Discussion Response

User Generated

RyyvrRyyvr

Business Finance

MGMT 2041

SUNY at Buffalo

Description

Hi, I uploaded files for you. Please read first chapter 11 before you response. You need to response of three discussion. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Discussion Topic Chapter 11 addresses the topic of "Leadership and Influence Processes." Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, has been considered to be one of the top business executives ever. The video below from Quantum Capital Fund Channel features an interview with Welch. Take a few minutes and watch "Jack Welch on Leadership" and then answer the questions I've posed for this week's Discussion Board Forum. YouTube video courtesy of Quantum Capital Fund Channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5GryYk5hV8 Meanwhile, the sixteenth century author Niccolo Machiavelli offered the following advice to leaders..."It is better to be feared than loved." However, consider this modification of Machiavelli's advice, "It is better for a leader to be respected and loved." Within the context of contemporary leadership, would you agree or disagree with this modified state. Highlight a personal/professional experience which defends your position (to be loved or to be respected) from a managerial or leadership perspective. At the same time be sure to cite and explain at least two leadership traits and approaches from the textbook. Please reply the three discussion. Discussion 1 I agree that “It is better for a leader to be respected and loved” for numerous reasons. The main reason being that individuals want to feel as if they are apart of the organization that they are working for and that their leader is their equal. While working as a cashier, I noticed that the manager was very friendly with her subordinates. This caused the workers to feel as if they mattered and that they could go up to her if they had any questions. I noticed that my co-workers started working harder because they were apart of the success of the store. If my manager was feared, my co-workers would not have felt comfortable enough to ask her questions and that would have caused the store to not be as successful. Two leadership traits that are important to have are self-confidence and assertiveness. If a leader lacks self-confidence and is not willing to confront their subordinates on what they are doing wrong, it will have a negative impact on the business because no one is taking charge of their actions. Since my previous manager focused on consideration behavior, “…showing concern for subordinates and attempting to establish a warm, friendly and supportive climate”, the store thrived because people were comfortable talking to the manager about what they could improve on (Pg. 332). Also, since the manager used job-centered leader behavior, paying close attention to subordinates’ work, when the subordinates did come up to her for help, she knew exactly what they needed to do differently. Reply here: Discussion 2 I agree with the modified statement. I agree it is better to be loved and respected than it is to be feared. If I had to choose from my own personal experience I think being respected trumps being loved. Your employees don't have to love you but if they respect you it goes a long ways even if they don't love your choices they will respect them. At my job I respect my boss and I think that plays a big part in how well and affectively I do my job. Although sometimes I dont agree with his choices I respect them and follow his directions and orders. I think a big part of this is his ethical leadership. We as employees hold our bosses to a higher ethical standard and expect them to be fair and make ethical choices. If we see them not acting as such it lessens our respect for them and I know that I would be less likely to listen or follow what they say. I also think my boss is a transformational leader. He goes above and beyond to create a sense of mission, inspire new ways of thinking, and learning experiences. He always keeps his cool and even when it gets crazy or busy at work I know that I can go talk to him and he's always level headed and cool and can crack a joke and be helpful so It brings my tension and feelings of panic down. He also listens to our suggestions and takes them into consideration while explaining and inspiring new ways of thinking. I think these traits are important for a leader and being successful. I also think as long as you respect someone your more willing to listen and take advice or orders from them even if you dont agree or love them. Respect goes a long way. Reply here: Discussion 3 As a manager, I would rather my employees recognize me as a “respected and loved” leader than a “feared than loved” leader. Since I have not yet been in a managerial or leadership position, my experience with this type of leadership is portrayed as what types of leaders I am most likely to enjoy working for and provide the most productivity for. I think that respect and love come from employee centered leadership styles, this type of style was shown in the Michigan studies and is defined as employee-centered leader behavior. This type of leadership is used to develop a cohesive work group and ensures that employees are satisfied with their jobs. I have had managers who take this approach and I feel it is very beneficial to my work ethic. I am much more likely to enjoy my job, work hard, and come to work everyday knowing that I respect my manager’s leadership style rather than if I were to fear my manager. I think a leadership approach that supports a leader who is to be respected and loved by employees is the charismatic leadership approach. The charismatic leadership approach is defined as a leader who maintains the charisma characteristic that inspires support and acceptance with employees. A charismatic leader is likely to energize their employees, maintain confidence, show patterns of success, support employees, and express confidence in employees which leads to respect and love of a leader in my opinion. A controversial questionnaire that can be used to measure a leader’s level of respect and love through whether they are task or relationship oriented is the LPC measure. A leader who is respected and loved by their employees is likely to follow the relationship-oriented style of the LPC theory. Reply here: Chapter 11: Leadership and Influence Processes: Reading Chapter Introduction Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Describe the nature of leadership and relate leadership to management. 2. Discuss and evaluate the two generic approaches to leadership. 3. Identify and describe the major situational approaches to leadership. 4. Identify and describe three related approaches to leadership. 5. Describe three emerging approaches to leadership. 6. Discuss political behavior in organizations and how it can be managed. Management in Action When to Stand on Your Head and Other Tips from the Top “[Leadership is] a game of pinball, and you’re the ball.” —U.S. Senator John McCain Carlos Ghosn is CEO of Nissan/Renault. He uses a variety of strategies to keep his life in balance while leading a major international automobile company. ZUMA Press, Inc./Alamy It isn’t easy leading a U.S. business these days. Leaving aside the global recession, the passion for “lean-and-mean” operations means that there are fewer workers to do more work. Globalization means keeping abreast of crosscultural differences. Knowledge industries present unique leadership challenges requiring better communication skills and greater flexibility. Advances in technology have opened unprecedented channels of communication. Now, more than ever, leaders must be able to do just about everything and more of it. As U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain puts it, “[Leadership is] a game of pinball, and you’re the ball.” Fortunately, a few of corporate America’s veteran leaders have some tips for those who still want to follow their increasingly treacherous path. First of all, if you think you’re being overworked—if your hours are too long and your schedule is too demanding—odds are, you’re right: Most people—including executives—areoverworked. And in some industries, they’re particularly overworked. Airlines in the United States, for example, now service 100 million more passengers annually than they did just five years ago—with 70,000 fewer workers. “I used to manage my time,” quips one airline executive. “Now I manage my energy.” In fact, many high-ranking managers have realizedthat energy is a key factor in their ability to complete tasks on tough schedules. Most top corporate leaders work 80 to 100 hours a week, and a lot of them have found that regimens that allow them to refuel and refresh make it possible for them to keep up the pace. Carlos Ghosn, who’s currently president of Renault and CEO of Nissan, believes in regular respites from his work-week routine. “I don’t bring my work home. I play with my four children and spend time with my family on weekends,” says Ghosn. “I come up with good ideas as a result of becoming stronger after being recharged.” Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer admits that “I can get by on four to six hours of sleep,” but she also takes a weeklong vacation three times a year. Global HR consultant Robert Freedman devotes two minutes every morning to doodling on napkins. Not only does it give him a chance to meditate, but he’s also thinking about publishing both his doodles and his meditations in a coffee-table book. Many leaders report that playing racquetball, running marathons, practicing yoga, or just getting regular exercise helps them to recover from overwork. Hank Greenberg, who’s currently CEO of the financial-services firm C. V. Starr & Co., plays tennis for most of the year and skis in the winter months. “I’m addicted to exercise,” he says, because it “unwinds me.” Max Levchin, founder of Slide, which makes widgets for social-networking sites, prefers “80 or 90 hard miles on a road bike … starting early on Saturday mornings.” Eighty-eight-year-old Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone rises at 5 a.m. and hits both the exercise bike and treadmill before the markets open. (Redstone also recommends “lots of fish and plenty of antioxidants.”) Finally, Strauss Zelnick, CEO and chairman of Take-Two Interactive Software, is really serious about exercise: he takes a weekly exercise class at a gym, works with a personal trainer once or twice a week, cycles with friends for an hour three times a week, and lifts weights two or three times a week. Effective leaders also take control of information flow—which means managing it, not reducing the flow until it’s as close to a trickle as they can get it. Like most executives, for example, Mayer can’t get by without multiple sources of information: “I always have my laptop with me,” she reports, and “I adore my cell phone.” Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz receives a morning voicemail summarizing the previous day’s sales results and reads three newspapers a day. Mayer watches the news all day, and Bill Gross, a securities portfolio manager, keeps on eye on six monitors displaying real-time investment data. On the other hand, Gross stands on his head to force himself to take a break from communicating. When he’s upright again, he tries to find time to concentrate. “Eliminating the noise,” he says, “is critical…. I only pick up the phone three or four times a day…. I don’t want to be connected—I want to be disconnected.” Ghosn, whose schedule requires weekly intercontinental travel, uses bilingual assistants to screen and translate information—one assistant for information from Europe (Renault’s location), one for information from Japan (Nissan’s location), and one for information from the United States (where Ghosn often must be when he doesn’t have to be in Europe or Japan). Clothing designer Vera Wang also uses an assistant to filter information. “The barrage of calls is so enormous,” she says, “that if I just answered calls I’d do nothing else…. If I were to go near e-mail, there’d be even more obligations, and I’d be in [a mental hospital] with a white jacket on.” It is no surprise that Microsoft founder Bill Gates integrates the role of his assistant into a high-tech information-organizing system. He uses three screens synchronized to form a single desktop. His e-mails are displayed on one, his browser is open in another, and whatever he is working on is on the third. As he notes, “This setup gives me the ability to glance and see what new has come in while I’m working on something and to bring up a link that’s related to an e-mail and look at it while the e-mail is still in front of me.” Like most managers, Gates says that his biggest challenges relate to managing the flow of information that directly affects him. This chapter examines people like Bill Gates, Carlos Ghosn, and Strauss Zelnick to find out not only how they manage their physical and mental health but also how they focus on the tasks of leadership and how they see its role in management. We characterize the nature of leadership and trace through the three major approaches to studying leadership—traits, behaviors, and situations. After examining other perspectives on leadership, we conclude by describing another approach to influencing others—political behavior in organizations. 11-1The Nature of Leadership In Chapter 10, we described various models and perspectives on employee motivation. From the manager’s standpoint, trying to motivate people is an attempt to influence their behavior. In many ways, leadership, too, is an attempt to influence the behavior of others. In this section, we first define leadership, then differentiate it from management, and conclude by relating it to power. 11-1aThe Meaning of Leadership Leadership is both a process and a property. As a process— focusing on what leaders actually do—leadership is the use of noncoercive influence to shape the group’s or organization’s goals, motivate behavior toward the achievement of those goals, and help define group or organizational culture. As a property, leadership is the set of characteristics attributed to individuals who are perceived to be leaders. Thus, leaders are 1. people who can influence the behaviors of others without having to rely on force, or 2. people whom others accept as leaders. 11-1bLeadership and Management From these definitions, it should be clear that leadership and management are related, but they are not the same. A person can be a manager, a leader, both, or neither. Some of the basic distinctions between the two are summarized by John Kotter in Table 11.1. In the first column of the table are four elements that differentiate leadership from management. The other two columns show how each element differs when considered from a management and from a leadership point of view. For example, when executing plans, managers focus on monitoring results, comparing them with goals, and correcting deviations. In contrast, the leader focuses on energizing people to overcome bureaucratic hurdles to reach goals. Table 11.1 Distinctions Between Management and Leadership Activity Management Leadership Creating an agenda Planning and budgeting: Establishing direction: Developing a human network for achieving the agenda Organizing and staffing: Aligning people: Executing plans Controlling and problem solving: Motivating and inspiring: Outcomes Produces a degree of predictability and order and has the potential to produce consistently major results expected by various stakeholders (for example, for customers, always being on time; or, for stockholders, being on budget) Produces change, often to a dramatic degree, and has the potential to produce extremely useful change (for example, new products that customers want, or new approaches to labor relations that help make a firm more competitive) Establishing detailed steps and timetables for achieving needed results and allocating the resources necessary to make those needed results happen Establishing some structure for accomplishing plan requirements, staffing that structure with individuals, delegating responsibility and authority for carrying out the plan, providing policies and procedures to help guide people, and creating methods or systems to monitor implementation Monitoring results versus planning in some detail, identifying deviations, and then planning and organizing to solve these problems Developing a vision of the future, often the distant future, and strategies for producing the changes needed to achieve that vision Communicating the direction by words and deeds to everyone whose cooperation may be needed to influence the creation of teams and coalitions that understand the visions and strategies and accept their validity Energizing people to overcome major political, bureaucratic, and resource barriers by satisfying very basic, but often unfulfilled, human needs Source: Reprinted with the permission of Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., from A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, by John P. Kotter. Copyright © 1990 by John P. Kotter, Inc. All rights reserved. Organizations need both management and leadership if they are to be effective. Leadership is necessary to create change, and management is necessary to achieve orderly results. Management in conjunction with leadership can produce orderly change, and leadership in conjunction with management can keep the organization properly aligned with its environment. Indeed, perhaps part of the reason executive compensation has soared in recent years is the belief that management and leadership skills reflect a critical but rare combination that can lead to organizational success. 11-1cLeadership and Power To fully understand leadership, it is necessary to understand power—the ability to affect the behavior of others. One can have power without actually using it. For example, a football coach has the power to bench a player who is not performing up to par. The coach seldom has to use this power because players recognize that the power exists and work hard to keep their starting positions. Managers and leaders often have to actually use power but should do so only in ways that are ethical and appropriate. In organizational settings, there are usually five kinds of power: legitimate, reward, coercive, referent, and expert power. Management and leadership are related, but distinct, constructs. Managers and leaders differ in how they create an agenda, develop a rationale for achieving the agenda, and execute plans, and in the types of outcomes they achieve. Legitimate Power Legitimate power is power granted through the organizational hierarchy; it is the power defined by the organization to be accorded to people occupying a particular position. A manager can assign tasks to a subordinate, and a subordinate who refuses to do them can be reprimanded or even fired. Such outcomes stem from the manager’s legitimate power as defined and vested in him or her by the organization. Legitimate power, then, is authority. All managers have legitimate power over their subordinates. The mere possession of legitimate power, however, does not by itself make someone a leader. Some subordinates follow only orders that are strictly within the letter of organizational rules and policies. If asked to do something not in their job descriptions, they refuse or do a poor job. The manager of such employees is exercising authority but not leadership. Reward Power Reward power is the power to give or withhold rewards. Rewards that a manager may control include salary increases, bonuses, promotion recommendations, praise, recognition, and interesting job assignments. In general, the greater the number of rewards a manager controls and the more important the rewards are to subordinates, the greater is the manager’s reward power. If the subordinate sees as valuable only the formal organizational rewards provided by the manager, then the manager is not a leader. If the subordinate also wants and appreciates the manager’s informal rewards, such as praise, gratitude, and recognition, then the manager is also exercising leadership. 