Page 1

The Ways of Thought and The Theories regarding the state of being leaderships

Dr. Jutamas Vareesangthip

Trait theory (Conclusion)  John Gardner studied a large number of North

    

American organizations and leaders and came to the conclusion that there were some qualities or attributes that did appear to mean that a leader in one situation could lead in another. These included: · Physical vitality and stamina · Intelligence and action-oriented judgement · Eagerness to accept responsibility · Task competence · Understanding of followers and their needs

Trait theory (Conclusion)  · · · · · · · · 

Need for achievement Skill in dealing with people Capacity to motivate people Courage and resolution Trustworthiness Decisiveness (Theory) Self-confidence Assertiveness (Positive) Adaptability/flexibility

John Gardner (1989) On Leadership, New York: Free Press

Behaviour Theory (Conclusion)  Different patterns of behaviour were grouped

together and labelled as styles. Different names, the basic ideas were very similar. The four main styles that appear are: · Concern for task. Here leaders emphasize the achievement of concrete objectives. They look for high levels of productivity, and ways to organize people and activities in order to meet those objectives.

Behaviour Theory (Conclusion)  Concern for people. In this style, leaders look upon

their followers as people - their needs, interests, problems, development and so on. They are not simply units of production or means to an end.  Directive leadership. This style is characterized by leaders taking decisions for others - and expecting followers or subordinates to follow instructions  Participative leadership. Here leaders try to share decision-making with others.(Wright 1996: 36-7)

The Contingency of Situational Theory  Four contingency leadership theories appear more

prominently in the recent years:  -Fiedler contingency model,  -Vroom-Yetton decision model,  -the path-goal theory,  -the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.

The Contingency of Situational Theory ď‚— Fred E. Fiedler argued that effectiveness depends on

two interacting factors: leadership style and the degree to which the situation gives the leader control and influence. Three things are important here: ď‚— The relationship between the leaders and followers. If leaders are liked and respected they are more likely to have the support of others.

Fiedler contingency model  The structure of the task. If the task is clearly

spelled out as to goals, methods and standards of performance then it is more likely that leaders will be able to exert influence.  Position power. If an organization or group confers powers on the leader for the purpose of getting the job done, then this may well increase the influence of the leader. (Fiedler and Garcia 1987: 51 – 67. See, also, Fiedler 1997)

Fiedler contingency model ď‚— The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's

effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorableness (later called "situational control").

Fiedler contingency model The theory defined two types of leader:  1.those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good-relationships with the group (relationship-oriented)  2.those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented) 

Fiedler contingency model ď‚— According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-

oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favourable or unfavourable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favourability

Fiedler Contingency Model ď‚— Effective groups depend upon a proper match

between a leader's style of interacting with subordinates and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader ď‚— Relationship-oriented leadership style ( think of all the coworkers you have ever had and describe one person you least enjoyed working with)

Fiedler-Defining the situation  After the individual's basic leadership style has

been assessed through above, it is necessary to match the leader with the situation  Leader member relations -the degree of confidence, trust, and respect subordinates have on their leader  Task structure -the degree to which task assignments are procedurized  Position power -influence derived from one's formal structural position in the organization

Contingency Theories Fiedler’s contingency Model

Relationship Oriented Task Oriented

Performance Good

poor Category Leader member relations Task structures Position power













Goo d















Stron g


stron g


stron g




Vroom-Yetton decision model  Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton

(1973)[36] and later with Arthur Jago (1988),[37] developed a taxonomy ,การจัดแบ่งสิง่ มีชวี ติ ออกเป็นกลุม่ ต่าง ๆ for describing leadership situations, taxonomy that was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation.

Vroom-Yetton decision model ď‚— This approach was novel because it supported the

idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred as situational contingency theory.

Vroom-Yetton decision model  For this style to work well you need to:  Be clear and precise about standards, performance    

targets and expectations; Give detailed instructions; Monitor key performance indicators closely; Use frequent feedback to modify behaviour; Help people over learning problems while being firm about standards.

The path-goal theory ď‚— The path-goal theory of leadership was developed

by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom.[40] According to House, the essence of the theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance

The path-goal theory ď‚— The theory identifies four leader behaviors,

achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that are contingent(possible) to the environment factors and follower characteristics.

The path-goal theory ď‚— In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the

path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands.

The path-goal theory ď‚— The path-goal model can be classified both as a

contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, but also as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity (interchange) behavior between the leader and the followers.

Path–goal theory Path–goal theory adds participative and achievement-oriented leader behaviors to directiv e and supportive behaviors to address the effort–r eward linkage, performance–reward linkage, estab lish stretch performance goals, and clarifies of foll owers’ need for rewards (House & Mitchell, 1974).

Path–goal theory Finally, substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1977) identifies aspects of the situation that act to neutralize or su bstitute for leader behavior. ‘‘The idea that leaders could analyze their situation and tailor their beha vior to it was compelling and is the foundation for much leadership training today’’ (Daft, 2001).

Path Goal Theory

Environmental Contingency Factors • Task Structure • Formal authority system • Work Group

Leader Behavior •Directive •Supportive •Participative •Achievement -oriented

Outcomes •Performance •Satisfaction

Subordinate contingency factors •Locus of control •Experience •Perceived ability

Hersey-Blanchard situational theory ď‚— The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey

and Blanchard suggests four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits (set firmly) that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of followership-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well

Hersey-Blanchard situational theory  Hersey and Blanchard identified four different leadership

styles ,upon with contrasting situations:  Telling (high task/low relationship behaviour). This style or approach is characterized by giving a great deal of direction to subordinates and by giving considerable attention to defining roles and goals. The style was recommended for dealing with new staff, or where the work was menial (domestic servant) or repetitive, or where things had to be completed within a short time span. Subordinates are viewed as being unable and unwilling to ‘do a good job’.

