Week 3-Leadership and Management Styles

Topic 3 - Leadership and Management Styles
At the end of this lecture and the seminar, you will understand:
• The concept of leadership and management
• Various leadership styles
• Leadership theories
• The key aspects of leadership
• Management
• Management theories
1.1 Introduction
Synopsis
When a collection of people come together for a purpose, they become a group. If they
have no purpose, they remain a collection of individuals. If the group differentiates tasks
between individuals, that is different people do different things, then the group becomes
an organisation. If the work of a group becomes differentiated, then there is a need for
leadership. Whilst the group is achieving its purpose, different members of the group will
become the leader. Just like a relay race in athletics, the baton of leadership is handed
to the next person to complete that aspect of the task.
A leader attempts to achieve the task through the efforts of the group. They do this by
seeking to meet the needs of the members. If members’ needs are not met, they will
withdraw their support for the leader. The leader can be formal, appointed by the
organisation, or informal, unofficially regarded as the leader by members of the group
(Northouse, 2018).
Because of this differentiation of the role of the leader from other members, there is a
difference in power between the leader and the group. In large organisations,
achievement of the task is largely delegated to systems and processes. Thus, the leader
is seen to control the group, to manage it. This can lead to awkward power relations
between the leader and the group. This leads to a distinction between management and
leadership.
HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 1

Leaders can be differentiated further. Some, as described above, concentrate on the
achievement of the task — and should in theory help members achieve their objectives
also. The other type of leader focuses on the members of the group, helping them to meet
their social needs. Groups often have both types of leader within their group. A leader
who can carry out both roles will be particularly effective.
1.2 Management and Leadership.
Management and leadership are different. Management is concerned with control,

whereas leadership is concerned with change. The word for management seems to come
from the Latin manu agere "to lead by the hand”. It appears to have come to us from a
French/Italian word for the ring in the circus outside the big top where horses are trained
to do tricks. The word for leadership comes from a Greek word meaning journey. It retains
this sense of taking people on a journey — change.
We can think of leadership in two ways:
 as a personal quality
 as an organisational function.
In this session, we will consider both of these notions.
Fundamentally, there are three sets of theories that seek to explain leadership:
 Trait theories (Northouse, 2018) which start with the premise that leaders are
born, not made that is it is what they have that counts, their traits.
 Style or behavioural theories, which state that it is the way that the leader
behaves that is important in making the distinction between a good leader and a
bad leader.
 Contingency theories, which state that the correct style of leadership depends
upon the situation leader finds themselves in. Contingency means ‘depends
upon’.
Groups
Before we look at these leadership theories, we need to examine where leadership comes
from, and for this, we need to look at groups.

Firstly, there is a difference between a group and an organisation. Members of a group
may have a common purpose or a common task. If members of this group divide up the
responsibilities for the task between themselves, then different group members do
different things. If responsibilities are differentiated, there is a need for a leader — another
differentiated responsibility. The leader is then responsible for ensuring that the task is
carried out. (Stogdill 1950.)
Symptoms of poor leadership
This is a simple checklist to assess the effectiveness of a leader. Do they:
 Make sure his/her subordinates understand the group's aims and how they work
out in the current situation?
 Continually look for feedback from outside on how well the group is doing?
 Review possible better ways of achieving the group's goals?
 Ensure that the group is sufficiently satisfied to carry on doing the work well?
 Defend the group from outside attack?
 Develop a sense of comradeship, worthwhileness, esprit de corps, pride and

satisfaction in doing the work?
If you observe most of these, the team probably has good leadership. Otherwise, the
team needs leadership. This session will examine possible remedies.
Thoughts from evolutionary psychology
It is important to remember that we have Stone Age genes. In our prehistoric past, leaders
had the choice of the best — shelter, food, mates. These were very privileged positions.
Our ancestors followed confident leaders because they wanted to share the crumbs that
fell off the leaders table and get a shot at the top job!
This is supported by an interesting investigation carried out by Steven Levitt, an

economics wunderkind from the University of Chicago.
He examined some research performed on drug–dealers in Chicago. He noticed

that a lot of them lived with their mothers. He found this puzzling, given that drug–
dealers make colossal sums of money from their trade. The research, performed

by a sociologist visiting crack cocaine houses, revealed the surprising result that
most street drug peddlers earned about the same as burger flippers. Levitt notes:
‘If you look at the financial data you will see that there is a very precise hierarchy
in the gang. The guy at the top makes a lot of money and there are a lot of people
trying to get in at the bottom, who are willing to take low wages for a shot at the
top,’ he says.
‘It's the same principle as McDonald's, which has a management hierarchy and
defined career structure. The wages they make are almost identical.’
Levitt (2005)
It’s hard to avoid making the obvious statement that crime doesn't pay.
1.3 Management theories
• Douglas McGregor’s Theory ‘X’ and ‘Y’
• Elton Mayo’s Human relations theory
• Henry Mintzberg management theory
• Fredrick Taylor’s scientific management theory
• Henri Fayol’s principles of administrative management
• Max Weber’s bureaucratic management
1.3.1 Theory ‘X’ and ‘Y’
McGregor was an American social psychologist. He proposed theory ‘X’ and ‘Y’ in his
1960 book titled ‘the human side of enterprise’. McGregor developed two contrasting
theories that explain managers’ beliefs about what motivates people and the two
fundamental management styles
Theory ‘X’ is authoritarian in nature and is used by managers who assume that
employees are apathetic or dislike their work.
Theory ‘Y’ is a participative management style used by managers who believe that
workers are self-motivated, responsible, and committed to their work
Theory ‘X’ is micromanaging, while theory ‘Y’ give rise to more collaborative and

