Internal
Links

Top

 Review on   CO:  Organizational Leadership
External
Links
Link
An Overview of Leadership   
Link
         The Functions of Leadership   
Link
         The Components of Leadership   
Link
          The Options for Dealing w/ Unethical Behavior   
Link
          Fielder's Contingency Theory of Leadership   
Link
         The Styles of Leadership   
Link
                  Instrumental, Expressive & Supportive Leadership Styles   
Link
         Factors Affecting Leadership Outcomes: Succession   
Link
         The Motivation of Leaders   
Link
         Leadership in Voluntary Orgs   
Link
         Leadership & Organization in Social Movement Organizations (SMOs)   

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on an Overview of Leadership
External
Links
  -  Project:  Leadership 
Link
  -  Project:  How Would You Lead? 
Link
  -  Project: Video: Master & Commander 
Link
  LEADERSHIP IS AMONG THE TOP FACTORS AFFECTING ORGS & BECAUSE ORGS & PEOPLE ARE NOT COMPLETELY RATIONAL, CHARISMA IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR   
  Leadership is perhaps the most important, influential, & oft studied topic in orgl studies 
 
  There is the assumption that leadership is the most powerful aspect of any org 
 
  Even political events often hinge upon leadership as seen in the famous: "Great Man [ sic ] Theory of History" paradigm 
 
  Much of history is the story of military, political, religious, & social leaders 
 
  Leadership studies often examine why some great leaders were deposed despite apparent power & a record of successful accomplishments 
 
  LEADERSHIP IS HEAVILY CONSTRAINED, INFLUENCED, & OTHERWISE SHAPED BY MANY FACTORS INSIDE & OUTSIDE THE ORG 
 
  Meindl, et al, 1985, holds that leadership is romanticized as a solution for whatever is ailing an org 
 
  Focusing on issues such as leadership often masks problems w/ structure, power distribution, etc. 
 
  Etzioni, 1965, describes leadership as the ability, based on the personal qualities of the leader, to elicit the followers' voluntary compliance in a broad range of matters 
 
  Leadership is distinguished from power in that it entails influence, i.e., the ability to influence preferences, while power implies only that subjects' preferences are held in abeyance 
 
  Followers do alter their preferences to coincide w/ those of the leader 
 
  Gouldner, 1950, describes the leader as any individual whose behavior stimulates the patterning of the behavior & ideology of some group 
 
  For Gouldner, the leader is an influence on what the members 
 
  Katz & Kahn, 1978, see leadership as the influential increase over & above the mechanical compliance w/ the routine directions of the org 
 
  Thus leadership is closely related to power, but involves more than simply the power allocated to a position in the or or claimed by a member   
  Leadership is something that is attributed to people by their followers   
  There is little research on top leadership because these people have the power to control access to them & they have generally not allowed researchers in & when they do, they control by controlling access they control the findings of the research   
  Much research on top leadership is the result of books written by the leaders themselves: 
Lee Iacocca & Chrysler         Donald Trump       Winston Churchill 
 
  There are an extremely large number of dependent variables used in leadership analysis   
 
The contemporary conceptualization of leadership involves a combination of FIVE factors, including the: 
position w/in the org itself 
situation / context / environment 
traits of the Leaders 
-  traits of the Followers 
-  nature of the relationships w/ subordinates 
 
  Because each leadership role is the result of the unique combination of these factors, no one style of leadership is successful all the time   
  Leadership affects both behavior & attitudes at all levels of the org, though the influence of  top leadership is thought to be greater   

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on the  Functions of Leadership
External
Links
  LEADERS MAKE CRITICAL DECISIONS & THEN CONVINCE PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THEM   
  Selznick, 1957, distinguishes btwn leadership & power when he notes that perhaps the most important function of leadership is to make critical decisions 
 
  For Selznick, leadership is more than the maintenance of the administration of the org 
 
  LEADERS DEFINE THE ORG'S MISSION, BUILD STRUCTURE, FOSTER VALUES, RESOLVE CONFLICT   
  Selznick believes the critical tasks of leadership fall into FOUR categories 
 
  In relation to the functions of leadership, for Selznick a critical task of leadership is the:   
  a.  definition of the institutional (organizational) mission & role including the definition of an org's role 
 
  For Selznick, an leader's role is a dynamic process that is made difficult by a rapidly changing world   
  b.  embodiment of the orgl purpose of building of policy into structure; i.e. deciding upon the means to achieve the ends desired 
 
  c. defense of the org's integrity by representing the org'svalues via public relations to the public & the org's own members 
 
  d.  ordering of internal conflict by guiding it to maintain positive relationships 
 
  LEADERSHIP OCCURS AT ALL LEVELS OF THE ORG INCLUDING THE TOP, MIDDLE, & THE BOTTOM / LINE   
  Leadership occurs at all levels of the org & many studies have been done at the lowest level of leadership, i.e. 1st line supervisors, which are the easiest to study 
 
