

Leadership is both a process and property. As a process, leadership is the use of

non-coercive influence to shape up a group 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 leaders are people who can influence the
behaviors of others without relying on force and with whom other accept to be
driven.

LEADERSHIP AND POWER

Leadership has both influence and power, power is the ability to affect the
behavior of others. In organization settings, there are usually five kinds of power:
legitimate, reward, coercive, referent and expert power.

i) Legitimate power: Legitimate power is granted through the

organizational hierarchy; it is the power accorded to the people
occupying a particular position in the organization. All Managers have
legitimate power over their subordinates. Legitimate power then is
authority. But the mere possession of legitimate power does not by itself
make someone a leader. For example, some subordinates only follow
orders that are strictly within the letter of organizational rules and
policies. If they are asked to do something not in their job description,
they refuse to do. The managers then, exercise authority (but not
leadership) to lead them.

ii) Reward power: Reward power is the power to give or withhold rewards
that a manager may control include salary increases, bonuses,
promotions, praise, recognition and interesting job assignments in
general, the greater the number of rewards a managers controls and the
 more important the rewards are to subordinates, the greater is the
manager’s reward power, if the subordinate only gives value to the
rewards provided by the manager, then the manager is not a leader. But
if the subordinate wants and appreciates the manager’s informal
rewards like praise, gratitude and recognition, however, then the
manager is exercising good leadership.
iii) Coercive power: Coercive power is the power to force compliance by
means of psychological, emotional or physical threat. In the past physical
coercion in organizations was relatively common. In most organizations
today, however, coercion is limited to verbal reprimands, written
reprimands, disciplinary layoffs, fines, demotion and termination. Some
manages 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 these are to subordinates, the more coercive power the
manager possesses. On the other hand, the more a manager uses
coercive power, the mores likely he is to provoke resentment and
hostility and the less likely he is to be seen as a leader.
iv) Referent power: Referent power is abstract. It is based on identification,
imitation, loyalty or charisma of the leader. Followers may choose their
leader because of his/her personality, behavior or attitudes. Even is
some cases. It is seen that, followers imitate a leader with referent
power by wearing the same kinds of cloths, working for the same hours
or espousing the same management philosophy.
v) Expert power: Expert power is derived from information or expertise. A
manager who knows how to interact 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.

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
In the early years, researchers believed that the characteristics of the leadership
generally include intelligence, self-confidence and similar attributes. So, they
thought that if those traits could be defined potential leaders could be identified.
During the first several decades of this century, researchers conducted hundreds
of studies in an attempt to indentify important leadership traits. But the studies
were disappointing. Because researchers found that, even though leaders have
got a common set of traits; they have also posses a long list of exceptions.
Alternatively, researchers observed that many leaders have good communication
skills but after achieving the leadership position they rather begin to display some
other traits. Spurred on by their lack of success in identifying useful leadership
traits, researchers soon began to investigate other variables, especially the
behaviors. And they started with the hypothesis that, effective leaders somehow
behaved differently than less-effective leaders, thus the goal was to develop a
fuller understanding of leadership behavior.

i) Machigan studies

Researchers at the University of Michigan, led by Rensis Likert, began studying

leadership in the late 1940’s, Based on extensive interview with both leaders and
followers, this research indentified two basic forms of leadership behavior:
Job-centered and employee-centered. Managers using job centered behavior pay
close attention to subordinates work, explain work procedures and are keenly
interested in performance. Alternatively, managers using employee-centered
behavior are interested in developing a cohesive work group and ensuring that
employees are satisfied with their jobs. Their primary concern is the welfare of
subordinates.

Likert argued that employee-centered leader behavior tended to be more

effective. He also said that the job centered leader behavior is consistent with the
system 1 design (rigid and bureaucratic), whereas employee-centered leader
behavior is consistent with the system 4 design (Organic and flexible). System 1
design means a form of organization design based on legitimate and formal
authority; as oppositely system 4 design uses a wide array of motivational process.
When likert advocates moving organizations from system 1 to system 4, he is also
advocating a transition from job-centered to employee-centered leadership
behavior.

ii) Ohio studies

At about the same time of Likert’s studying in Michigan, another group of
researchers at Ohio State also began studying leadership. The extensive
questionnaire surveys conducted during the Ohio State studies also suggested
that there exist two basic leadership behaviors: Initiating structure 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. And in consideration behavior, leaders show concern for
subordinates and takes attempt to establish a friendly and supportive climate,

Ohio State researchers did not interpret leadership behavior as being one
dimensional. Each behavior was assumed to be independent of the other.
Presumably, then, a leader could exhibit varying levels of initiating structure and
at the same time varying levels of consideration.