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 managers occasionally go so far as to use verbal abuse, humiliation, and psychological coercion in an attempt to manipulate subordinates. (Of course, most people would agree that these are not appropriate managerial behaviors.) The more punitive the elements under a manager’s control and the more important they are to subordinates, the more coercive power the manager possesses. On the other hand, the more a manager uses coercive power, the more likely he is to provoke resentment and hostility and the less likely he is to be seen as a leader. Charlie Ergen, founder and CEO of Dish Network, often uses coercive power. One former Dish executive says that Ergen gets his way by “Pounding people into submission.” For instance, he requires long hours, provides few paid holidays, routinely yells at employees, and commonly berates people in meetings who disagree with him. Referent Power Compared with legitimate, reward, and coercive power, which are relatively concrete and grounded in objective facets of organizational life, referent power is abstract. It is based on identification, imitation, loyalty, or charisma. Followers may react favorably because they identify in some way with a leader, who may be like them in personality, background, or attitudes. In other situations, followers might choose to imitate a leader with referent power by wearing the same kind of clothes, working the same hours, or espousing the same management philosophy. Referent power may also take the form of charisma, an intangible attribute of the leader that inspires loyalty and enthusiasm. Thus, a manager might have referent power, but it is more likely to be associated with leadership. 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. Animation-Sources of Power Watch this animation to gain further knowledge of this concept. Couldn't load the Video Player. Copyright © Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved 11-2Generic Approaches to Leadership Early approaches to the study of leadership adopted what might be called a universal or generic perspective. Specifically, they assumed that there was one set of answers to the leadership puzzle. One generic approach focused on leadership traits, and the other looked at leadership behavior. 11-2aLeadership Traits The first organized approach to studying leadership analyzed the personal, psychological, and physical traits of strong leaders. The trait approach assumed that some basic trait or set of traits existed that differentiated leaders from nonleaders. If those traits could be defined, potential leaders could be identified. Researchers thought that leadership traits might include intelligence, assertiveness, above-average height, good vocabulary, attractiveness, self-confidence, and similar attributes. During the first half of the twentieth century, hundreds of studies were conducted in an attempt to identify important leadership traits. For the most part, the results of the studies were disappointing. For every set of leaders who possessed a common trait, a long list of exceptions was also found, and the list of suggested traits soon grew so long that it had little practical value. Alternative explanations usually existed even for relationships between traits and leadership that initially appeared valid. For example, it was observed that many leaders have good communication skills and are assertive. Rather than those traits being the cause of leadership, however, successful leaders may begin to display those traits after they have achieved a leadership position. Although most researchers gave up trying to identify traits as predictors of leadership ability, many people still explicitly or implicitly adopt a trait orientation. For example, politicians are all too often elected on the basis of personal appearance, speaking ability, or an aura of self-confidence. In addition, honesty and integrity may very well be fundamental leadership traits that do serve an important purpose. Intelligence also seems to play a meaningful role in leadership. 11-2bLeadership Behaviors Spurred on by their lack of success in identifying useful leadership traits, researchers soon began to investigate other variables, especially the behaviors or actions of leaders. The new hypothesis was that effective leaders somehow behaved differently from less effective leaders. Thus, the goal was to develop a fuller understanding of leadership behaviors. Michigan Studies Researchers at the University of Michigan, led by Rensis Likert, began studying leadership in the late 1940s. Based on extensive interviews with both leaders (managers) and followers (subordinates), this research identified two basic forms of leader behavior: job centered and employee centered. Managers using job-centered leader behavior pay close attention to subordinates’ work, explain work procedures, and are keenly interested in performance. Managers using employee-centered leader 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. The two styles of leader behavior were presumed to be at the ends of a single continuum. Although this suggests that leaders may be extremely job centered, extremely employee centered, or somewhere in between, Likert studied only the two end styles for contrast. He argued that employee-centered leader behavior generally tends to be more effective. We should also note the similarities between Likert’s leadership research and his Systems 1 through 4 organization designs (discussed in Chapter 12). 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). When Likert advocates moving organizations from System 1 to System 4, he is also advocating a transition from job- to employee-centered leader behavior. Ohio State Studies At about the same time that Likert was beginning his leadership studies at the University of Michigan, a group of researchers at Ohio State University began studying leadership. The extensive questionnaire surveys conducted during the Ohio State studies also suggested that there are two basic leader behaviors or styles: initiating-structure behavior and consideration behavior. When using 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. Leaders using consideration behavior show concern for subordinates and attempt to establish a warm, friendly, and supportive climate. The behaviors identified at Ohio State are similar to those described at Michigan, but there are important differences. One major difference is that the Ohio State researchers did not interpret leader 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. At first, the Ohio State researchers thought that leaders who exhibit high levels of both behaviors would tend to be more effective than other leaders. A study at International Harvester (now Navistar International), however, suggested a more complicated pattern. The researchers found that employees of supervisors who ranked high on initiating structure were high performers but expressed low levels of satisfaction and had a higher absence rate. Conversely, employees of supervisors who ranked high on consideration had low performance ratings but high levels of satisfaction and few absences from work. Later research isolated other variables that make consistent prediction difficult and determined that situational influences also occurred. (This body of research is discussed in “Situational Approaches to Leadership.” ) Managerial Grid Another behavioral approach to leadership is the Managerial Grid. The Managerial Grid provides a means for evaluating leadership styles and then training managers to move toward an ideal style of behavior. The Managerial Grid is shown in Figure 11.1. The horizontal axis represents concern for production (similar to job-centered and initiating-structure behaviors), and the vertical axis represents concern for people (similar to employee-centered and consideration behaviors). Note the five extremes of managerial behavior: the 1,1 manager (impoverished management), who exhibits minimal concern for both production and people; the 9,1 manager (authority-compliance), who is highly concerned about production but exhibits little concern for people; the 1,9 manager (country club management), who has exactly opposite concerns from the 9,1 manager; the 5,5 manager (middle-of-theroad management), who maintains adequate concern for both people and production; and the 9,9 manager (team management), who exhibits maximum concern for both people and production. Figure 11.1The Managerial Grid The Managerial Grid® is a method of evaluating leadership styles. The overall objective of an organization using the Grid® is to train its managers using organization development techniques so that they are simultaneously more concerned for both people and production (the 9,9 style on the Grid®). Source: Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse, Leadership Dilemmas—Grid Solutions (Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company, 