Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education All rights reserved No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education 13-1 Chapter 13 Contingency Theories of Leadership “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.” ~Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 13-2 Introduction • Leadership is contingent upon the interplay of all three aspects of the leader-follower-situation (L-F-S) model • Four other theories share similarities: They are theories rather than personal opinions They implicitly assume that leaders are able to accurately diagnose or assess key aspects of the followers and the leadership situation With the exception of the contingency model, leaders are assumed to be able to act in a flexible manner A correct match between situational and follower characteristics and leaders’ behavior is assumed to have a positive effect on group or organizational outcomes 13-3 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) • LMX argues that leaders not treat all followers like a uniform group of equals • The leader forms specific and unique linkages with each subordinate, creating a series of dyadic relationships – With the out-group, or low-quality exchange relationships, interpersonal interaction is limited to fulfilling contractual obligations – With the in-group, leaders form high-quality exchange relationships that go beyond what the job requires and benefit both parties 13-4 The Cycle of Leadership Making Table 13.1: The Cycle of Leadership Making: Source 13-5 The Normative Decision Model • The level of input subordinates have in decisionmaking varies substantially depending on the issue, the followers’ technical expertise, or the presence/absence of a crisis • Vroom and Yetton maintained that leaders could often improve group performance by using an optimal amount of participation in the decisionmaking process • The normative decision model is directed solely at determining how much input subordinates should have in the decisionmaking process 13-6 Levels of Participation • The normative decision model was designed to improve some aspects of leadership effectiveness • Vroom and Yetton explored how various leader, follower, and situational factors affect the degree of subordinates’ participation in the decision-making process and, in turn, group performance • A continuum of decision-making processes ranging from completely autocratic (AI) to completely democratic (GII) was discovered 13-7 Decision Quality and Acceptance • Vroom and Yetton believed decision quality and decision acceptance were the two most important criteria for judging the adequacy of a decision • Decision quality means that if the decision has a rational or objectively determinable “better or worse” alternative, the leader should select the better alternative • Decision acceptance implies that followers accept the decision as if it were their own and not merely comply with the decision • As with quality, acceptance of a decision is not always critical for implementation 13-8 The Decision Tree • Vroom and Yetton developed a normative decision model and a set of questions to protect quality and acceptance by eliminating decision processes that would be wrong/inappropriate • Most questions concern the problem itself, the amount of pertinent information possessed by the leader and followers, and situational factors • The questions were incorporated into a decision tree 13-9 Vroom and Yetton’s Leadership Decision Tree FIGURE 13.1 Vroom and Yetton’s Leadership Decision Tree 13-10 The Contingency Model • Although leaders may be able to change their behaviors toward individual subordinates, they also have dominant behavioral tendencies • The contingency model suggests that leader effectiveness is primarily determined by selecting the right kind of leader for a certain situation or changing the situation to fit the particular leader’s style • Some leaders are better than others in some situations but less effective in other situations 13-19 The Least Preferred Co-worker Scale • Fiedler’s least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale has a leader consider the single individual that has been the most difficult to work with and then describe that person in terms of bipolar adjectives (friendly-unfriendly, boringinteresting, sincere-insincere) • Those ratings are then converted into a numerical score • The score represents something about the leader, not the specific individual the leader evaluated 13-20 Motivational Hierarchies for Lowand High-LPC Leaders FIGURE 13.5: Motivational Hierarchies for Low- and High-LPC Leaders 13-21 Situational Favorability • Situational favorability is the amount of control the leader has over the followers • The more control a leader has over followers, the more favorable the situation is, at least from a leader’s perspective • Three sub-elements in situation favorability: Leader-member relations Task structure Position power • The relative weights of the components, taken together, can be used to create a continuum of situational favorability 13-22 Contingency Model Octant Structure for Determining Situational Favorability FIGURE 13.6 Contingency Model Octant Structure for Determining Situational Favorability 13-23 Prescriptions of the Model • Leaders will try to satisfy a primary motivation when faced with unfavorable or moderately favorable situations and will behave according to their secondary motivational state only when faced with highly favorable situations • Leadership training should stress situational engineering rather than behavioral flexibility • Organizations could be more effective by matching a leader’s characteristics with situational demands instead of trying to change a leader’s behavior to fit the situation 13-24 Prescriptions of the Model FIGURE 13.7 Leader Effectiveness Based on the Contingency between Leader LPC Score and Situation Favorability 13-25 Factors from Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and the Interactional Framework FIGURE 13.8 Factors from Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and the Interactional Framework 13-26 The Path-Goal Theory • The underlying mechanism of the path-goal theory deals with expectancy, a cognitive approach to understanding motivation where people calculate: Effort-to-performance probabilities Performance-to-outcome probabilities Assigned valences or values to outcome • Path-goal theory uses the same basic assumptions as expectancy theory • A leader’s actions should strengthen followers’ beliefs that if they exert a certain level of effort, they will be more likely to accomplish a task, and if they accomplish the task, they will be more likely to achieve some valued outcome 13-27 The Path-Goal Theory (continued) • Leaders may use varying styles with different subordinates and differing styles with the same subordinates in different situations • Followers will actively support a leader if they view the leader’s actions as a way to increase their own levels of satisfaction • Followers’ perceptions of their own skills can affect the impact of certain leader behaviors • Situational factors impact the effects of leader behavior on follower attitudes and behaviors: Task Formal authority system Primary work group 13-28 The Four Leader Behaviors of Path-Goal Theory TABLE 13.2 The Four Leader Behaviors of Path–Goal Theory 13-29 Interaction between Followers’ Locus of Control Scores and Leader Behavior in Decision Making FIGURE 13.9 Interaction between Followers’ Locus of Control Scores and Leader Behavior in Decision Making 13-30 Examples of Applying Path-Goal Theory FIGURE 13.10 Examples of Applying Path–Goal Theory 13-31 Factors from Path-Goal Theory and the Interactional Framework FIGURE 13.11 Factors from Path–Goal Theory and the Interactional Framework 13-32 Summary • The five contingency theories of leadership: Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Normative decision model Situational Leadership model Contingency model Path-goal theory • They specify that leaders should make their behaviors contingent on certain aspects of the followers or the situation • All four theories implicitly assume that leaders can accurately assess key follower and situational factors • All theories have mixed support in field settings because they are all limited in scope 13-33 ... beyond what the job requires and benefit both parties 13- 4 The Cycle of Leadership Making Table 13. 1: The Cycle of Leadership Making: Source 13- 5 The Normative Decision Model • The level of input... some of the prescriptions of the model may not be the best for the given situation 13- 11 Factors from the Normative Decision Model and the Interactional Framework FIGURE 13. 2 Factors from the. .. why the task is important, giving support • The relative effectiveness of the two behavior dimensions often depends on the situation 13- 13 Situational Leadership FIGURE 13. 3 Situational Leadership