SITUATIONAL APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP

This approach emerged as the other leadership theories like leadership trails,
leadership behavior, was in many cases did not show correct direction to the
leadership pattern in complex management scenario. The catalyst for this new
approach 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. So the next step in the evolution of
leadership theory was the creation of situational models.

Situational models assume that appropriate leader behavior varies from one
situation to another. The goal of a situational theory, then, is to identify important
situational factors and to specify how they interact to determine appropriate
leader behavior.

Before discussing the three major situational theories, we should first discuss an
important early model that laid the foundation for subsequent development. In a
1958 study of the decision making process, Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H.
Schmidt proposed a continuum of leadership behavior. Their model is much like
the original Michigan state theory. But they tried to overcome the loopholes of
the job-centered (by their term, “Boss-centered”) and employee-centered (by
their term, “Subordinate-centered”) behavior theory and however identified
several intermediate behaviors that a manager might consider.

The 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
characteristics of the manager, subordinates and the situation. Managerial
characteristics include the manager’s value system, confidence in subordinates,
personal inclinations and feeling of security, Subordinate characteristics include
the subordinate’s need for independence, readiness to assume responsibility,
tolerance for embiguity, interest in the problem, understanding goals, knowledge,
experience and expectation, situational characteristics that affect decision making
include the type of organization, group effectiveness, the problem itself and tie
pressures.

In the following section, we will describe the three most important and most
widely accepted situational theories of leadership: the LPC theory, the Path-goal
theory and the Vroom-Yetton-Jago model.

A) LPC theory

The LPC theory, developed by Fred Fiedler, was the first true situational theory of
leadership. Beginning with a combined trait and behavior approach, Fiedler
identified two styles of leadership: task-oriented (analogous to job-centered and
initiating structure behavior) and relationship-oriented (Similar to employee
centered and consideration behavior). He want beyond the earler behavioral
approaches by arguing that the style of behavior is a reflection of the leaders
personality and the most personalities fall into one of his two categories, task
oriented or relationship oriented by nature. Fiedler measures leader style by
means of a controversial questionnaire called the least preferred coworker (LPC)
measure. To use the measure, manager or leader is asked to describe the specific
person with whom s/he is able to work least well- the LPC – by filling in a set of
sixteen scales anchored at each end by a positive or negative adjective. For
example, three of the sixteen scales are:

Helpful - - - - - - - - Frustrating

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Tense - - - - - - - - Relaxed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 Boring - - - - - - - - Interesting

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The leaders LPC score is then calculated by adding up the numbers below the line
checked on each scale. Note in these three examples that the higher number are
associated with the positive qualities (helpful, relaxed and interesting), whereas
the negative qualities (frustrating, tense and boring) have low point values. A high
total score is assumed to reflect a relationship orientation and a low score is task
orientation.

The LPC measure is controversial because researchers disagree about its validity.
Some questioned exactly what an LPC measure reflects and whether the score is
an index of behavior, personality or some other factor. Nevertheless, the basic
elements of the theory remain interesting on their own merits. Favorableness of
the situation, favorableness and leader style and flexibility of leader style each
warrant special note.

a) Favorableness of the situation According to Fiedler, the key situational

factor is the favorableness of the situation from the leaders point of view.
This factor is determined by leader member relations, task structure and
position power.
i) Leader member Relations refer to the nature of the relationship
between the leader and work group. It the leader and the group have a
high degree of mutual trust, respect and confidence and it they like one
another, relations are assumed to be good. Naturally, good relations are
more favorable.

ii) Task structure is the degree to which the groups task is well defined. The
task is structured when it is routine, easily understood and unambiguous
and when the group has standard procedures and precedents to rely on.
For leader, a high task structure is very much favorable.

iii) Position power is the power vested in the leader position. If the leader
has the power to assign work and to reward and punish employees,
position power is assumed to be strong. From the leaders point of view
 strong position power is clearly preferable to weak position power.
However position power is not as important as leader-member relations
and task structure.
b) Favorableness and leaders style Fiedler and his associates conducted
numerous studies linking the favorableness of various situations to leader
style and the effectiveness of the group. The results of the studies and the
overall framework of the theory are shown in the following figure.

