Learn about the major situational conditions that determine the effectiveness of different leadership styles.
Identify the conditions under which highly task-oriented and highly people-oriented leaders can be successful based on Fiedlera€™s contingency theory. Describe a method by which leaders can decide how democratic or authoritarian their decision making should be. The earliest and one of the most influential contingency theories was developed by Frederick Fiedler.[457] According to the theory, a leadera€™s style is measured by a scale called Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. According to Fiedlera€™s theory, different people can be effective in different situations.
Research partially supports the predictions of Fiedlera€™s contingency theory.[458] Specifically, there is more support for the theorya€™s predictions about when low LPC leadership should be used, but the part about when high LPC leadership would be more effective received less support. Another contingency approach to leadership is Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Herseya€™s Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) which argues that leaders must use different leadership styles depending on their followersa€™ development level.[459] According to this model, employee readiness (defined as a combination of their competence and commitment levels) is the key factor determining the proper leadership style.
The model summarizes the level of directive and supportive behaviors that leaders may exhibit. Situational Leadership Theory helps leaders match their style to follower readiness levels. Robert Housea€™s path-goal theory of leadership is based on the expectancy theory of motivation.[462] Expectancy theory of motivation suggests that employees are motivated when they believea€”or expecta€”that (1) their effort will lead to high performance, (2) their high performance will be rewarded, and (3) the rewards they will receive are valuable to them.
The theory also makes specific predictions about what type of leader behavior will be effective under which circumstances.[463] The theory identifies four leadership styles.
Path-goal theory of leadershippath-goal theory of leadershipTheory stating that a leadera€™s main job is to motivate employees with the beliefs that (1) their effort will lead to high performance, (2) their high performance will be rewarded, and (3) the rewards they will receive are valuable to them. Supportive leaderssupportive leadersThose leaders who provide emotional support to employees. Participative leadersparticipative leadersThose leaders who make sure that employees are involved in making important decisions. Achievement-oriented leadersachievement-oriented leadersThose leaders who set goals for employees and encourage them to reach their goals. The path-goal theory of leadership has received partial but encouraging levels of support from researchers. Yale School of Management professor Victor Vroom and his colleagues Philip Yetton and Arthur Jago developed a decision-making tool to help leaders determine how much involvement they should seek when making decisions.[465] The model starts by having leaders answer several key questions and working their way through a funnel based on their responses. Based on the answers to the questions we gave, the normative approach recommends consulting employees as a group.
Vroom and Yettona€™s leadership decision tree shows leaders which styles will be most effective in different situations. Vroom and Yettona€™s model is somewhat complicated, but research results support the validity of the model. The contingency approaches to leadership describe the role the situation would play in choosing the most effective leadership style. Do you believe that the least preferred coworker technique is a valid method of measuring someonea€™s leadership style? Do you believe that leaders can vary their style to demonstrate directive, supportive, achievement-oriented and participative styles with respect to different employees? What do you see as the limitations of the Vroom-Yetton leadership decision-making approach? Which of the leadership theories covered in this section do you think are most useful, and least useful, to practicing managers? Last Sunday, 65 participants of all ages descended on London Academy to compete in the Maccabi GB National Table Tennis Championships 2015. People who are filling out this survey are asked to think of a person who is their least preferred coworker. There are three conditions creating situational favorableness: (1) leader-subordinate relations, (2) position power, and (3) task structure. Even though the theory was not supported in its entirety, it is a useful framework to think about when task- versus people-oriented leadership may be more effective. The model argues that to be effective, leaders must use the right style of behaviors at the right time in each employeea€™s development.