1997), p. 29. (Formerly Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The Managerial Grid.) © 1997 by Grid International, Inc. Reproduced by permission of the owners. According to this approach, the ideal style of managerial behavior is 9,9. There is a six-phase program to assist managers in achieving this style of behavior. A. G. Edwards, Westinghouse, the FAA, Equicor, and other companies have used the Managerial Grid with reasonable success. However, there is little published scientific evidence regarding its true effectiveness. The leader-behavior theories have played an important role in the development of contemporary thinking about leadership. In particular, they urge us not to be preoccupied with who leaders are (the trait approach) but to concentrate on what leaders do (their behaviors). Unfortunately, these theories also make universal generic prescriptions about what constitutes effective leadership. However, when we are dealing with complex social systems composed of complex individuals, few, if any, relationships are consistently predictable, and certainly no formulas for success are infallible. Yet, the behavior theorists tried to identify consistent relationships between leader behaviors and employee responses in the hope of finding a dependable prescription for effective leadership. As we might expect, they often failed. Other approaches to understanding leadership were therefore needed. The catalyst for these new approaches was the realization that although interpersonal and task-oriented dimensions might be useful for describing the behavior of leaders, they were not useful for predicting or prescribing it. The next step in the evolution of leadership theory was the creation of situational models. 11-3Situational Leadership Approaches to Situational models assume that appropriate leader behavior varies from one situation to another. For instance, the “Tough Times, Tough Choices” feature illustrates how economic factors might influence leader behavior. The goal of a situational theory, then, is to identify key situational factors and to specify how they interact to determine appropriate leader behavior. In the following sections, we describe four of the most important and widely accepted situational theories of leadership: the leastpreferred coworker (LPC) theory, the path-goal theory, Vroom’s decision tree approach, and the leader–member exchange (LMX) approach. Tough Times, Tough Choices Leadership Tips for Tough Times A key part of effective leadership is communication. This is especially true when an organization is going through tough times. By sharing information as openly and candidly as possible, leaders can help maintain the trust of their employees and keep morale from eroding. © iStockphoto.com/GlobalStock How does one go about leading in a stagnant economy with a continued threat of recession? What adjustments do you have to make when money is scarce, markets are volatile, and morale needs boosting? Dennis Carey, vice chairman of Korn Ferry International, an executive-search firm, suggests that top managers start by acknowledging that leading in extreme circumstances means calling into question everything they do under normal circumstances. “You can’t rely on a peacetime general to fight a war,” he reminds fellow executives. “The wartime CEO prepares for the worst so that his or her company can take market share away from players who haven’t.” Hire away your competitors’ best people, advises Carey, and keep them from grabbing yours. Or buy up their assets while they can be had at bargain prices. Jack Hayhow, consultant and founder of Opus Training and ReallyEasyHR, adds that leaders need to make sure their employees know why they’re making changes. Specifically, Hayhow argues that managers need to explain why reductions are necessary, that old business models no longer work, and that everyone must adapt to the changing business world. He also suggests that managers tell their employees that if they truly want job security they should concentrate on finding so many ways to contribute that the business cannot afford to let them go. Hayhow also stresses the importance of creating an environment in which people motivate themselves. How do you create such an environment? “Start by matching talent with the task,” he says. “Play to your employees’ strengths. Figure out who does what and make sure they’re spending their time where they can best utilize their talents.” Finally, Hayhow also recommends giving people some control over their jobs—that is, by letting people decide how best to perform their jobs, they will likely feel more commitment to their work and perform at a higher level. Ex-Starbucks CEO Jim Donald makes a fairly simple recommendation: “Communicate, communicate, communicate. Especially at a time of crisis,” he advises, “make sure your message reaches all levels, from the very lowest to the uppermost.” Kip Tindell, who’s been CEO of the Container Store since its founding in 1978, agrees. That’s why his managers “run around like chickens relentlessly trying to communicate everything to every single employee at all times.” He admits that it’s an impossible task, but he’s also convinced that the effort is more important than ever in times of crisis. He also contends that his company is in a better position to ride out the economic storm “because we’re so dedicated to the notion that communication and leadership are the same thing.” At the very least, he says, “we’re fortunate to be minus the paranoia that goes with employees who feel they don’t know what’s going on.” References: Emily Thornton, “Managing Through a Crisis: The New Rules,” BusinessWeek, www.businessweek.com, accessed on January 1, 2014; Anthony Portuesi, “Leading in a Recession: An Interview with Jack Hayhow,” Driven Leaders, February 24, 2009, http://drivenleaders.com, accessed on January 1, 2014; Jim Donald, “Guest Post: Former Starbucks CEO’s Tips for Tough Times,” Fortune, http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com, accessed on January 1, 2014; Ellen Davis, “Retail Execs Offer Insights on Leadership in Tough Economic Times,” NRF Annual 2009 Convention Blog, January 15, 2009, http://blog.nrf.com, accessed on January 1, 2014; and “In Tough Times, Bosses Need to Get Out and Talk to Employees,” USA Today, August 4, 2012, p. B1. 11-3aLPC Theory The LPC theory, developed by Fred Fiedler, was the first truly situational theory of leadership. Beginning with a combined trait and behavioral approach, Fiedler identified two styles of leadership: task oriented (analogous to job-centered and initiating-structure behaviors) and relationship oriented (similar to employee-centered and consideration behaviors). He went beyond the earlier behavioral approaches by arguing that the style of behavior is a reflection of the leader’s personality and that most personalities fall into one of his two categories— task oriented or relationship oriented by nature. Fiedler measures leadership style by means of a controversial questionnaire called the LPC measure. To use the measure, a manager or leader is asked to describe the specific person with whom he or she is able to work least well—the LPC—by filling in a set of 16 scales anchored at each end by a positive or negative adjective. For example, 3 of the 16 scales are as follows: The leader’s 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 numbers are associated with 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 on the part of the leader, and a low score a task orientation on his or her part. The LPC measure is controversial because researchers disagree about its validity. Some question exactly what an LPC measure reflects and whether the score is an index of behavior, personality, or some other factor. Favorableness of the Situation The underlying assumption of situational models of leadership is that appropriate leader behavior varies from one situation to another. According to Fiedler, the key situational factor is the favorableness of the situation from the leader’s point of view. This factor is determined by leader–member relations, task structure, and position power. Leader–member relations refer to the nature of the relationship between the leader and the work group. If the leader and the group have a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and confidence, and if they like one another, relations are assumed to be good. If there is little trust, respect, or confidence, and if they do not like one another, relations are poor. Naturally, good relations are more favorable. Task structure is the degree to which the group’s 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. An unstructured task is nonroutine, ambiguous, and complex, with no standard procedures or precedents. You can see that high structure is more favorable for the leader, whereas low structure is less favorable. For example, if the task is unstructured, the group will not know what to do, and the leader will have to play a major role in guiding and directing its activities. If the task is structured, the leader will not have to get so involved and can devote time to nonsupervisory activities. Position power is the power vested in the leader’s position. If the leader has the power to assign work and to reward and punish employees, position power is assumed to be strong. But, if the leader must get job assignments approved by someone else and does not administer rewards and punishment, position power is weak, and it is more difficult to accomplish goals. From the leader’s point of view, strong position power is clearly preferable to weak position power. However, position power is not as important as task structure and leader–member relations. Favorableness and Leader 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 these studies—and the overall framework of the theory—are shown in Figure 11.2. 