8.2. THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP AND LEADERSHIP STYLES
No leader can afford to ignore M and P behaviors. Ideally, leaders should do a lot of both. Supervisory behavior style impacts employee performance (Arvey and Neel, 1974). However, there are other leadership theories that suggest that in some situations the leader should emphasize one or another even more than is usual.
Another way of looking at leadership is to say that the leader is supposed to supply what is necessary for the followers to reach their goals. This is called the path–goal theory of leadership. Basically, this theory argues that the way a leader acts should be determined by what the followers need. For example, if the followers do not know how to do the job, then it is necessary for the leader to be very structuring. If the followers have several needs that are not being met, then it is important for the leader to be especially considerate.
Consider another example. If the job is very monotonous, then the leader must provide some excitement, some change. Obviously, this is not necessary if the job already has variety. In one study, it was found that when the job had a lot of structure and people knew what they were supposed to do, considerate leaders were particularly effective.
There are a number of other factors that interact with the ones just mentioned. For example, if the task is very complex or requires creativity, then it is better to let the employees decide for themselves what to do, and therefore consideration is more important. If the abilities of the subordinates are very highly developed, then it is desirable to leave them alone. On the other hand, if they do not have much ability, then a certain amount of structure is appropriate. Several other factors, such as the needs for independence of the subordinates, their readiness to assume responsibility for decisions, their tolerance for ambiguity, their interest in the problem, and their feeling that the problem is important, make the less bossy supervisor more effective. When there is identity between the goals of the subordinates and the organization, when the subordinates have the skills and knowledge, and when their expectations are that they should participate in decisions, it is again important for the leader to emphasize consideration rather than structure.
The age of the relationship between a leader and subordinates will influence whether one or another leadership pattern may prove more effective. Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2007) have argued that in the beginning of the relationship the leader is supposed to tell, later to sell, still later to use participation, and finally to use delegation.
If the leader must make a very important decision, his or her behavior will be under intentional control. He or she will have the time to think about what to do. This contrasts with the situation when the leader behaves under habit control. In the case where time is available, the leader can change his behavior according to a scheme developed by Vroom and Yetton (1973).
Consider the following different kinds of leadership styles:
The directive style, in which the leader simply makes the decision and tells the subordinates what to do.
The negotiator style, in which the subordinates give the information that the leader needs in order to make the decision, but then the leader makes the decision.
The consultation style, in which the leader asks for information and suggestions on what to do and makes the decision on the basis of these suggestions.
The participative style, in which the subordinates provide information and suggest solutions, the solutions. leader negotiates with them, and together they reach a mutually satisfying agreement and the best decision.
The delegation style, in which the leader provides information to the subordinates about the problem and suggests possible solutions. The responsibility for the decision is ultimately given to the subordinates. In this case, the leader does not even ask the subordinates to report what solutions were adopted.
Vroom and Yetton (1973, pp. 13, 194) provide a decision tree that indicates when each of these five leadership styles is appropriate. It consists of a number of questions, and, depending on the answers to these questions, it recommends a particular leadership style.
There are seven questions that are arranged in a particular order. The first question is, "Are there quality requirements that one solution is likely to be more rational than another?" Depending on the answer (yes or no), one goes on to the second question: "Do I have sufficient information to make a quality decision?" Depending on the answer, one asks a third question: "Is the problem structured?" This process continues until the leader has been directed to the best leadership style.
It is useful to say a word about the difference between the approach of Fiedler and the approach of Vroom and Yetton. The Fiedler approach assumes that leaders have fixed personalities. If they discover that the conditions within which they operate are not consistent with their style, they "engineer the environment" to make it consistent with their style. By contrast, in the Vroom and Yetton approach, the individual uses different leadership styles, depending on the situation. He or she may decide to delegate in one case or to be directive in another case. The leader's style is decided through an analysis of the situation and on the basis of the answers to specific questions.
Both approaches assume that there is no "best" leadership style. Leadership effectiveness depends on the situation. The Fiedler approach, in fact, is called the "contingency model," since it states that effective leadership behavior is contingent on the situation. Vroom's approach also is a contingency theory, but while Fiedler's is based on personality, Vroom's relies on logical analysis of the situation.
In some ways both the Fiedler and Vroom–Yetton viewpoints are correct. In Chapter 6 on motivation we discussed the importance of habits and behavioral intentions as determinants of behavior. When the job is well-learned, if there is an emergency or time pressure is high, habits are likely to be the major determinants of behavior. In situations when habits are all-important, Fiedler is likely to have the correct theory because he assumes that the behavior of the leader is fixed—that is, under the control of habits or a deeply ingrained personality. When behavioral intentions are the important determinants of behavior, then Vroom and Yetton are likely to give the best guidance. That is the time to use the decision tree and to teach oneself to use the correct decision-making style.
It seems likely that for everyday decisions and the sort of routine day-in–day-out behavior that is typical of leaders, Fiedler's point of view is more likely to be descriptive of the realities of leadership behavior. On the other hand, when the leader is just starting on a job or when the decision is very important and there is the time to think carefully about it, the Vroom and Yetton analysis can be helpful.
As we stated earlier, if habits are important, then the leader's experience is all-important too; when behavioral intentions are important, the leader's intelligence is all-important. Research shows that the leader's intelligence is not correlated with group effectiveness, or, to put it more accurately, the correlation is so low that it is not of practical significance. However, there is one condition when the correlation of leader intelligence and group effectiveness is high: when the leader is very dominant and the subordinates respect and admire him. Fiedler (1986a) reported correlations around 0.70 in that condition and around 0.10 in all other conditions. This finding is particularly relevant in R&D organizations, since the subordinates are likely to be very intelligent. If they have IQs around 130, the leader would have an IQ around 140 (something quite rare, since it occurs only among three people in a thousand) and have a record and personality that inspires respect and admiration to get away with being dominant. On the other hand, if the leader is participative, he or she can use the intelligence of the followers to increase the quality of the group's output.
In summary, while the dominant, structured behavior of the leader can be effective, this is only so under relatively rare conditions. On the other hand, consideration behavior is effective under a relatively wide range of conditions. This is even more likely to be true in R&D labs than in industrial settings, because the subordinates are highly intelligent, want to be autonomous, and often can do very good work when left alone.
Yet there are important additional roles for the leader. Bennis (1984) has suggested that the manager's four competencies are attention (making people attend to goals that serve the organization), providing meaning (using metaphors to communicate these goals), creating trust (being predictable, reliable, consistent), and managing the self-concept of subordinates (making them feel significant, enjoy work, feel like a community or team). Even better is the leader who can inspire (is a model for subordinates) and who provides individualized consideration (gives personal attention to members who seem neglected), rewards frequently, and provides intellectual stimulation (enables subordinates to think of old problems in new ways) (Bass, 1985).
Some special problems that have occupied researchers in R&D labs will now be examined.