“ It Depends ”— Grid & Contingency Approaches to Leadership

1. “It Depends”— Grid & Contingency Approaches to Leadership • Housekeeping/Papers • News • Contingency approaches • Task-Relationship; Scale construction– how do you measure something • Ohio & Michigan State leadership studies • Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid • Hersey-Blanchard Contingency Model • Fiedler’s Leadership Contingency • Team discussion: MBTI & leadership style • Next week: Contingency theories cont’d

2. Measuring attributes • Research consistently shows that leadership can be described across the two dimensions of task and social orientation. • If you wanted to more clearly and precisely identify Task and Relationship styles of leadership, how would you go about it? • What kind of observations/questionnaire items would you have for each factor? Team-Process Leadership Questionnaire Auto Scoring of T-PQ

3. Scale Development– when you want to be inventive • Clearly identify the domains to be measured (e.g., task & relationship) • Generate a list of items for each • Decide on a response format (e.g., Likert rating) • Clean items (throw the poor ones) & finish form • Administer to representative sample (3-4 x as many Ss as items) • Conduct Cronbach alpha to determine internal reliability & homogeneity of scale • Revise scale to highest alpha • Final scale– additive items provide the most stable and accurate measure of the domain • Test against other measures for validity and test-retest reliability

4. Items <

5. The leadership continuum– locate yourself on one dimension! The most important question: Under what circumstances would you use each?

6. Relationship Task Orientation

8. Team Management Country Club Middle of Road Authority Compliance Impoverished

11. Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership: Situational Factors Fred E. Fiedler

12. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Unpleasant Unfriendly Accepting Relaxed Close Warm Hostile Interesting Harmonious Cheerful Guarded Loyal Trustworthy Inconsiderate Nice Disagreeable Sincere Unkind Pleasant Friendly Rejecting Tense Distant Cold Supportive Boring Quarrelsome Gloomy Open Backbiting Untrustworthy Considerate Nasty Agreeable Insincere Kind 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale • Scoring • >72 Relationship • 65-71 Mixed • <64 Task

13. What are the factors that determine fit between style & situation? Relationship-oriented Task-oriented Task-oriented

14. FIEDLER'S LEADERSHIP CONTINGENCY MODEL: STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE SITUATION • To Improve Leader-Member Relations: • Clearly understand group problems and try to alleviate them. • Become more available to workers (e.g. consultation, feedback). • Provide accurate information on the organization so their confidence and trust is earned. • Hold feedback (and gripe) sessions. • Hold regular meetings to keep people more informed and involved. • Promote brown bag lunches, socials, leisure activities. • Provide celebrations for task completion. • Accept assignments to work with more difficult individuals ("problem people," motivation, etc.) • Organize off-work activities such as picnics, softball, excursions. • Request particular individuals to work on projects. • Suggest or effect transfers in/out of unit. • Raise morale by obtaining positive outcomes for subordinates (e.g. special bonuses, time off, attractive jokes, etc.)

15. Changes to Task Structure To Increase Task Structure: Request more structured tasks or more detailed instructions. Request more tasks; learn all you can through training and experience about the task so you can develop more detailed plans. Break a task into smaller subtasks. Volunteer for structured tasks; avoid unstructured ones. Develop procedures, guidelines, SOP, diagrams, outlines, descriptions of previous jobs. Keep records, systematic observations, note patterns, cycles. To Reduce Task Structure: Request new, unusual problems with permission to figure out how to do solve them. Involve the group in problem solving and decision making on the task or problems. Leave the task in vague form. Increase the time horizon (which usually increases ambiguity or complexity). Volunteer for unstructured tasks and avoid structured ones. Involve people with different viewpoints. Work on tasks that have path multiplicity (multiple ways of approaching or solving them).

16. Structural changes to position power To Decrease Position Power: Be one of the gang, socialize, joke, self disclosure, play down trappings and rank. Share decision making by involving others in planning. Give others access to your boss. Let information from the organization quickly reach all group members. Delegate and distribute power. Promote team and individual development and expertise. To Increase Position Power: Demonstrate authority by exercising full authorized powers. Quickly become an expert. Evaluate subordinates' performance. No not depend on others to assert yourself in informing, planning, and organizing. Arrange for information to be channeled through you. Use the cultural trappings of power (desk, secretary, wardrobe, etc.)

17. Evaluation of Fiedler’s Contingency Model • Weaknesses • Difficult to understand and use LPC test • Questionable whether LPC measures T/R, motivation, or cognitive complexity • LPC measure is unstable, with low validity & reliability coefficients • Other important contingencies are left out • Fiedler believed you had to change the situation and not style because style was not changeable– he has moderated– all factors can change • None of correlations between LPC and group performance were statistically significant, although 34 of 45 groups tested (76%) were in the predicted direction • Wide variations in the specification of situational favorableness • Fiedler proposed that L-MR, TS, & PP should be on 4:2:1 ratio, but no experimental evidence to support this

18. Strengths • Considers interaction of different styles and different contingencies • Emphasizes change or “engineering” the situation and suggests specifics • Recognizes changing/dynamic nature of situations • Recognizes leader success is a function of style-situation match • Unique idea on combination of factors producing favorability • Conclusion • OK for simple situations (clear extreme & middle) • Important starting point for learning about and experimenting with contingencies, but should consider other variables present • Don’t use LPC scale • Emphasize leader change as much as situational change

19. Team Task • Identify a leadership situation that was working well or poorly. Use Hersey & Blanchard’s or Fiedler’s model: • Describe it using terms of that theory • Explain why the leadership did or did not work well • Make recommendations for changes in the leader and/or situation according to the theory