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 leader position power can be combined to yield six unique situations. For example, good leader–member relations, high task structure, and strong leader 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 situation. The other combinations reflect intermediate levels of favorableness. Figure 11.2The Least-Preferred Coworker Theory of Leadership Fiedler’s LPC theory of leadership suggests that appropriate leader behavior varies as a function of the favorableness of the situation. Favorableness, in turn, is defined by task structure, leader–member relations, and the leader’s position power. According to the LPC theory, the most and least favorable situations call for task-oriented leadership, whereas moderately favorable situations suggest the need for relationship-oriented leadership. © Cengage Learning Below each set of situations are shown the degree of favorableness and the form of leader behavior found to be most strongly associated with effective group performance for those situations. When the situation is most and least favorable, Fiedler found that a task-oriented leader is most effective. When the situation is only moderately favorable, a relationshiporiented leader is predicted to be most effective. Flexibility of Leader Style Fiedler argued that, for any given individual, leader style is essentially fixed and cannot be changed; leaders cannot change their behavior to fit a particular situation because it is linked to their particular personality traits. Thus, when a leader’s style and the situation do not match, Fiedler argued that the situation should be changed to fit the leader’s style. When leader– member relations are good, task structure low, and position power weak, the leader style that is most likely to be effective is relationship oriented. If the leader is task oriented, a mismatch exists. According to Fiedler, the leader can make the elements of the situation more congruent by structuring the task (by developing guidelines and procedures, for instance) and increasing power (by requesting additional authority or by other means). Fiedler’s LPC theory has been attacked on the grounds that it is not always supported by research, that his findings are subject to other interpretations, that the LPC measure lacks validity, and that his assumptions about the inflexibility of leader behavior are unrealistic. However, Fiedler’s theory was one of the first to adopt a situational perspective on leadership. It has helped many managers recognize the important situational factors they must contend with, and it has fostered additional thinking about the situational nature of leadership. Moreover, in recent years, Fiedler has attempted to address some of the concerns about his theory by revising it and adding additional elements such as cognitive resources. 11-3bPath-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 discussed in Chapter 10. Recall that the primary components of expectancy theory included 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 are to make valued or desired rewards available in the workplace and to clarify for the subordinate the kinds of behavior that will lead to goal accomplishment and valued rewards—that is, the leader should clarify the paths to goal attainment. Leader Behavior The most fully developed version of path-goal theory identifies four kinds of leader behavior. Directive leader behavior lets subordinates know what is expected of them, gives guidance and direction, and schedules work. Supportive leader behavior is being friendly and approachable, showing concern for subordinate welfare, and treating members as equals. Participative leader behavior includes consulting with subordinates, soliciting suggestions, and allowing participation in decision making. Achievement-oriented leader behavior means setting challenging goals, expecting subordinates to perform at high levels, encouraging subordinates, and showing confidence in subordinates’ abilities. In contrast to Fiedler’s theory, path-goal theory assumes 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 as new problems are encountered, the leader may exhibit participative behavior to enhance group members’ motivation. Finally, achievementoriented behavior may be used to encourage continued high performance. Situational Factors Like other situational theories of leadership, path-goal theory suggests that the appropriate leader style depends on 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 subordinates’ perception of their own abilities and their locus of control. If people perceive that they are lacking in abilities, they may prefer directive leadership to help them understand path-goal relationships better. If they perceive themselves to have a lot of abilities, employees may resent directive leadership. Locus of control is a personality trait. 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 an 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. Managers can do little or nothing to influence the personal characteristics of subordinates, but they can shape the environment to take advantage of these personal characteristics by, for example, providing rewards and structuring tasks. Environmental characteristics include factors outside the subordinates’ control. Task structure is one such factor. When structure is high, directive leadership is less effective than when structure is low. Subordinates do not usually need their boss to continually tell them how to do an extremely routine job. The formal authority system is another important environmental characteristic. Again, the higher the degree of formality, the less directive is the leader behavior that will be accepted by subordinates. The nature of the work group also affects appropriate leader behavior. When the work group provides the employee with social support and satisfaction, supportive leader behavior is less critical. When social support and satisfaction cannot be derived from the group, the worker may look to the leader for this support. The basic path-goal framework as illustrated in Figure 11.3 shows that different leader behaviors affect 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 and incomplete model. The original intent was to state the theory in general terms so that future research could explore a variety of interrelationships and modify the theory. Research that has been done suggests that the path-goal theory is a reasonably good description of the leadership process and that future investigations along these lines should enable us to discover more about the link between leadership and motivation. Interactive Figure- THE PATH-GOAL FRAMEWORK Interact with this figure to further your understanding of this concept. Copyright © Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 11-3cVroom’s Decision Tree Approach The third major contemporary approach to leadership is Vroom’s decision tree approach. The earliest version of this model was proposed by Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton and later revised and expanded by Vroom and Arthur Jago. Most recently, Vroom has developed yet another refinement of the original model. Like the path-goal theory, this approach attempts to prescribe a leadership style appropriate to a given situation. It also assumes that the same leader may display different leadership styles. But Vroom’s approach concerns itself with only a single aspect of leader behavior: subordinate participation in decision making. Basic Premises Vroom’s decision tree approach assumes that the degree to which subordinates should be encouraged to participate in decision making depends on the characteristics of the situation. In other words, no one decision-making process is best for all situations. After evaluating a variety of problem attributes (characteristics of the problem or decision), the leader determines an appropriate decision style that specifies the amount of subordinate participation. Vroom’s current formulation suggests that managers use one of two different decision trees. To do so, the manager first assesses the situation in terms of several factors. This assessment involves determining whether the given factor is high or low for the decision that is to be made. For instance, the first factor is decision significance. If the decision is extremely important and may have a major impact on the organization (such as choosing a location for a new plant), its significance is high. But, if the decision is routine and its consequences are not terribly important (selecting a color for the firm’s softball team uniforms), its significance is low. This assessment guides the manager through the paths of the decision tree to a recommended course of action. One decision tree is to be used when the manager is interested primarily in making the decision as quickly as possible; the other is to be used when time is less critical and the manager is interested in helping subordinates to improve and develop their own decision-making skills. The two decision trees are shown in Figures 11.4 and 11.5. The problem attributes (situational factors) are arranged along the top of the decision tree. To use the model, the decision maker starts at the left side of the diagram and assesses the first problem attribute (decision significance). The answer determines the path to the second node on the decision tree, where the next attribute (importance of commitment) is assessed. This process continues until a terminal node is reached. In this way, the manager identifies an effective decision-making