  Middle mgrs are more remote & difficult to analyze 
 
  Top mgrs are very remote & nearly impossible to analyze
 
  The middle & top levels of mgt. have the power to control access to them, thus studies often reveal only what the mgrs allow to be revealed 
 
  The level in the org where the leadership occurs, affects the functioning of the leadership 
 
  What affects mgt., or is effective at one level most likely is not as important at another level 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on the  Components of Leadership
External
Links
  MANY SCHOLARS USE A TRAITS APPROACH, EXAMINING THE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF LEADERS, SUCH AS RATIONALITY, PERSUASIVE, INNOVATIVE CHARISMATIC, ETC.   
  All orgs have a person or people at the top in leadership positions who, by Weber's conception of rationalized authority, wield power w/in the org 
 
  Hall believes it is crucial to examine what a leader does above & beyond the basic requirement of the position 
 
  For Hall, the persuasion of members & innovations in ideas & decision making is what differentiates leadership from the possession of power 
 
  Hall's analysis assumes that individual characteristics are crucial for leadership because otherwise leadership would only entail the fulfillment of the requirements of the office 
 
  Many analysts have assumed that there are a set of traits that leaders possess, but the trait approach has not gone far for TWO reasons 
 
  The trait approach has not achieved its goals because   
  a.  no universal set of characteristics has been found since leaders have a wide range of characteristics 
 
  b.  the situation in which leadership occurs is as important as any factor found (Gouldner, 1950) 
 
  MANY SCHOLARS HAVE FOCUSED ON THE EXTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEADERSHIP SITUATION NOTING THAT THIS IS MORE DETERMINATIVE OF SUCCESS THAN THE INTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS   
  The situational approach assumes that the set of conditions of the moment, the situation, defines by whom & in what manner leadership will be exercised 
 
  The situational approach has dominated sociological thinking, especially in small group analyses 
 
  The emergent approach combines the trait & situation approaches in the belief that different situations call for leaders w/ different traits; thus leaders emerge to meet the situation (Yukl, 1981, 1989) 
 
  Hollander & Julian, 1969, supplement the emergent approach by integrating the dynamic btwn leaders & followers where leaders influence the followers & followers influence leaders in the context of the former dynamic 
 
  The position of the leader in the org gives the leader a power base leading the followers to the expectation that the Leader has the legitimate right to that position & that the Leaders acts for the org 
 
  The position of the leaders & the followers  is especially important during times of dissent 
 
  The leader should act in such a way that the expectations of the followers' expectations are fulfilled 
 
  Here the interrelationships btwn the traits of the leader & the position's authority interact in that on set of traits is optimal for a given position in a given situation   
  Yukl, 1981, Figure on Leadership Variables indicates the dynamics of SIX variables impacting leadership, including: 
1.  traits & skills 
2.  behavior 
3.  follower / intervening variables 
4.  end result variables 
5.  position power 
6.  situation variables 
 
  There are THREE Advantages of Yukl's Framework 
a.  It identifies factors that contribute to or may block leadership 
b.  It can deal w/ leadership at all levels w/in the org 
c.  It recognizes that the end results or outcomes have an important feedback effect on leadership 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on the  Options for Dealing w/ Unethical Behavior 
External
Links
  -  Project:  Options for Dealing w/ Unethical Behavior 
Link
  THE OPTIONS FOR DEALING W/ UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR INCLUDE: 
1.  DON'T THINK ABOUT IT 
2.  GO ALONG & GET ALONG 
3.  PROTEST 
4.  CONSCIENTIOUSLY OBJECT 
5.  LEAVE 
6.  SECRETLY BLOW THE  WHISTLE 
7.  PUBLICLY BLOW THE WHISTLE 
8.  SECRETLY THREATEN TO BLOW THE WHISTLE 
9.  SABOTAGE 
10.  NEGOTIATE & BUILD CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE 
 
  In 1985 there were over 1300 scholastic articles in print in the area of ethics in administration, mgt, business & public admin, business etc., focusing on what was ethical or unethical in typical business practices 
 
  Richard Nielson (1987) focuses on what people in orgs can actually do when they believe behaviors / practices are unethical
 
  While it is important to know what is or is not ethical, it is just as important to know what to do when confronted w/ unethical behavior 
 
  1.  DON'T THINK ABOUT IT 
 
  Not thinking about unethical beh avoids a zero sum game btwn superiors & peers 
 
  Not thinking about, not engaging in a zero sum game avoids getting into the situation where someone has to win & someone has to lose 
 
  Not thinking about one path of action makes one more susceptible to go down the wrong path, strategically or otherwise 
 
  One risks becoming similar to the good Nazi as one tries to make the best of a bad situation, but participating in the evil policy / practices 
 
  The bad Nazi may be kind, even reluctant, but ultimately they are involved in evil policy / practices   
  The ability of people to compartmentalize, to not think about what is going on, questions the validity of assuming that all mgrs naturally understand what is right or wrong; there are powerful pressures to obey orders & not think about what is going on   
  2.  GO ALONG & GET ALONG 
 