decentralised workplace.
1.3.2 Human relations theory
Elton Mayo was an Australian born psychologist. He helped lay the foundation for
human relations theory. He conducted experiments targeted at improving productivity
among dissatisfied employees in Chicago in the 1920s
He argued that increases in employees’ performance were not due to changes in their
environment but a result of giving them due attention, making them feel valued as part
of the organisation. Basically, Mayo’s research emphasised the importance of treating
employees as humans but not machines, the importance of human attitudes, values,
relationships, and taking interest in them.
Managers need to relate and collaborate with employees to enhance productivity and
the overall organisational objectives.
1.3.3 Henry Mintzberg theory

Mintzberg believes that skills are learned through experience and cannot be taught in
the class room. You cannot teach management to someone who is not a manager. In
practice the distinction between managers and leaders are blurred – effective managers
require some leadership skills and qualities to flourish. Mintzberg identified 10 roles of
managers.
1.4 Leadership Approaches
 Trait theories
 The behavioural approach to leadership theories
 Contingency approaches to leadership
1.4.1 TRAIT THEORIES

In the words of Thomas Carlyle, the nineteenth–century Scottish historian, ‘No great man
lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men’. In this view, great
leaders form history. From this perspective, we can see that Ghandhi, Nelson Mandela,
Winston Churchill, Mao Tse Tung were all great men. There are one or two problems with
this view of the world. Firstly, the list of great leaders is almost exclusively made up of
men and men from the upper reaches of their society at that. Secondly, some of these
leaders found themselves in the right place at the right time. Writers have referred to this
as the times. If it hadn’t been for the Second World War, Churchill would now be a
forgotten figure. After all, he achieved almost nothing of note before he became Prime
Minister of Great Britain in 1940.
The first systematic effort by psychologists and other researchers to understand

leadership was the attempt to identify the personal characteristics of leaders. This
approach assumed that leaders share certain inborn personality traits. This view — that
leaders are born, not made — is still popular among laypersons, though not among
professional researchers.
In searching for measurable leadership traits, researchers have taken two approaches:
(1) comparing the traits of those who have emerged as leaders with the traits of those
who have not; and (2) comparing the traits of effective leaders with those of ineffective
leaders.
Leaders and non–leaders
Most studies on leadership traits have fallen into the first category. However, they have
largely failed to uncover any traits that clearly and consistently distinguish leaders from
followers. It is true that leaders as a group have been found to be brighter, physically
fitter, more extroverted, more self–confident and come from a higher social class than
non–leaders. They also tend to be either slightly taller or much shorter than average. But
although millions of people have these traits, most of them will never attain leadership
positions. It is also possible that individuals become more assertive and self–confident
once they occupy a leadership position so some of the traits identified may be the results
of leadership experience rather than the causes of leadership ability. Although personality
measurements may one day become exact enough to isolate leadership traits, the

evidence thus far suggests that people who emerge as leaders possess no single
constellation of traits that clearly distinguishes them from non–leaders.
The issue is also clouded by the question of cultural bias. For example, tallness has long
been associated with higher social classes. Does this mean that tallness is a leadership
trait? Or does it just reflect our culture’s inclination to seek its leaders from among the
ranks of the higher echelons of society? Our assumptions about leadership traits may
well change as increasing numbers of women and minorities assume leadership
positions.
Effective and ineffective leaders
Attempts to compare the characteristics of effective and ineffective leaders — the second
category of leadership trait studies — are more recent and fewer in number, but they, too,
have generally failed to isolate traits strongly associated with successful leadership. One
study did find that intelligence, initiative, and self–assurance were associated with high
managerial levels and performance. However, this study also found that the single most
important factor related to managerial level and performance was the manager’s
supervisory ability — that is, his or her skill in using supervisory methods appropriate to
the particular situation. Most other studies in this area also have found that effective
leadership does not depend on a particular set of traits, but rather on how well the leader’s
traits match the requirements of the situation.
Some researchers have also found that although women are still less likely than men to
emerge as leaders, they are just as effective when they do. Even though an increasing
number of people believe in equality of ability and opportunity, persistent, often
unconscious, sexual stereotyping continues to hamper the recognition of women as
potential leaders. Women who do become leaders, however, not only perform as well as
male leaders according to objective measures, but also are generally perceived as
equally effective by their employees. The late Anita Roddick, Managing Director of
successful UK cosmetics retailer, The Body Shop, was one early example of a woman
who is a successful leader in business, as was British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher,
in politics. The numbers are increasing rapidly.
Activity 1

a. What is a self–development diary?
b. In your organisation, are there many women in leadership positions? If there are few,
why is this? What are the views of your colleagues on this subject? Record your thoughts
in your self–development diary.