style for the situation. Figure 11.4Vroom’s Time-Driven Decision Tree This matrix is recommended for situations where time is of the highest importance in making a decision. The matrix operates like a funnel. You start at the left with a specific decision problem in mind. The column headings denote situational factors that may or may not be present in that problem. You progress by selecting high or low (H or L) for each relevant situational factor. Proceed down the funnel, judging only those situational factors for which a judgment is called, until you reach the recommended process. Source: Reprinted from Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 28, No. 4, Victor H. Vroom, “Leadership and the Decision-Making Process,” pp. 82–94. Copyright 2000, with permission from Elsevier. Figure 11.5Vroom’s Development-Driven Decision Tree This matrix is to be used when the leader is more interested in developing employees than in making the decision as quickly as possible. Just as with the time-driven tree shown in Figure 11.4, the leader assesses up to seven situational factors. These factors, in turn, funnel the leader to a recommended process for making the decision. Source: Reprinted from Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 28, No. 4, Victor H. Vroom, “Leadership and the Decision-Making Process,” pp. 82–94. Copyright 2000, with permission from Elsevier. Decision-Making Styles The various decision-making styles reflected at the ends of the tree branches represent different levels of subordinate participation that the manager should attempt to adopt in a given situation. The five styles are defined as follows: • Decide. The manager makes the decision alone and then announces or “sells” it to the group. • Consult (individually). The manager presents the program to group members individually, obtains their suggestions, and then makes the decision. • Consult (group). The manager presents the problem to group members at a meeting, gets their suggestions, and then makes the decision. • Facilitate. The manager presents the problem to the group at a meeting, defines the problem and its boundaries, and then facilitates group member discussion as they make the decision. • Delegate. The manager allows the group to define for itself the exact nature and parameters of the problem and then to develop a solution. Vroom’s decision tree approach represents a very focused but quite complex perspective on leadership. To compensate for this difficulty, Vroom has developed elaborate expert system software to help managers assess a situation accurately and quickly and then to make an appropriate decision regarding employee participation. Many firms, including Halliburton Company, Litton Industries, and Borland International, have provided their managers with training in how to use the various versions of this model. Evaluation and Implications Because Vroom’s current approach is relatively new, it has not been fully scientifically tested. The original model and its subsequent refinement, however, attracted a great deal of attention and were generally supported by research. For example, there is some support for the idea that individuals who make decisions consistent with the predictions of the model are more effective than those who make decisions inconsistent with it. The model, therefore, appears to be a tool that managers can apply with some confidence in deciding how much subordinates should participate in the decision-making process. 11-3dThe LMX Approach Because leadership is such an important area, managers and researchers continue to study it. As a result, new ideas, theories, and perspectives are continuously being developed. The LMX model of leadership, conceived by George Graen and Fred Dansereau, stresses the importance of variable relationships between supervisors and each of their subordinates. Each superior–subordinate pair is referred to as a vertical dyad. The model differs from earlier approaches in that it focuses on the differential relationship that leaders often establish with different subordinates. Figure 11.6 shows the basic concepts of the LMX theory. Figure 11.6The Leader–Member Exchange Model The LMX model suggests that leaders form unique independent relationships with each of their subordinates. As illustrated here, a key factor in the nature of this relationship is whether the individual subordinate is in the leader’s out-group or in-group. © Cengage Learning The model suggests that supervisors establish a special relationship with a small number of trusted subordinates, referred to as the in-group. The in-group usually receives special duties requiring responsibility and autonomy; they may also receive special privileges. Subordinates who are not a part of this group are called the out-group, and they receive less of the supervisor’s time and attention. Note in Figure 11.6 that the leader has a dyadic, or one-to-one, relationship with each of the five subordinates. Early in his or her interaction with a given subordinate, the supervisor initiates either an in-group or an out-group relationship. It is not clear how a leader selects members of the in-group, but the decision may be based on personal compatibility and subordinates’ competence. Research has confirmed the existence of in-groups and out-groups. In addition, studies generally have found that in-group members have a higher level of performance and satisfaction than do outgroup members. 11-4Related Leadership Approaches to Because of its importance to organizational effectiveness, leadership continues to be the focus of a great deal of research and theory building. New approaches that have attracted much attention are the concepts of substitutes for leadership and transformational leadership. 11-4aSubstitutes for Leadership The concept of substitutes for leadership was developed because existing leadership models and theories do not account for situations in which leadership is not needed. They simply try to specify what kind of leader behavior is appropriate. The substitutes concept, however, identifies situations in which leader behaviors are neutralized or replaced by characteristics of the subordinate, the task, and the organization. For example, when a patient is delivered to a hospital emergency room, the professionals on duty do not wait to be told what to do by a leader. Nurses, doctors, and attendants all go into action without waiting for directive or supportive leader behavior from the emergency room supervisor. Characteristics of the subordinate that may serve to neutralize leader behavior include ability, experience, need for independence, professional orientation, and indifference toward organizational rewards. For example, employees with a high level of ability and experience may not need to be told what to do. Similarly, a subordinate’s strong need for independence may render leader behavior ineffective. Task characteristics that may substitute for leadership include routineness, the availability of feedback, and intrinsic satisfaction. When the job is routine and simple, the subordinate may not need direction. When the task is challenging and intrinsically satisfying, the subordinate may not need or want social support from a leader. Organizational characteristics that may substitute for leadership include formalization, group cohesion, inflexibility, and a rigid reward structure. Leadership may not be necessary when policies and practices are formal and inflexible, for example. Similarly, a rigid reward system may rob the leader of reward power and thereby decrease the importance of the role. Preliminary research has provided support for the concept of substitutes for leadership. 11-4bCharismatic Leadership The concept of charismatic leadership, like trait theories, assumes that charisma is an individual characteristic of the leader. Charisma is a form of interpersonal attraction that inspires support and acceptance. All else being equal, then, someone with charisma is more likely to be able to influence others than someone without charisma. For example, a highly charismatic supervisor will be more successful in influencing subordinate behavior than a supervisor who lacks charisma. Thus, influence is again a fundamental element of this perspective. Robert House first proposed a theory of charismatic leadership, based on research findings from a variety of social science disciplines. His theory suggests that charismatic leaders are likely to have a lot of self-confidence, a firm conviction in their beliefs and ideals, and a strong need to influence people. They also tend to communicate high expectations about follower performance and express confidence in followers. Donald Trump is an excellent example of a charismatic leader. Even though he has made his share of mistakes and generally is perceived as only an “average” manager, many people view him as larger than life. Most experts acknowledge three elements of charismatic leadership in organizations today. First, the leader needs to be able to envision the future, set high expectations, and model behaviors consistent with meeting those expectations. Next, the charismatic leader must be able to energize others through a demonstration of personal excitement, personal confidence, and patterns of success. Finally, the charismatic leader enables others by supporting them, empathizing with them, and expressing confidence in them. Charismatic leadership ideas are quite popular among managers today and are the subject of numerous books and articles. Unfortunately, few studies have attempted to specifically test the meaning and impact of charismatic leadership. There are also lingering ethical issues about charismatic leadership that trouble some people. For instance, President Bill Clinton was a charismatic leader. But some of his critics argued that this very charisma caused his supporters to overlook his flaws and to minimize some of his indiscretions. In contrast, President George W. Bush did not possess a high level of charisma, and this may have enabled some critics to magnify his shortcomings. 