Early Contingency Theories of Effective Leadership

1. Early Contingency Theories of Effective Leadership Presented by: • Siow Li Ling • ZatilAqmarMohdHalimi • Woon Pei Joon • NoorNadiatulAkmaHamidon

2. Outline of the Presentation • LPC Contingency Model • Path-Goal Theory of Leadership • Situational Leadership Theory • Leadership Substitutes Theory

3. Abstract This presentation is discussing about the different contingency theories of leadership. There are several theories include in this presentation which are LPC Contingency Model, Path-Goal Theory of Leadership, Situational Leadership Theory and Leadership Substitutes Theory. Actually there are advantages and disadvantages of these several theories and may not apply in all situations. The main key here is all the leadership theories are a guideline for the leaders but it depends much on the situations.

4. LPC Contingency model

5. LPC contingency Model This model describes how the situation moderates the relationship between leadership effectiveness Trait measure – least preferred coworker (LPC) score

6. Leader LPC Score • Rate the coworker who has worked least well by using a set of bipolar adjective scales • examples: Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly Uncooperative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cooperative • Sum of the rating - critical = low - lenient = high

7. Fiedler’s (1978) most recent interpretation, the LPC score indicates a leader’s motive hierarchy. • Rice (1978) concluded that the data support a value-attitude interpretation - low LPC leaders value task success - high LPC leaders value interpersonal success

8. Situational Variables Favorability is determined by weighting and combining these three aspects of the situation. • Three aspects of the situation are considered: • Leader- member relations • Position power • Task structure

10. Conceptual Weaknesses • LPC score may not be stable over time and may be more complex than assumed. • The model is not really a theory, it does not explain how a leader’s LPC score affect group performance. • The model neglects medium LPC leaders who probably outnumber the high and low LPC leader.

11. Path-goal theory of leadership

12. PATH-GOAL THEORY • Developed by • Evans (1970)- earlier version • House (1971)- next version. More elaboration which include situational variables in it • Explaining how the behavior of the leader influences the satisfaction and performance of the subordinate • This theory based on the expectancy theory in explaining it (work motivation). • ET: A person decides how much effort to devote to a job at a given time.

13. Subordinates perceptions: If the subordinate believes that the serious effort given from him will lead to the result in completing the task then, he will make the effort. (Leader’s behavior will modify these perceptions) • Depending on the situation, effect of leaders’ behavior on the subordinates’ satisfaction & performance may the same way, both differently or only one of them. • Expectancy: perceived probability of an outcome Valences: desirability of an outcome • “ how many expectancies & valences for different outcomes and level of effort combine to determine motivation is still a controversy”

14. LEADER BEHAVIORS • 1) supportive: concerning about the need of the subordinates, welfare and try making friend with them • 2) directive: giving instructions to subordinates to make sure what they should do in achieving current goals. Coordinating the works for them to follow • 3) participative: involve them in discussions and listen to their opinions as well • 4) achievement-oriented: set the challenge goal, seeking better performance from them shows them confidence in attaining the high standards

15. SITUATIONAL VARIABLES • Effect of the leader’s behavior on the satisfaction & performance of the subordinates is depending on the situation • Involve - task characteristics - subordinates characteristics Situational variables ( task characteristics, subordinates characteristics)

16. Reduce boredom & make job more tolerable Increase the intrinsic valence of work • It is for supportive leadership • Only suitable when the task is stressful, boring, tedious/ dangerous • If task is interesting, enjoyable, subordinates already confident supportive leadership only has little effect/ not at all SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP Increase effort Increase self-confidence & lower anxiety Increase effort-performance expectancy

17. If task is unstructured, complex, subordinates inexperienced & little formalization of rules, procedures Increase effort-performance expectancy Reduce role ambiguity DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP Increase size of incentives Increase subordinate effort Increase outcome valence for task success Strengthen reward contingencies Increase performance- reward expectancies

18. WEAKNESSES 1. Rely on expectancy theory as the primary basis in explaining leader influence (not account the emotional relations to decision dilemmas-denial/ distortion of relevant info about expectancies & valences, & sometimes, subordinates have differ perceptions of outcomes by using different actions) • Role ambiguity will cause a person to have low expectancy & leader behavior will increase it (sometimes, attainment of specific goals are difficult than what subordinates think, & it is determined that role ambiguity is based on task structure rather than employee itself (ability/ experience) 3. Each type of leader behavior is considered separately (there might be interactions among the behaviors/ more than 1 situational variables) eg: directive leadership suits when there is unstructured task but it might be suitable if the subordinates have high level of training & experiences.