1.4.2 THE BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
When it became evident that effective leaders did not seem to have a particular set of
distinguishing traits, researchers tried to isolate the behaviours characteristic of effective
leaders. In other words, rather than try to figure out who effective leaders are, researchers
tried to determine what effective leaders do — how they delegate tasks, how they
communicate with and try to motivate their followers or employees, how they carry out
their tasks, and so on. Behaviours, unlike traits, can be learned, so it followed that
individuals trained in appropriate leadership behaviours would be able to lead more
effectively. These researchers have focused on two aspects of leadership behaviour:
leadership functions and leadership styles.
Leadership functions
Researchers exploring leadership functions came to the conclusion that to operate

effectively groups need someone to perform two major functions: task–related or
problem–solving functions and group–maintenance or social functions. Group
maintenance functions include such actions as mediating disputes and ensuring that
individuals feel valued by the group. Researchers concluded that a leader operates by
pursuing some task objective through the members of the group. The group will only go
along with this if their own objectives are met. These objectives are different to the task
objective of the leader. Pelz (1951) points out:
In any kind of situation, a basic postulate is that the more the leader (or any
member) helps other members achieve their goals, the greater will be the
members’ acceptance of him. By ‘acceptance’ is meant that members are willing
to follow the leader’s suggestions, express satisfaction with the leader’s conduct
etc.
Thus, an individual who is able to perform both roles successfully would be an especially
effective leader. In practice, however, a leader may have the skill or temperament or time
to play only one role. This does not mean that the group is doomed, though. Studies have
found that most effective groups have some form of shared leadership: one person
(usually the manager or formal leader) performs the task function, while another member
performs the social function. A good example of this is the British Army, where the officer

is the appointed task leader of a platoon, but the non–commissioned officer (NCO) is the
unofficial social leader.
Leadership styles
The two leadership functions — task–related and group–maintenance — tend to be

expressed in two different leadership styles. Managers who have a task–oriented style
closely supervise employees to be sure the task is performed satisfactorily. Getting the
job done is given more emphasis than employees’ growth or personal satisfaction.
Managers with an employee–oriented style put more emphasis on motivating rather than
controlling subordinates. They seek friendly, trusting and respectful relationships with
employees, who are often allowed to participate in decisions that affect them. Most
managers use at least a little of each style, but put more emphasis on either tasks or
employees.
This is more complex than it first seems. Pelz (1951) examined supervisors of low– and
high– producing groups. Recalling our initial observation in this session that a leader
achieves the task by satisfying the needs of the group, Pelz observed one leadership
behaviour: whether supervisors recommended group members for promotion.
Supervisors of low–producing groups made recommendations, but promotions were
turned down. Supervisors of high–producing groups either recommended group
members for promotion and succeeded, or didn’t make a recommendation.
Recommendation was not sufficient in itself to ensure that group members were
promoted. What mattered was whether the supervisor was successful in obtaining the
promotion, and this depended upon the influence of the supervisor with higher
management. Pelz concluded that the high–producing groups were led by powerful
leaders who were well aware of the limits of their influence with higher levels of
management, and could assess accurately the chances of success with their
recommendations.
Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt (1958) were among the first theorists to
describe the various factors thought to influence a manager’s choice of leadership style.
While they personally favoured the employee–centred style, they suggested that a
manager consider three sets of ‘forces’ before choosing a leadership style: forces in the
manager, forces in employees (whom they call subordinates), and forces in the situation.

How a manager leads will undoubtedly be primarily influenced by his or her background,
knowledge, values, and experience (forces in the manager). For example, a manager
who believes that the needs of the individual must come second to the needs of the
organisation is likely to take a very directive role in employees’ activities (see figure 1).
Figure 1 — Continuum of Leadership Behaviour
But characteristics of subordinates must also be considered before managers can choose
an appropriate leadership style. According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt, a manager can
allow greater participation and freedom when employees crave independence and
freedom of action, want to have decision–making responsibility, identify with the
organisation’s goals, are knowledgeable and experienced enough to deal with a problem
efficiently and have experiences that lead them to expect participative management.
Where these conditions are absent, managers might need initially to adopt a more
authoritarian style. They can, however, modify their leadership behaviour as employees
gain in self–confidence, skill, and organisational commitment.
Finally, a manager’s choice of leadership style must address such situational forces as
the organisation’s preferred style, the size and cohesiveness of a specific work group,
the nature of the group’s tasks, the pressures of time, and even environmental factors —
all of which may affect organisation members’ attitudes toward authority. Most managers,
for example, lean toward the leadership style favoured by the organisation’s top ranking
executives.
Activity 2
What is the predominant style of leadership in your organisation? Where does it fall on
Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s continuum above? Why does your organisation use this
style? Record your reflections in your self–development diary.
The Ohio State and University of Michigan Studies