11-4cTransformational Leadership Another new perspective on leadership has been called by a number of labels: charismatic leadership, inspirational leadership, symbolic leadership, and transformational leadership. We use the term transformational leadership and define it as leadership that goes beyond ordinary expectations by transmitting a sense of mission, stimulating learning experiences, and inspiring new ways of thinking. Because of rapid change and turbulent environments, transformational leaders are increasingly being seen as vital to the success of business. A recent article in the popular press identified seven keys to successful leadership: trusting one’s subordinates, developing a vision, keeping cool, encouraging risk, being an expert, inviting dissent, and simplifying things. Although this list was the result of a simplistic survey of the leadership literature, it is nevertheless consistent with the premises underlying transformational leadership. So, too, are recent examples cited as effective leadership. Take the case of 3M: CEO George Buckley is working to make the firm more efficient and profitable while simultaneously keeping its leadership role in new-product innovation. He has also changed the reward system, overhauled procedures, and restructured the entire firm. And so far, at least, analysts have applauded these changes. During his tenure as CEO of 3M, George Buckley has worked to make the firm more efficient and profitable while maintaining its leadership role in new-product innovation. Buckley has relied on transformational leadership to help move 3M toward these goals. C. LEBEDINSKY/Challenges-REA/Redux 11-5Emerging Approaches to Leadership Recently, three potentially very important new approaches to leadership have emerged. One is called strategic leadership; the others deal with cross-cultural leadership and ethical leadership. 11-5aStrategic Leadership Strategic leadership is a new concept that explicitly relates leadership to the role of top management. We define strategic leadership as the capability to understand the complexities of both the organization and its environment and to lead change in the organization to achieve and maintain a superior alignment between the organization and its environment. This definition reflects an integration of the leadership concepts covered in this chapter with our discussion of strategic management in Chapter 3. Its board of directors, of course, is a key element in any firm’s strategic leadership. To be effective in this role, a manager needs to have a thorough and complete understanding of the organization—its history, its culture, its strengths, and its weaknesses. In addition, the leader needs a firm grasp of the organization’s environment. This understanding must encompass current conditions and circumstances as well as significant trends and issues on the horizon. The strategic leader also needs to recognize how the firm is currently aligned with its environment—where it relates effectively and where it relates less effectively with that environment. Finally, looking at environmental trends and issues, the strategic leader works to improve both the current alignment and the future alignment. Since taking the reins at Apple following the death of Steve Jobs, Tim Cook has been systematically changing the firm’s organization design by rearranging functions and reassigning top managers. Jeffrey Immelt (CEO of General Electric), Hector Ruiz (CEO of Advanced Micro Devices), John Chambers (CEO of Cisco), Michael Dell (founder and CEO of Dell Computer), and Irene Rosenfeld (CEO of Kraft Foods) are generally seen as strong strategic leaders. On the other hand, Ken Lewis (former CEO of Bank of America) and Mike Jeffries (CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch) have recently been cited as less effective strategic leaders. 11-5bCross-Cultural Leadership Another new approach to leadership is based on cross-cultural issues. In this context, culture is used as a broad concept to encompass both international differences and diversity-based differences within one culture. For instance, when a Japanese firm sends an executive to head the firm’s operations in the United States, that person will need to become acclimated to the cultural differences that exist between the two countries and to change his or her leadership style accordingly. Japan is generally characterized by collectivism (the view that the group is more important than any individual within the group), whereas the United States is based more on individualism (the belief that individuals are more important than the group). The Japanese executive, then, will find it necessary to recognize the importance of individual contributions and rewards, as well as the differences in individual and group roles, that exist in Japanese and U.S. businesses. Similarly, cross-cultural factors play a growing role in organizations as their workforces become more and more diverse. Most leadership research, for instance, has been conducted on samples or case studies involving white male leaders (until several years ago, most business leaders were white males). But, as more females, African Americans, and Latinos achieve leadership positions, it may be necessary to reassess how applicable current theories and models of leadership are when applied to an increasingly diverse pool of leaders. At the same time, though, as discussed more fully in the “Leading the Way” feature, diversity continues to lag in some settings. Leading the Way Diversity Still Lagging in the Boardroom Most experts agree that diversity among group members can contribute to better decisions and solutions. But while many organizations strive to promote diversity within teams and work groups such as this one, most boards of directors of large businesses still have relatively little diversity. © Andrey_Popov/ Shutterstock.com “It’s been proven again and again,” says Carl Brooks, CEO of the Executive Leadership Council, a network of senior African American executives, “that companies with board members who reflect gender and ethnic diversity also tend to have better returns on equity and sales.” According to Marc H. Morial, CEO of the National Urban League, which promotes economic empowerment for African Americans, a minority presence on corporate boards is also necessary to protect the interests of minority consumers and other stakeholders: “African American voices and perspectives,” he argues, “are needed on corporate boards to ensure that business decisions affecting Black America are both responsible and sensitive to the needs of our communities.” Unfortunately, says Morial, “African Americans still represent a miniscule fraction of board-level corporate leadership in America.” Citing a recent study by the Executive Leadership Council, Morial points out that the number of blacks on Fortune 500 boards has actually declined in recent years: Even though blacks comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population, representation on corporate boards stands at “a meager 7 percent.” The same trend was confirmed with the release of the U.S. Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force report on minority and women representation on Fortune 500 boards and executive teams (CEOs plus their direct reports). Here are some of the survey’s findings: • • Women comprise 18 percent of all board members and just under 20 percent of executive team members (roughly one in five). Those figures, of course, are far below the 50-percent proportion of women in the population. Minorities comprise 14.5 percent of all directors—about one out of every seven—and an even smaller percentage of executive-team members. That’s less than half of their 35-percent proportion of the population. • • Although African Americans boast the highest minority representation on boards—8.8 percent—that’s equivalent to only 69 percent of their total proportion of the population. Representation on executive teams is only 4.2 percent. Hispanics fared worse than any other minority. Although they represent 15 percent of the U.S. population, they comprise only 3.3 percent of board members and 3 percent of executive-team members. The report, says task force chair Robert Menendez (one of a small number of Hispanic members of the U.S. Senate), clearly confirms what we had suspected all along—that American corporations need to do better when it comes to having the boardrooms on Wall Street reflect the reality on Main Street. We need to change the dynamic and make it commonplace for minorities to be part of the American corporate structure. It is not just about doing what’s right, but it’s a good business decision that will benefit both corporations and the communities they’re tapping into and making investments in. References: “African Americans Lose Ground on Fortune 500 Boards,” Savoy, January 1, 2014; Marc H. Morial, “National Urban League Trains African Americans for Corporate Boards,” Philadelphia Tribune, January 1, 2014; “Results of Menendez’s Major Fortune 500 Diversity Survey: Representation of Women and Minorities on Corporate Boards Still Lags Far Behind National Population,” August 4, 2010, Senator Robert Menendez’s website (press release), www.menendez.senate.gov, accessed on January 1, 2014. 