19. Situational Leadership theory

20. Situational Leadership • Proposed by Hersey and Blanchard(1977) • Specifies the appropriate type of leadership behavior for different levels of subordinate ’maturity’ n relation to the work. • A high-maturity subordinate has both the ability and confidence to do a task, whereas a low-maturity subordinate lacks ability and self-confidence.

21. Maturity Levels According to Hersey and Blanchard, knowing when to use each style is largely dependent on the maturity of the person or group you're leading. They break maturity down into four different levels: • M1 – People at this level of maturity are at the bottom level of the scale. They lack the knowledge, skills, or confidence to work on their own, and they often need to be pushed to take the task on. • M2 – At this level, followers might be willing to work on the task, but they still don't have the skills to do it successfully. • M3 – Here, followers are ready and willing to help with the task. They have more skills than the M2 group, but they're still not confident in their abilities. • M4 – These followers are able to work on their own. They have high confidence and strong skills, and they're committed to the task.

22. Major Propositions • M1, the leader should use substantial task-oriented behavior and be directive in defining roles, clarifying standards and procedures, and monitoring progress on attainment of objectives. • M2 & M3, the leader can decrease the amount of task-oriented behavior and provide more relations-oriented behavior. • M4, the leader should use a low level of task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors.

23. Hersey-Blanchard model maps

24. Evaluation of the Theory • Studies found support for the proposition that more directive supervision is needed for subordinates who have low ability and confidence. • Using the contingent pattern of task and relations behavior prescribed by the theory will make leaders more effective. • Blake and Mouton, specifies that a relatively high level of both task and relations behavior is optimal as long as the specific types of behavior are appropriate for the situation.

25. STRENGTHS OF THE SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL • Emphasis on flexible, adaptive behavior, which has become a central tenet of some recent theory and research • Essential to treat different subordinates differently • Vary behavior as the situation changes • Advanced the proposition that leaders should be aware of opportunity to build the skills and confidence of subordinates

26. Conceptual weaknesses of situational leadership theory • Limit the utility of situational leadership theory and help to explain the lack of support for it in the research. • Leadership behavior is not clearly defined and consistently. The model also lacks a clear explanation about the process by which leader behavior influences subordinate performance. • The maturity is a composite of diverse elements and the procedure used to weight and combine them is highly questionable. • The model only acknowledge the leaders can influences some components of maturity with developmental interventions.

27. Leadership substitutes theory

28. Kerr & Jermier (1978) • Identify aspects of situation that reduce the important of leadership by leaders

29. Initial version Mostly concerned with identifying substitutes and neutralizers for supportive and instrumental leadership

30. 2 kind of situational variables • Substitutes • Makes leader behavior unnecessary & redundant • Include characteristic of subordinate, task or Organization. • Neutralizer • Prevent leader from acting in specified way/nullify the effect of leader action. • Including characteristic of task or Organization.

32. Implication for improving leadership Howell & colleagues (1990) “If there so many neutralizer, that difficult/impossible for any leader to succeed” • Remove neutralizer by changing the situation.

33. Kerr & Jermier (1978) • their model was design to deal only with substitutes for leadership behavior by a formal leader • Merely replaced by similar leadership behavior carried out by peers or informal leaders (shared among members of group)

34. Research on the theory • Research provide strong evidence that situational variables can directly affect dependent variables such as subordinate motivation Mc Intosh (1988) • Proposed that, evaluation research on substitute emphasize wrong aspect. • Research should pay more attention to the direct effect of situational variables on substitutes variables & leadership behavior

35. Conceptual weaknesses • It does not provide a detailed rationale for each substitute and neutralizer in term of causal processes involving explicit intervening variables. • Reduce the important of an intervening variable and substitute that involve leadership behavior by people rather than the leader. • Failure to differentiate between direct actions by leader to improve dependent variables and action to improve a substitute that effect the dependent variable. • Take actions to reduce constrains that prevent the use of effective behaviors and block neutralizers that undermine the effects of a potential relevant behavior.

36. Summary Leader substitutes theory emphasized the importance of formal leaders by showing how their influence can be replaced by • Work design • Reward system • Informal peer leadership • Self management

37. Thank You