Tannenbaum and Schmidt, along with other early researchers, thought leadership style
was a ‘zero–sum’ game: The more task–oriented a manager, the less relationship–
oriented he or she could be. Subsequent research was undertaken to determine which of
these two leadership styles produces the most effective group performance.
(High)
Low Structure High Structure

and and
High Consideration High Consideration
CONSIDERATION
Low Structure High Structure

and and
Low Consideration Low Consideration
(Low)
(Low) (High)
INITIATING STRUCTURE
Figure 1 — Leadership styles studied at Ohio State
At Ohio State University, researchers studied the effectiveness of what they called
‘initiating structure’ (task–oriented) and ‘consideration’ (employee–oriented) leadership
behaviours. They found, as might be expected, that employee turnover rates were lowest
and employee satisfaction highest under leaders who were rated high in consideration.
Conversely, leaders who were rated low in consideration and high in initiating structure
had high grievance and turnover rates among their employees. Figure 9 diagrams the
leadership styles studied at Ohio State. Interestingly, the researchers also found that
employees’ ratings of their leaders’ effectiveness depended not so much on the particular
style of the leader as on the situation in which the style was used. For example, air force
commanders who rated high on consideration were rated as less effective than task–
oriented commanders. It is possible that the more authoritarian environment of the
military, coupled with the air crews’ belief that quick, hard decisions are essential in
combat situations, caused people–oriented leaders to be rated less effective. On the

other hand, non–production supervisors and managers in large companies were rated
more effective if they ranked high in consideration.
Even in the military, there are differences in leadership demands around the world.
According to Douglas McGregor, the Z army was defeated by the smaller X army in
1956, despite the Z army's superior equipment and geographical location. The X army
was built on what could be called Theory Y values (see the section on Douglas
McGregor in session 7) in which soldiers were treated and taught to treat others with
kindness, hierarchy played a minor role, cross–communications flourished, coordination
was high, and intra–organizational rivalries were kept to a minimum. Because everyone
was working toward the same goal, the high command's role was one of leadership
rather than guidance.
Researchers at the University of Michigan found a different result. They distinguished

between production–centred and employee–centred managers. Production–centred
managers set rigid work standards, organised tasks down to the last detail, prescribed
work methods to be followed, and closely supervised employees’ work. Employee–
centred managers encouraged employee participation in goal setting and other work
decisions and helped ensure high performance by inspiring trust and respect. The
Michigan studies found that the most productive work groups tended to have leaders who
were employee–centred rather than production–centred. They also found that the most
effective leaders had supportive relationships with their employees, tended to depend on
group rather than individual decision making, and encouraged employees to set and
achieve high performance goals.
Employee–centred leadership and Total Quality Management (TQM)
Some aspects of the movement toward quality are in concert with the employee–centred
leadership style. For example, under TQM, managers’ priorities are reordered: Their
decision–making and control functions contract while their roles as coaches expand. As
the distinction between ‘those who think’ and ‘those that do’ is blurred, the job itself
becomes less specialised both horizontally and vertically. For instance, shop–floor teams
become involved with teams from other departments and units in communication and co–
ordination of work.

The Managerial Grid
One conclusion from the Ohio State and Michigan studies is that leadership style might
not be uni–dimensional. Both task orientation and employee orientation are not only
possible, but could be crucial to superior performance. The Managerial Grid,
developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (1964) to help measure a manager’s
relative concern for people and tasks, reflects this bi–dimensional nature of leadership.
The Managerial Grid (republished as the Leadership Grid in 1991 by Robert Blake and
Anne Adams McCanse) identifies a range of management behaviours based on the
various ways that task–oriented and employee–oriented styles (each expressed as a
continuum on a scale of 1 to 9) can interact with each other.
Style 1,1 management, at the lower left–hand corner of the grid, is impoverished
management — low concern for people and low concern for tasks or production. This
style is sometimes called laissez–faire management because the leader does not take a
leadership role. Style 1,9 management is country club management — high concern for
employees but low concern for production. Its opposite, Style 9,1 management, is task or
authoritarian management — high concern for production and efficiency but low concern
for employees. Style 5,5 is middle–of–the–road management — an intermediate amount
of concern for both production and employee satisfaction.
Style 9,9 is called team or democratic management — a high concern for both production
and employee morale and satisfaction. The presence of this category contrasts with the
earlier assumption that leaders had to have one orientation or the other. Blake and
Mouton argue strongly that Style 9,9 is the most effective management style. They
believe this leadership approach will, in almost all situations, result in improved
performance, low absenteeism and turnover, and high employee satisfaction. The Blake
and Mouton Managerial Grid is widely used as a training device for managers.
1.4.3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP
Researchers using the trait and behavioural approaches showed that effective leadership
depended on many variables, such as organisational culture and the nature of tasks. No
one trait was common to all effective leaders. No one style was effective in all situations.