11-5cEthical Leadership Most people have long assumed that top managers are ethical people. But in the wake of recent corporate scandals, faith in top managers has been shaken. Perhaps now more than ever, high standards of ethical conduct are being held up as a prerequisite for effective leadership. More specifically, top managers are being called on to maintain high ethical standards for their own conduct, to exhibit ethical behavior unfailingly, and to hold others in their organization to the same standards. The behaviors of top leaders are being scrutinized more than ever, and those responsible for hiring new leaders for a business are looking more and more closely at the background of those being considered. And the emerging pressures for stronger corporate governance models are likely to further increase commitment to selecting only those individuals with high ethical standards and to holding them more accountable than in the past for both their actions and the consequences of those actions. 11-6Political Behavior in Organizations Another common influence on behavior is politics and political behavior. Political behaviordescribes activities carried out for the specific purpose of acquiring, developing, and using power and other resources to obtain one’s preferred outcomes. Political behavior may be undertaken by managers dealing with their subordinates, subordinates dealing with their managers, and managers and subordinates dealing with others at the same level. In other words, it may be directed upward, downward, or laterally. Decisions ranging from where to locate a manufacturing plant to where to put the company coffeemaker are subject to political action. In any situation, individuals may engage in political behavior to further their own ends, to protect themselves from others, to further goals they sincerely believe to be in the organization’s best interests, or simply to acquire and exercise power. And power may be sought by individuals, by groups of individuals, or by groups of groups. Although political behavior is difficult to study because of its sensitive nature, one early survey found that many managers believed that politics influenced salary and hiring decisions in their firm. Many also believed that the incidence of political behavior was greater at the upper levels of their organization and lesser at the lower levels. More than half of the respondents felt that organizational politics were bad, unfair, unhealthy, and irrational, but most suggested that successful executives have to be good politicians and be political to get ahead. 11-6aCommon Political Behaviors Research has identified four basic forms of political behavior widely practiced in organizations. One form is inducement, which occurs when a manager offers to give something to someone else in return for that individual’s support. For example, a product manager might suggest to another product manager that she will put in a good word with his boss if he supports a new marketing plan that she has developed. By most accounts, former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers made frequent use of this tactic to retain his leadership position in the company. For example, he allowed board members to use the corporate jet whenever they wanted and invested heavily in their pet projects. A second tactic is persuasion, which relies on both emotion and logic. An operations manager wanting to construct a new plant on a certain site might persuade others to support his goal on grounds that are objective and logical (for example, it is less expensive and taxes are lower) as well as subjective and personal. Ebbers also used this approach. For instance, when one board member attempted to remove him from his position, he worked behind the scenes to persuade the majority of board members to allow him to stay on. A third political behavior involves the creation of an obligation. For example, one manager might support a recommendation made by another manager for a new advertising campaign. Although he might really have no opinion on the new campaign, he might think that by going along, he is incurring a debt from the other manager and will be able to “call in” that debt when he wants to get something done and needs additional support. Ebbers loaned WorldCom board members money, for example, but then forgave the loans in exchange for their continued support. Coercion, a fourth political behavior, is the use of force to get one’s way. For example, a manager may threaten to withhold support, rewards, or other resources as a way to influence someone else. This, too, was a common tactic used by Ebbers. He reportedly belittled any board member who dared question him, for example. In the words of one former director, “Ebbers treated you like a prince—as long as you never forgot who was king.” Coercion is sometimes used in organizations to pressure people to do something they might not want to do. This manager, for example, is pressuring one of her colleagues to support a recommendation she is making to their boss. He is clearly reluctant to comply, but she is pushing aggressively to get her way. Michael Crockett Photography/Stone/Getty Images 11-6bImpression Management Impression management is a subtle form of political behavior that deserves special mention. Impression management is a direct and intentional effort by someone to enhance his or her image in the eyes of others. People engage in impression management for a variety of reasons. For one thing, they may do so to further their own careers. By making themselves look good, they think they are more likely to receive rewards, to be given attractive job assignments, and to receive promotions. They may also engage in impression management to boost their self-esteem. When people have a solid image in an organization, others make them aware of it through compliments, respect, and so forth. Still another reason people use impression management is in an effort to acquire more power and hence more control. People attempt to manage how others perceive them through a variety of mechanisms. Appearance is one of the first things that people think of. Hence, a person motivated byimpression management will pay close attention to choice of attire, selection of language, and use of manners and body posture. People interested in impression management are also likely to jockey for association only with successful projects. By being assigned to high-profile projects led by highly successful managers, a person can begin to link his or her own name with such projects in the minds of others. Sometimes people too strongly motivated by impression management become obsessed with it and may resort to dishonest or unethical means. For example, some people have been known to take credit for others’ work in an effort to make themselves look better. People have also been known to exaggerate or even falsify their personal accomplishments in an effort to build an enhanced image. For instance, one Silicon Valley entrepreneur recently noted, “Every time I turn around, there is someone sticking their head in my office reminding me what they are doing for me.” 11-6cManaging Political Behavior By its very nature, political behavior is tricky to approach in a rational and systematic way. But managers can handle political behavior so that it does not do excessive damage. First, managers should be aware that, even if their actions are not politically motivated, others may assume that they are. Second, by providing subordinates with autonomy, responsibility, challenge, and feedback, managers reduce the likelihood of political behavior by subordinates. Third, managers should avoid using power if they want to avoid charges of political motivation. Fourth, managers should get disagreements out in the open so that subordinates will have less opportunity for political behavior through using conflict for their own purposes. Finally, managers should avoid covert activities. Behind-thescenes activities give the impression of political intent, even if none really exists. Other guidelines include clearly communicating the bases and processes for performance evaluation, tying rewards directly to performance, and minimizing competition among managers for resources. Of course, these guidelines are much easier to list than they are to implement. The well-informed manager should not assume that political behavior does not exist or, worse yet, attempt to eliminate it by issuing orders or commands. Instead, the manager must recognize that political behavior exists in virtually all organizations and that it cannot be ignored or stamped out. It can, however, be managed in such a way that it will seldom inflict serious damage on the organization. It may even play a useful role in some situations. For example, a manager may be able to use his or her political influence to stimulate a greater sense of social responsibility or to heighten awareness of the ethical implications of a decision.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hi, let me know in case of any corrections or revision. I'll be humbled to help.

Running head: LEADERSHIP AND INFLUENCE

Leadership and Influence
Name
Institution

1

LEADERSHIP AND INFLUENCE

2

Discussion 1
I also agree that it is better for a leader to be respected and loved because some employees
do not want to feel inferior before their leaders and they vote for equality. Being friendly and close
to subordinate staff can lead to a good relationship between the leader and workers since they feel
substantial and comfortable. This relationship will enable them to feel free to ask any questions
hence resulting in a high rate of performance. Leadership fear only leads to poor relations between
workers and their leaders thus leading to poor...


Anonymous
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags