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