Researchers therefore began trying to identify those factors in each situation that
influenced the effectiveness of a particular leadership style. Taken together, the theories
resulting from this research constitute the contingency approach to leadership. These
theories focus on the following factors:
 task requirements
 peers’ expectations and behaviour
 employees’ characteristics, expectations, and behaviour
 organisational culture and policies.
In the sections that follow, we will review four of the more recent and well–known
contingency models of leadership.

Leadership style and the work situation: the Fiedler model
One of the most thoroughly researched contingency models was developed by Fred E
Fiedler (1965). Fiedler’s basic assumption is that it is quite difficult for managers to alter
the management styles that made them successful. In fact, according to Fiedler, most
managers are not very flexible, and trying to change a manager’s style to fit unpredictable
or fluctuating situations is inefficient or useless. Since styles are relatively inflexible, and
since no one style is appropriate for every situation, effective group performance can only
be achieved by matching the manager to the situation or by changing the situation to fit
the manager. For example, a comparatively authoritarian manager can be selected to fill
a post that requires a directive leader or a job can be changed to give an authoritarian
manager more formal authority over employees.
The leadership styles that Fiedler contrasts are similar to the employee–centred and
task–oriented styles we discussed earlier. What differentiates his model from the others
is the measuring instrument he used. Fiedler measured leadership style on a scale that
indicated ‘the degree to which a man described favorably or unfavorably his least
preferred co–worker (LPC)’ — the employee with whom the person could work least
well. This measure locates an individual on the leadership–style continuum. According to
Fiedler’s findings, ‘a person who describes his least preferred co–worker in a relatively
favorable manner tends to be permissive, human relations–oriented, and considerate of
the feelings of his men. But a person who describes his least preferred co–worker in an
unfavorable manner — who has what we have come to call a low LPC rating — tends to
be managing, task–controlling, and less concerned with the human relations aspects of
the job.’ According to Fiedler, then, high–LPC managers want to have warm personal
relations with their co–workers and will regard close ties with employees as important to
their overall effectiveness. Low–LPC managers, on the other hand, want to get the job
done. The reactions of employees to their leadership style is of far lower priority than the
need to maintain production. Low–LPC managers who feel that a harsh style is necessary
to maintain production will not hesitate to use it.
Fiedler has identified three ‘leadership situations’ or variables that help determine which
leadership style will be effective: leader–member relations, the task structure, and the
leader’s position power. (Fiedler’s studies did not include such other situational variables

as employee motivation and the values and experiences of leaders and group members.)
Notice the links to power once more.
The quality of leader–member relations is the most important influence on the

manager’s power and effectiveness. If the manager gets along well with the rest of the
group, if group members respect the manager for reasons of personality, character, or
ability, then the manager might not have to rely on formal rank or authority. On the other
hand, a manager who is disliked or distrusted may be less able to lead informally and
could have to rely on directives to accomplish group tasks. We came across this earlier
in section 8.3 where we examined the case of high–producing groups and powerful
supervisors researched by Pelz.
Task structure is the second most important variable in the leadership situation. A highly
structured task is one for which step–by–step procedures or instructions are available.
Group members therefore have a very clear idea of what they are expected to do. But
when tasks are unstructured, as in committee meetings and many research and
development tasks, group member roles are more ambiguous.
The leader’s position power is the final situational variable identified by Fiedler. Some
positions, such as the presidency of a firm, carry a great deal of power and authority. The
chairperson of a fund–raising drive, on the other hand, has little power over volunteer
workers. Thus, high–position power simplifies the leader’s task of influencing others,
while low–position power makes the leader’s task more difficult.
Fiedler then went on to specify eight possible combinations of these three variables: in
the leadership situation: Leader–member relations can be good or poor, tasks may be
structured or unstructured, and position power may be strong or weak. (see table 2).
Leader–member Tasks Position power Category

relations
Strong I
Structured
Good Weak II
Unstructured Strong III

Weak IV
Strong V
Structured
Weak VI
Poor
Strong VII
Unstructured
Weak VIII
Table 1 Fiedler's situational variables and categories
Using these eight categories of leadership situations and his two types of leaders — high–
LPC and low–LPC — Fiedler reviewed studies of over 800 groups to see which type of
leader was most effective in each situation. Among the groups he studied were basketball
teams, executive training workshops, and air force and tank combat crews. A well–liked
leader of a bomber crew, for example, would be in category I of table 2, while a disliked
temporary committee chairperson would be in category VIII. He found that low–LPC
leaders — those who were task–oriented or authoritarian — were most effective in
extreme situations: situations in which the leader either had a great deal of power and
influence or had very little power and influence. High–LPC leaders — those who were
employee–oriented — were most effective in situations where the leader had moderate
power and influence.
This is shown in Figure 10, where the correlation between LPC and group performance
for the eight categories is plotted.
Figure 2 — How the style of effective leadership varies with the situation

Fiedler’s model, then, suggests that an appropriate match of the leader’s style (as
measured by the LPC score) to the situation (as determined by the interaction of these
three variables) leads to effective managerial performance. His model has been used
with some success as the basis of a training programme in which managers are shown
how to alter the situational variables to match their leadership styles rather than their
styles to fit the situation.

