PPA 577 - Leadership

1
PPA 577 - Leadership

• Lecture 2 Contingency Theory

2
The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness
3
The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness

• Fred Fiedler (1967) Leadership is primarily the
  exercise of social influence, therefore, the ease
  with which a leader influences his or her
  followers should make a big difference in how
  favorable the leadership situation is for the
  leader.

4
The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness

• Situational favorableness.
• Quality of interpersonal relations (good or poor)
  primary consideration.
• The clarity and structure of the task (high or
  low) secondary consideration.
• Authority available from the formal position of
  the leader (strong or weak) tertiary
  consideration.
• Fiedler developed eight-fold scale from the
  combinations of these variables ranging from I
  (favorable situation) to VIII (unfavorable
  situation).

5
The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness

• Situational favorableness measured against group
  performance controlling for LPC (least preferred
  coworker scale).
• In very favorable or unfavorable situations, low
  LPC leaders were more effective in achieving high
  group productivity.
• In moderate situations, high LPC leaders were
  more effective.

6
The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness

• Validity of model.
• Criticism on complexity of model.
• Criticism of post-hoc nature of model
  accommodates limited data and make capitalize on
  chance.
• Meta-analysis of many studies confirms model.
• Subsequent studies confirm analysis.

7
The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness

• Validity of model.
• Meaning of LPC.
• Psychological distance unclear.
• Value-attitude interpretation.
• Low LPC Value task accomplishment. Make more
  complex, accurate, favorable, and optimistic
  evaluations of people and activities that
  accomplish the task.
• High LPC Value interpersonal accomplishment.
  Make more complex, accurate, favorable, and
  optimistic evaluations of people and activities
  that maximize interpersonal relations.

8
The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness

• Causal explanations of contingency effects.
• High control situations.
• High performance expectations gives great rein to
  task-oriented leader.
• Relationship-oriented leader may be bored and
  distracted and engage in irrelevant activity.

9
The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness

• Causal explanations of contingency effects.
• Moderate control situations.
• Clear task with uncooperative group may benefit
  from morale building activities of
  relationship-oriented leader.
• Task-oriented leader may rush judgment.
• Low control situations.
• Chaotic situations can be marginally improved by
  strong structures of task-oriented leaders.

10
Cognitive Resource Theory

• What are the roles of intelligence and experience
  in predicting successful performance?
• No clear results in straightforward experiments.
• Fiedler (1970) concluded that the major
  moderating influence was the level of stress.

11
Cognitive Resource Theory

• Intelligence
• If leaders are under a high level of stress,
  leader intelligence bears no relationship to unit
  success.
• Under low levels of stress, leader intelligence
  is positively related to unit success.
• Experience
• If leaders are under a high level of stress,
  experience is positively related to unit success.
• If leaders are under a low level of stress,
  experience has no relationship to unit success.

12
Cognitive Resource Theory

• Stress and anxiety interfere with careful and
  thoughtful analysis and creativity.
• Prior training provides a fallback point for the
  experienced.

13
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

• The contingency theory fails describe the
  processes by which the leaders motivational
  orientation affects group processes and outcomes.
• One obvious path for leadership effects is
  through the psychological states of the followers.

14
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

• Path-goal instrumentality.
• The motivation to engage in a behavior was a
  function of the product of the persons
  perception of the probability that the behavior
  would lead to goal and the perceived importance
  of the goal.

15
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

• Evans (1970) - Considerate and participative
  supervision enhanced the subordinates
  perceptions of the availability of goals
  associate with higher order needs (self-esteem,
  feelings of accomplishment), but did nothing to
  make the subordinate feel more certain about how
  to go about attaining those goals.

16
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

• House (1971) integrated situational variables as
  moderators of the model followers ability and
  personality (locus of control and
  authoritarianism) and environmental factors (the
  task, the formal authority system, and the nature
  of the primary work group).
• When task structure is low, subordinates will
  respond to a leaders structuring behavior, which
  clarifies the goal and identifies the path.

17
Path-goal Theory of Leadership

• When task structure is high, structuring behavior
  by the leader is redundant and the behavior would
  be perceived as interfering.