According to the path-goal theory of leadership, the leadera€™s main job is to make sure that all three of these conditions exist. Each of these styles can be effective, depending on the characteristics of employees (such as their ability level, preferences, locus of control, achievement motivation) and characteristics of the work environment (such as the level of role ambiguity, the degree of stress present in the environment, the degree to which the tasks are unpleasant). Because the theory is highly complicated, it has not been fully and adequately tested.[464] The theorya€™s biggest contribution may be that it highlights the importance of a leadera€™s ability to change styles, depending on the circumstances.
Imagine that you want to help your employees lower their stress so that you can minimize employee absenteeism. The decision has high significance because the approach chosen needs to be effective at reducing employee stress for the insurance premiums to be lowered.
If the leader makes the decision alone, what is the likelihood that the employees would accept it? In other words, the leader may make the decision alone after gathering information from employees and is not advised to delegate the decision to the team or to make the decision alone with no input from the team members.
Fiedlera€™s contingency theory argued that task-oriented leaders would be most effective when the situation was the most and the least favorable, whereas relationship-oriented leaders would be effective when situational favorableness was moderate. Or does each leader tend to have a personal style that he or she regularly uses toward all employees? Instead, a better question might be: under which conditions are different leadership styles more effective?
Then, they rate this person in terms of how friendly, nice, and cooperative this person is. Instead, placing the right people in the right situation or changing the situation is important to increase a leadera€™s effectiveness. If the leader has a good relationship with most people, has high position power, and the task is structured, the situation is very favorable. Moreover, the theory is important because of its explicit recognition of the importance of the context of leadership.
Thus, leaders will create satisfied and high-performing employees by making sure that employee effort leads to performance, and their performance is rewarded. Directive leadersdirective leadersThose leaders who provide specific directions to their employees. Participative leadership may be more effective when employees have high levels of ability and when the decisions to be made are personally relevant to them. Unlike Fiedlera€™s contingency theory, in which the leadera€™s style is assumed to be fixed and only the environment can be changed, Housea€™s path-goal theory underlines the importance of varying onea€™s style, depending on the situation. There are a number of approaches you could take to reduce employee stress, such as offering gym memberships, providing employee assistance programs, establishing a nap room, and so forth. In our example, the answer is high, because employees may simply ignore the resources if they do not like them. In this instance, employee and organizational goals may be aligned because you both want to ensure that employees are healthier. The group in question has little information about which alternatives are costlier or more user friendly.
Leta€™s imagine that this is a new team that just got together and they have little demonstrated expertise to work together effectively. After the disappointing results of trait and behavioral approaches, several scholars developed leadership theories that specifically incorporated the role of the environment. The theory predicts that in a€?favorablea€? and a€?unfavorablea€? situations, a low LPC leadera€”one who has feelings of dislike for coworkers who are difficult to work witha€”would be successful.
When the leader has low-quality relations with employees, has low position power, and the task is relatively unstructured, the situation is very unfavorable. Employees who are at the earliest stages of developing are seen as being highly committed but with low competence for the tasks.
The leader removes roadblocks along the way and creates an environment that subordinates find motivational. Supportive leadership is predicted to be effective when employees are under a lot of stress or when they are performing boring and repetitive jobs.
For employees who have a high internal locus of control, or the belief that they can control their own destinies, participative leadership gives employees a way of indirectly controlling organizational decisions, which will be appreciated.


This style is likely to be effective when employees have both high levels of ability and high levels of achievement motivation.
You do not have information regarding what your employees need or what kinds of stress reduction resources they would prefer. Based on the leadera€™s experience with this group, they would likely ignore the decision if the leader makes it alone. Housea€™s path-goal theory states that the leadera€™s job is to ensure that employees view their effort as leading to performance and increase the belief that performance would be rewarded. Researchers started following a contingency approach to leadershipa€”rather than trying to identify traits or behaviors that would be effective under all conditions, the attention moved toward specifying the situations under which different styles would be effective.
When situational favorableness is medium, a high LPC leadera€”one who is able to personally like coworkers who are difficult to work witha€”is more likely to succeed. They lead employees by clarifying role expectations, setting schedules, and making sure that employees know what to do on a given workday. When employees know exactly how to perform their jobs but their jobs are unpleasant, supportive leadership may also be effective.
As you answer each question as high (H) or low (L), follow the corresponding path down the funnel. For this purpose, leaders would use directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership styles, depending on what employees needed to feel motivated. In other words, if you can say that the person you hated working with was still a nice person, you would have a high LPC score. As the employee becomes more competent, the leader should engage in more coaching behaviors.
The theory predicts that the directive style will work well when employees are experiencing role ambiguity on the job. Vroom and Yettona€™s normative decision model is a guide leaders can use to decide how participative they should be given decision environment characteristics. Fiedlera€™s contingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. This means that you have a people-oriented personality and you can separate your liking of a person from your ability to work with that person. Supportive behaviors are recommended once the employee is at moderate to high levels of competence.
If people are unclear about how to go about doing their jobs, giving them specific directions will motivate them.
However, if you think that the person you hated working with was also someone you did not like on a personal level, you would have a low LPC score. And finally, delegating is the recommended approach for leaders dealing with employees who are both highly committed and highly competent. However, if employees already have role clarity, and if they are performing boring, routine, and highly structured jobs, giving them direction does not help.
While the SLT is popular with managers, relatively easy to understand and use, and has endured for decades, research has been mixed in its support of the basic assumptions of the model.[461] Therefore, while it can be a useful way to think about matching behaviors to situations, overreliance on this model, at the exclusion of other models, is premature.
Directive leadership is also thought to be less effective when employees have high levels of ability. When managing professional employees with high levels of expertise and job-specific knowledge, telling them what to do may create a low empowerment environment, which impairs motivation. A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedlera€™s contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Assessing the validity of Fiedlera€™s contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia.



Training topics on leadership
Free management training online
Coaching certification programs in texas prerequisites


Comments to Achievement leadership style definition

ALLIGATOR

09.12.2013 at 12:34:56

The last handful of months of her.

BI_CO

09.12.2013 at 18:38:31

View from the vantage of quantum physics and the and release that adverse power.