A path–goal approach to leadership
Like other contingency approaches, the path–goal model of leadership tries to help us
understand and predict leadership effectiveness in different situations. The model was
formulated by Martin G Evans and Robert J House.
The path–goal approach is based on the expectancy model of motivation, which states
that an individual’s motivation depends on his or her expectation of reward and the
valence, or attractiveness of the reward. Although managers have a number of ways to
influence employees, Evans notes, the most important is their ability to provide rewards
and to specify what employees must do to earn them. Thus, managers determine the
availability of ‘goals’ (rewards) and the ‘paths’ that will earn them.
Evans suggests that a manager’s leadership style influences the rewards available to
employees, as well as employees’ perceptions of the path to those rewards. An
employee–centred manager, for example, will offer not only pay and promotion, but also
support, encouragement, security, and respect. That type of manager will also be
sensitive to differences between employees and will tailor rewards to the individual. A
task–oriented manager, on the other hand, will offer a narrower, less individualised set of
rewards, but will usually be much better at linking employee performance to rewards than
an employee–centred manager. Employees of a task–oriented manager will know exactly
what productivity or performance level they must attain to get bonuses, salary increases
or promotions. Evans believes that the leadership style most effective in motivating
employees depends on the types of rewards they most desire.
House and his colleagues have tried to expand the path–goal theory by identifying two
variables that help determine the most effective leadership style: the personal
characteristics of employees and the environmental pressures and demands in the
workplace with which employees must cope.
Personal characteristics of employees
The leadership style employees prefer will be, according to House, partially determined
by their personal characteristics. He cites studies suggesting that individuals who believe
their behaviour affects the environment favour a participatory leadership style, while
those who believe events occur because of luck or fate tend to find an authoritarian style
more congenial.

Employees’ evaluations of their own ability will also influence their style preference.
Those who feel highly skilled and capable may resent an overly supervisory manager,
whose directives will be seen as counterproductive rather than helpful. On the other hand,
employees who feel less skilled may prefer a more directive manager, who will be seen
as enabling them to carry out their tasks properly and earn organisational rewards.
Environmental pressures and workplace demands
Environmental factors also affect the leadership styles preferred by employees. One such
factor is the nature of the employees’ tasks. For example, an overly directive style may
seem redundant and even insulting for a highly structured task. If a task is unpleasant,
however, a manager’s consideration may add to the employee’s satisfaction and
motivation. Another factor is the organisation’s formal authority system, which clarifies
which actions are likely to be met with approval (coming in under budget, say) and which
with disapproval (coming in over budget). A third environmental factor is the employees’
work group. Groups that are not very cohesive, for example, usually benefit from a
supportive, understanding style. As a general rule, a leader’s style will motivate
employees to the extent that it compensates them for what they see as deficiencies in
the task, authority system, or work group.
Other contingency models
For those of you interested in reading more widely on the subject, you may like to
consider the following models.
Victor Vroom has been involved for many years in research, teaching and consulting on
the psychological analysis of behaviour in organisations. A Canadian by birth, he has
been at McGill University, a number of US universities and is currently Searle Professor
of Organisation and Management, and Professor of Psychology at Yale University. The
Vroom–Yetton (1973) and Vroom–Jago (1988) models examine how managers make
decisions and how subordinates participate. The models examine a number of processes
that managers could follow, given the situation. They also examined what managers
actually did. It seems that managers did vary their behaviour according to the situation.
Vroom comments . ‘It makes more sense to talk about participative and autocratic
situations than it does to talk about participative and autocratic managers.’

Writing in the spirit that we call ‘dynamic engagement,’ James Kouzes and Barry Posner
(1992) have opened up a new line of inquiry in leadership research by going back to
basics and trying to catalogue five fundamental practices and ten behaviours that leaders
use to get ‘extraordinary things done.’ They asked leaders to describe themselves when
they were at their best, and they asked employees to list the characteristics they admired
most in leaders.
Their research is based on interviews and questionnaires with over 500 middle and senior
managers, and the importance of their findings is that they demystify the research on
leadership by appealing directly to the experiences of leaders. They argue that these five
categories and ten behaviours can be learned by most people. A similar approach, very
popular in many management development programmes, has been followed by Steven
Covey. He has identified ten key leadership traits and discusses them in detail in two very
popular books: The Ten Habits of Highly Effective People and Principle–Centered
Leadership.
Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model
One of the major contingency approaches to leadership is Paul Hersey and Kenneth H
Blanchard’s situational leadership model, which holds that the most effective
leadership style varies with the ‘readiness’ of employees. Hersey and Blanchard (1977)
define readiness as desire for achievement, willingness to accept responsibility, and
LEADER BEHAVIOUR
(High)
High Relationship High Task

and and
Low Task High Relationship
3 2
Low Relationship High Task

and and
Low Task Low Relationship
4 1
(Low)
(Low) (High)
TASK BEHAVIOUR
(Providing Guidance)