To interpret the model, look first at the situational factors at the top of the figure:
good or bad leader member relations; high or low task structure and strong or
weak position power can be combined to yield eight unique situation. For
example, good leader member relations, high task structure and strong position
power (at the far left) are presumed to define the most favorable situation; bad
leader member relations, low task structure and weak leader-power (at the far
right) are the least favorable. The other combinations reflect intermediate levels
of favorableness.

Below each set of situations, the degree of favorableness and the form of
leadership behavior is shown, When the situation is most and least favorable,
Fiedler has found that a task oriented leader is most effective. When the situation
is only moderately favorable, however, relationship-oriented leader is predicted to
be most effective.

Figure: The Least Preferred Co-worker Theory of Leadership:

Contingency Factors Situations

Leader member relation Good Bad

Task structure High low high low

Position power Strong Weak Strong Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong

Favorablness Most Favorable Moderately Most

Of situation Favorable Unfavorable

Appropriate Task Relationship Task

Leader behavior Oriented Oriented Oriented

 c) Flexibility of leader style Fiedler argued that, for any given individual,
leader style is essentially fixed and cannot be changed. He stated that,
leaders cannot change their behavior to fit a particular situation because It
is linked to their particular personality traits. Thus when a leaders style and
the situation do not match, fiedler argued that the situation should be
changed to fit the leader’s style. When leader member relation are good
task structure low and position power is weak, leader style most likely to be
effective is relationship criented. According to Fiedler, the leader can make
the elements of the situation more congruent by structuring the task and
increasing power.
B) Path Goal theory
The Path goal theory of leadership- associated most closely with Martin Evans and
Robert House- is a direct extension of the expectancy theory of motivation. Where
the primary components of expectancy theory include 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 is to make
valued or desired rewards available in the workplace and to clarify that the
subordinate the kinds of behavior that will lead to goal accomplishment-that is,
the leader should clarify the paths to goal attainment.

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

In contrast to Fiedler’s theory, path goal theory assumed that leaders can
change their style or behavior to meet the demands of a particular situation.
For 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 to foster group cohesiveness and a positive climate. As the group
becomes familiar with the task and encounters new problems, the leader
may exhibit participative behavior to enhance group member’s motivation.
Finally, achievement-oriented behavior may be used to encourage
continued high performance.

Situational factors Path-goal theory focuses on the situational factors of

the personal characteristics of subordinates and environmental
characteristics of the workplace.

Important personal characteristics include the subordinate’s 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. 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 external locus of control assume that fate, 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.

Environmental characteristics include factors outside the subordinates

control. Task structure is one such factor. When task structure is high,
directive leadership is less effective. Because, subordinates do not usually
need their boss to continually tell them how to do an extremely routine job.
Another important environmental characteristic is formal authority system.
Again, the higher the degree of formal authority, the less directive is the
leader behavior that will be accepted by subordinates.

The basic Path-Goal Framework is illustrated in the following figure:

Subordinates Personal Leader behaviors Environmental

Character Directive Characteristics
● Perceived ability * Directive * Task structures
● Locus of control * Participative * Authority system
Achievement-oriented * Work group
 Subordinates motivation to perform

Which, shows that different leader behavior affects subordinates motivation to

perform. Personal and environmental characteristics are seen as defining which
behaviors lead to which outcomes. The path goal theory of leadership is a
dynamic model. Research that has been done suggests that the path goal theory is
reasonably good description of the leadership process.

C) Vroom-Yetton- Jago (VYJ) Model

The Vroom-Yatton jago (VYJ) model predicts what kinds of situations call for what
degrees of group participation. The VYJ model, then, sets norms or standards for
including subordinates in decision making. The model was first proposed by Victor
Vroom and Philip Yetton in 1973 and was revised and explained in 1988 by Vroom
and Arthur G. Jago. The VYJ model focuses on only one part of the leadership
process- how much decision making participation to allow subordinates.

Table 3.3 Decision Styles in the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model

Al Manager makes the decision alone
All Manager asks for information from subordinates but
makes the decision alone, Subordinates may or may not
be informed about what the situation is.
CI Manager shares the situation with individual subordinates
and asks for information and evaluation. Subordinates do
not meet as a group and the manager makes the decision.
CII 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 make the decision.

A= Autocratic, C = Consultative: G= Group