18
Path-goal Theory of Leadership

• Consideration behavior would have the most effect
  when the task is boring or repetitive (when
  structure is high). Consideration will have no
  effect if the task is complex and interesting.
• Overall, tests of the model have been
  inconsistent.
• The model relies too heavily on perceived
  behavior.
• Characteristics of the subordinate tend to be
  ignored.

19
Contingency Approach to Decision Making

• Two principles of normative decision-making
  model.
• High levels of subordinate participation in
  decision making increase commitment, but are
  costly in time and effort.
• The quality of the information that contributes
  to the decision.

20
Contingency Approach to Decision Making

• Decision strategies.
• Autocratic.
• Consultative.
• Democratic.

21
Contingency Approach to Decision Making

• Decision models (groups).
• Autocratic I leader makes decision alone using
  available information.
• Autocratic II leader obtains information from
  subordinates but makes decision alone.
• Consultative I leader shares the problem with
  each subordinate separately, seeking information
  and advice, but reserving decision authority.
• Consultative II same pattern, but subordinates
  are consulted as a group.
• Group II leader shares the problem with
  subordinates in a group and invites them to
  participate fully in decision making.

22
Contingency Approach to Decision Making

• Decision models (individuals).
• Autocratic I leader makes decision alone using
  available information.
• Autocratic II leader obtains information from
  subordinates but makes decision alone.
• Consultative I leader shares the problem with
  each subordinate separately, seeking information
  and advice, but reserving decision authority.
• Group I participative decision making with a
  single subordinate.

23
Contingency Approach to Decision Making

• Situational questions.
• Whether the leader or subordinates have the
  necessary information to make a high quality
  decision.
• Whether the subordinates are likely to be
  supportive of the decision and committed to its
  successful execution.
• Whether there is conflict among the subordinates
  about the most desirable solution.

24
Contingency Approach to Decision Making

• Six base principles of decision making.
• If you do not have enough information to make a
  good decision, you must get the information from
  somewhere.
• If the information that you have is not
  sufficiently structured to facilitate a clear
  decision, you need to seek to help and advice to
  clarify and structure the problem.
• If you need the acceptance and commitment of
  followers to implement the decision and youre
  not sure that you have that acceptance, you must
  involve the followers in participative decision
  making to enlist acceptance.

25
Contingency Approach to Decision Making

• Six base principles of decision making.
• If followers are not committed to the
  organizational goals embedded in the problem,
  they cannot be allowed to make the decision,
  although their advice should be sought and
  considered.
• If followers are in conflict over the most
  desirable solution, they must be brought together
  to allow them to air their opinions before a
  decision is made.
• Followers should be represented, that is,
  solicited and heard, about decisions that affect
  them.

26
The Multiple Influence Model of Leadership

• Contingency model with discretionary leadership
  behavior added as a modifying factor.
• Recognition that hierarchical-level,
  environmental complexity, technological
  complexity, organizational structure constrain
  leadership behavior.
• Leaders job is to bridge the gap between
  expectations and reality. Greater complexity
  increases the gap and reduces flexibility.

27
Multiple Linkage Model

• Develops intervening variables linking
  behavioral, situational, and outcome variables.
• Subordinate effort.
• Role clarity and task skills.
• Work organization.
• Cohesiveness and cooperation.
• Resources and support services.
• External coordination.

28
Situational Leadership Theory

• Most contingency theories do not take time into
  account.
• Dimensions.
• Psychological maturity.
• Commitment.
• Motivation.
• Willingness to accept responsibility.
• Job maturity.
• Experience.
• Knowledge.
• Understanding of task requirements.

29
Situational Leadership Theory

• Scale of overall maturity.
• Unwilling and unable.
• Willing but unable.
• Able but unwilling.
• Willing and able.

30
Situational Leadership Theory

• Leader responses to each category.
• High directive low participative (telling).
• High directive high participative (selling).
• High participative low directive
  (participative).
• Low participative low task (delegative).
• As the follower matures, leader moves from
  telling to selling to participative to delegative.

31
Summary Contingency Theory