task–related ability, skill, and experience. The goals and knowledge of followers are
important variables in determining effective leadership style.
Figure 3 — The situational model of leadership
Hersey and Blanchard believe that the relationship between a manager and follower
moves through four phases in sequence as employees develop, and managers need to
vary their leadership style (see figure 11). In the initial phase of readiness (phase 1 in
figure 11) high amounts of task behaviour by the manager is most appropriate.
Employees must be instructed in their tasks and familiarised with the organisation’s rules
and procedures. A non–directive manager would cause anxiety and confusion in new
followers. A participatory, high relationship behaviour approach would also be
inappropriate at this stage because the follower requires structure.
As followers begin to learn their tasks, task–behaviour remains essential because they
are not yet able to function without the structure. However, the leader’s trust in and
support of employees increases as the leader becomes familiar with them and wishes to
encourage further efforts on their part. Thus, the leader needs to increase relationship
behaviour (phase 2 in figure 11).
In the third phase, employees have more ability and achievement motivation begins to
surface and they actively begin to seek greater responsibility. The leader will no longer
need to be as directive (indeed, close direction might be resented).
However, the leader will still have to be supportive and considerate in order to strengthen
the followers’ resolve for greater responsibility.
As followers gradually become more confident, self–directing, and experienced, the

leader can reduce the amount of support and encouragement. In this fourth phase,
followers no longer need or expect direction from their manager. They are increasingly
on their own. The leader must beware of abdicating responsibility for the follower,
however, and ignoring them completely.
Notice how similar this is to the loser trap described in session 5. Willingness (defined as
morale, motivation or commitment) lags behind performance. As performance improves,
individuals still need support until their willingness catches up.

The situational leadership model has generated interest because it recommends a
leadership type that is dynamic and flexible rather than static. The motivation, ability, and
experience of followers must constantly be assessed to determine which style
combination is most appropriate under flexible and changing conditions. If the style is
appropriate, according to Hersey and Blanchard (1977), it will not only motivate
employees but will also help them develop professionally. Thus, the leader who wants to
develop followers, increase their confidence, and help them learn their work will have to
shift style constantly.
Yet a practical question remains: to what extent are managers actually able to choose
among leadership styles in different situations? This issue is important because it affects
management selection, placement, and promotion. If managers are flexible in leadership
style, or if they can be trained to vary their style, presumably they will be effective in a
variety of leadership situations. If, on the other hand, managers are relatively inflexible in
leadership style, they will operate effectively only in those situations that best match their
style or that can be adjusted to match their style. Such inflexibility would hamper the
careers of individual managers: and complicate the organisation’s task of filling its
management positions effectively. There seems to be much evidence that managers are
inflexible, and seek out organisations that adopt the same style as themselves. They may
even be unaware that they can flex their style if they want to. This also has great
implications for change management — especially culture change.
REVIEW OF LEARNING
After working through this session you should be able to:
 Describe and give examples of the different approaches to leadership. Evaluate

their usefulness in different circumstances,
 Explain the key differences between leadership and management, and

demonstrate how to place the emphasis in everyday situations. To recognise that
change situations require an emphasis on leadership and steady–state operations
require the emphasis to be placed on management.

 Analyse the different functions of leadership and their relation to power and
management. Demonstrate how to use power relations to improve group
effectiveness and satisfy both leadership functions.
 Demonstrate how to choose an appropriate leadership style in order to promote

effectiveness in a group. This will also assessing the different abilities and states
of willingness of individuals within the group.
 Recognise that you have a particular preference for one style of leaderships over
another and that it may not be possible to flex your style to suit all situations. To
recognise those styles which you find most difficult to adopt, and put in place
development measures to tackle these difficulties.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
Adair, J., 1983. Effective leadership: A self-development manual. Gower.
Barnard, C.I., 1938. The theory of authority. The functions of the executive, pp.161-184.
Blake, R.R., 1991. Leadership dilemmas--grid solutions. Routledge.
Blake, R. and Mouton, J., 1964. The managerial grid: The key to leadership
excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co, 350.
Blanchard, K.H., Zigarmi, P. and Zigarmi, D., 1985. Leadership and the one minute
manager. London: Fontana.
Covey, S.R. and Gulledge, K.A., 1994. Principle-centered leadership and change. The
Journal for Quality and Participation, 17(2), p.12.
Covey, S.R. and Covey, S.R., 1994. Seven Habits of Highly Effective. Simon and
Schuster.
Cummings, L L and W E Scott (1969) Readings in Organizational Theory and Human

Performance, Irwin & Dorsey
Fiedler, F.E. and Model, L.A.N., 1965. Discovery.
Fiedler, F E (1965) 'Engineer the job to fit the manager' Harvard Business Review, vol
43
Fiedler, F.E., 1967. A THEORY OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS. MCGRAW-HILL

SERIES IN MANAGEMENT.
George, N. and Von Der Embse, T.J., 1971. Six propositions for managerial leadership:
Diagnostic tools for definition and focus. Business Horizons, 14(6), pp.33-43.
Ghiselli, E E (1963) 'Managerial Talent', American Psychologist, Vol. 17 pp.631–42.
Guest, R A (1962) Organizational Change: The Effect of Successful Leadership, Irwin &
Dorsey
Hersey, P and K H Blanchard (1977) Management of Organisational Behaviour: Utilising