Hersey-Blanchard situational theory  Selling (high task/high relationship behaviour). Here,

while most of the direction is given by the leader, there is an attempt at encouraging people to ‘buy into’ the task. Sometimes characterized as a ‘coaching’ approach, it is to be used when people are willing and motivated but lack the required ‘maturity’ or ‘ability’.

Hersey-Blanchard situational theory  Participating (high relationship/low task behaviour).

Here decision-making is shared between leaders and followers – the main role of the leader being to facilitate and communicate. It entails high support and low direction and is used when people are able, but are perhaps unwilling or insecure (they are of ‘moderate to high maturity’ (Hersey 1984).

Hersey-Blanchard situational theory ď‚— Delegating (low relationship/low task behaviour).

The leader still identifies the problem or issue, but the responsibility for carrying out the response is given to followers. It entails having a high degree of competence and maturity (people know what to do, and are motivated to do it).

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory

icipa ting

High relationship And low task

High Task And High relationship


llin g

Task behavior High M4

Moderate M3


Maturity of follower( s)


Low M1


De leg







High Task and low relationship n selli

Low Relationship and Low task

Relationship behavior


Style of Leader

Charismatic Theories  Max Weber, more than anyone, brought this idea into

the realm (region) of leadership. He used ‘charisma’ to talk about self-appointed leaders who are followed by those in distress. Such leaders gain influence because they are seen as having special talents or gifts that can help people escape the pain they are in (Gerth and Mills 1991: 51 – 55).

Charismatic Theories Key Characteristics of Charismatic leaders Self Confidence- They have complete confidence in their judgment and ability. A vision- This is an idealized goal that proposes a future better than the status quo(portion). The greater the disparity between idealized goal and the status quo, the more likely that followers will attribute extraordinary vision to the leader. Ability to articulate เชือ่ มต่อ the vision- They are able to clarify and state the vision in terms that are understandable to others. This articulation demonstrates an understanding of the followers’ needs and, hence acts as a motivating force.

Charismatic Theories Strong convictions about vision- Charismatic leaders are perceived (character) as being strongly committed, and willing to take on high personal risk, incur high costs, and engage in self-sacrifice to achieve their vision. Behavior that is out of the ordinary- Those with charisma engage in behavior that is perceived as being novel (new), unconventional (conforming to accepted rules or standards), and counter to norms. When successful , these behaviors evoke surprise and admiration in followers. Perceived as being a change agent- Charismatic leaders are perceived as agents of radical (ultimate) change rather than as caretakers of the status quo. Environmental sensitivity- These leaders are able to make realistic assessments of the environmental constraints and resources needed to bring about change.

Leadership Theories - 8 Major Leadership Theories ď‚— By Kendra Cherry, Guide ď‚— Interest in leadership increased during the early part

of the twentieth century. Early leadership theories focused on what qualities distinguished between leaders and followers, while subsequent theories looked at other variables such as situational factors and skill levels. While many different leadership theories have emerged, most can be classified as one of eight major types:

1. “Great Man” Theories:  Great Man theories assume that the capacity for

leadership is inherent – that great leaders are born, not made. These theories often portray great leaders as heroic, mythic and destined to rise to leadership when needed. The term “Great Man” was used because, at the time, leadership was thought of primarily as a male quality, especially in terms of military leadership.

2. Trait Theories: ď‚— Similar in some ways to "Great Man" theories, trait

theory assumes that people inherit certain qualities and traits that make them better suited to leadership. Trait theories often identify particular personality or behavioral characteristics shared by leaders. But if particular traits are key features of leadership, how do we explain people who possess those qualities but are not leaders? This question is one of the difficulties in using trait theories to explain leadership.

3. Contingency Theories: ď‚— Contingency theories of leadership focus on particular

variables related to the environment that might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited for the situation. According to this theory, no leadership style is best in all situations. Success depends upon a number of variables, including the leadership style, qualities of the followers and aspects of the situation.

4. Situational Theories: ď‚— Situational theories propose that leaders choose the

best course of action based upon situational variables. Different styles of leadership may be more appropriate for certain types of decision-making.

5. Behavioral Theories: ď‚— Behavioral theories of leadership are based upon the

belief that great leaders are made, not born. Rooted in behaviorism, this leadership theory focuses on the actions of leaders not on mental qualities or internal states. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through teaching and observation.

6. Participative Theories: ď‚— Participative leadership theories suggest that the ideal

leadership style is one that takes the input of others into account. These leaders encourage participation and contributions from group members and help group members feel more relevant and committed to the decision-making process. In participative theories, however, the leader retains the right to allow the input of others.

7. Management Theories: ď‚— Management theories (also known as "Transactional

theories") focus on the role of supervision, organization and group performance. These theories base leadership on a system of rewards and punishments. Managerial theories are often used in business; when employees are successful, they are rewarded; when they fail, they are reprimanded or punished.

8. Relationship Theories: ď‚— Relationship theories (also known as

"Transformational theories") focus upon the connections formed between leaders and followers. Transformational leaders motivate and inspire people by helping group members see the importance and higher good of the task. These leaders are focused on the performance of group members, but also want each person to fulfill his or her potential. Leaders with this style often have high ethical and moral standards.

ปุจฉา & วิสชั ชนา

7.2.2 The Theories leaderships2003  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you