Human Resources, 3rd ed, Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall Inc
Hofstede, G (1984) Culture's Consequences (abridged edition) Sage Publications

Hofstede, G (1980) 'Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do American Theories
Apply Abroad?’ Organizational Dynamics, Summer
Hollander, E P (1964) Leaders, Groups and Influence, Oxford University Press, New York
House R J, ‘A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness’, Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, 321–339. Sep., 1971.
Huneryager, S G and I L Heckmann (eds) (1967) Human Relations in Management,

Arnold
Hunt, J., 1981. Managing People at Work: A Manager‟ s Guide to Behaviour In.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z., 2006. The leadership challenge (Vol. 3). John Wiley &
Sons.
Levitt, S D and S J Dubner (2005) Freakonomics, Allen Lane
Likert, R (1961) New Patterns of Management, McGraw–Hill
MacCoby, M (1981) The Leader, Simon & Schuster
McGregor, D V (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw–Hill
MacGregor Burns, J (1978) Leadership, Harper & Row
Mant, A (1983) Leaders We Deserve, Martin Robertson
Mitchell, T.R., Biglan, A., Oncken, G.R. and Fiedler, F.E., 1970. The contingency model:
Criticism and suggestions. Academy of Management Journal, 13(3), pp.253-267.
Nias, J (1980) 'Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction in Primary Schools', in Bush, T, R
T. Glatter, R Goodey, J Riches, C Glatter, R (1980), (eds), Approaches to School
Management, Harper & Row
Northouse, P.G., 2018. Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.
Pelz, D.C., 1951. Leadership within a hierarchical organization. Journal of Social

Issues, 7(3), pp.49-55.
Peters, T J and R H Waterman (1982) In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row

Rackham, N, P Honey and M Colbert (1971) Developing Interactive Skills, Wellens
Publishing
Schein, E (1980) Organizational Psychology, 3rd ed, Prentice Hall
Stogdill, R M, (1950) ‘Leadership, membership and organization’ Psychological Bulletin,

vol 47, pp 1–14.
Stogdill, R M, and C L Shartle (1956) Patterns of Administrative Behaviour, Ohio State

University
Tannenbaum, R and W Schmidt, W (1958) 'How to Choose a Leadership Pattern',

Harvard Business Review, March–April
Vroom, V H (1960) Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation,

Prentice Hall
Vroom, V H and E L Deci (eds) (1970) Management and Motivation, Penguin
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in
organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Vroom, V H and P W Yetton (1973) Leadership and Decision–Making, University of

Pittsburgh Press
Wald, R.M. and Doty, R.A., 1954. The top executive-a firsthand profile. Harvard
Business Review, 32(4), pp.45-54.

Week 3-Leadership and Management Styles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 3-Leadership and Management Styles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 3-Leadership and Management Styles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic 3 - Leadership and Management Styles

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 1

1.2 Management and Leadership.

Management and leadership are different. Management is concerned with control,

We can think of leadership in two ways:

In this session, we will consider both of these notions.

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 2

Symptoms of poor leadership

This is a simple checklist to assess the effectiveness of a leader. Do they:

 Review possible better ways of achieving the group's goals?

 Defend the group from outside attack?

 Develop a sense of comradeship, worthwhileness, esprit de corps, pride and

Thoughts from evolutionary psychology

This is supported by an interesting investigation carried out by Steven Levitt, an

He examined some research performed on drug–dealers in Chicago. He noticed

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 3

1.3 Management theories

• Douglas McGregor’s Theory ‘X’ and ‘Y’

• Elton Mayo’s Human relations theory

• Henry Mintzberg management theory

• Fredrick Taylor’s scientific management theory

• Henri Fayol’s principles of administrative management

• Max Weber’s bureaucratic management

1.3.1 Theory ‘X’ and ‘Y’

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 4

1.3.2 Human relations theory

1.3.3 Henry Mintzberg theory

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 5

1.4 Leadership Approaches

 The behavioural approach to leadership theories

 Contingency approaches to leadership

1.4.1 TRAIT THEORIES

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 6

The first systematic effort by psychologists and other researchers to understand

Leaders and non–leaders

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 7

Effective and ineffective leaders

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 8

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 9

Researchers exploring leadership functions came to the conclusion that to operate

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 10

The two leadership functions — task–related and group–maintenance — tend to be

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 11

Figure 1 — Continuum of Leadership Behaviour

The Ohio State and University of Michigan Studies

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 12

Low Structure High Structure

Low Structure High Structure

Figure 1 — Leadership styles studied at Ohio State

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 13

Researchers at the University of Michigan found a different result. They distinguished

Employee–centred leadership and Total Quality Management (TQM)

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 14

1.4.3 CONTINGENCY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 15

 peers’ expectations and behaviour

 employees’ characteristics, expectations, and behaviour

 organisational culture and policies.

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 16

HR 7003-Managing Financial and Human Resources for Sustainable Business Success 17