  Going along has the same advantage as not thinking about unethical behavior:  one avoids the situation where someone has to win & someone has to lose 
 
  Going along means that one must think about the unethical beh at least for a while 
 
  Thinking about & going along unethical beh has the quality of an injury or illness as it slowly bleeds the individual conscience or as guilt consumes one like a cancer 
 
  Under constant pressure, mgrs & wkrs simply give in & become good 'organization people' 
 
  Conforming might affect areas of dec mking & action unrelated to the unethical beh as it reigns in thinking, initiative, enthusiasm, etc. & deprive mgrs & wkrs of info   
  3.  PROTEST   
  An advantage of protesting is that one can feel good about making an effort to stop the unethical beh  
  The disadvantage of protesting is that the org can usually disregard objections & punish those who objected   
  4.  CONSCIENTIOUSLY OBJECT 
 
  Conscientiously objecting to unethical beh means that one refuses to participate in it in any shape, manner, or form   
  Conscientiously objecting makes a clear statement to the org that at least one person considers the beh unethical & refuses to participate in it   
  Like protesting, conscientiously objecting makes one feel good about oneself as one stands up for what they believe   
  Consc obj may encourage others by example   
  If the org recognizes the right to consc obj, then one may also be able to keep one's job   
  Because very few orgs recognize the right to consc obj, one is likely to lose one's job, & thus the org loses an important voice against the unethical beh  
 
By protesting or consc objecting one often loses the ability to advance   
  5.  LEAVE   
  Leaving gives a signal that it will lose good people if it continues unethical beh  
  If we leave & work for a competitor we help a more ethical org gain mkt share  
  We feel better because we had the courage not to cooperate w/ unethical beh  
  The disadvantage of leaving is that most wkrs are very replaceable & so the org loses an ethical voice when we leave  
  If the situation was a zero sum game, then mgt might see wkrs / mgrs leaving as a victory; the opposition has retreated / surrendered   
  If we leave & someone else cooperates, we have only helped ourselves   
  The example one sets is that if one encounters unethical beh & leaves, that is the only / best option   
  Leaving sets up the 'love it or leave it' mentality in the org   
  At some point we may realize that we did not have the courage to stay & fight   
  "The courage to be is the ethical act in which man affirms his own being in spite of those elements of existence which conflict w/ his essential self affirmation" 
Tillich, 1952
 
 
Leaving cuts off dialogue & thus the org & even the person loses the chance to learn more about the situation   
  There are limits to dialogue in a zero or negative sum game in that everything one says can be used against one if people are not interested in transforming the situation into a positive sum situation   
  Dialogue has little utility unless one is solely focused on the phil / spiritual transformation that can be a part of peacemaking as an end in itself (Brinton, 1973; Buber, 1965)  
  6.  SECRETLY BLOW THE  WHISTLE   
  Blowing the whistle can be very effective if the org is likely to react to publicity, public pressure, govt intervention, profl accreditation orgs, the courts, etc. 
 
  An advantage of blowing the whistle is that the whistle blower cannot be retaliated against   
  A disadvantage of blowing the whistle is that one might feel dishonest, cowardly, traitorous, paranoid of being caught, etc.   
  Secretly blowing the whistle can create an atmosphere of distrust in the org & create a 'witch hunt' mentality w/in the org   
  Because many orgs investigate leaks, the secret whistle blower may have to face additional ethical questions bout whether to tell the truth in the leak investigation   
  If the secret whistle blower is discovered, they may be fired, or they may find it difficult to be trusted by other mgrs, wkrs, clients, etc.   
  7.  PUBLICLY BLOW THE  WHISTLE   
  Publicly blowing the whistle can be just as effective as secretly blowing the whistle  
  People who publicly blow the whistle are often treated both as heroes as well as pariahs   
  The major disadvantage of publicly blowing the whistle is that the org may retaliate w/ a legal suit, firing, transfer, smear campaign, etc.   
  Publicly blowing the whistle makes it difficult to interact w/ the people one is criticizing   
  Publicly blowing the whistle makes colleagues feel betrayed, attached, harmed it   
  Publicly blowing the whistle does not help the reputation of the org, & may even put it out of business   
  8.  SECRETLY THREATEN TO BLOW THE WHISTLE   
  Secretly threatening to blow the whistle has all the advantages of secretly blowing the whistle w/ the additional advantage that, when it works, i.e., when the org changes its unethical beh, the org doesn't have to be hurt by bad publicity & / or sanctions that could follow   
  Secretly threatening to blow the whistle has the disadvantage of secretly blowing the whistle in that it does not permit dialogue btwn the unethical people & the whistle blowers   
  9.  SABOTAGE   
  Sabotage in the face of unethical beh usually entails hurting or destroying the larger program in which the beh is found so that mgt shuts it down   
  The advantage of sabotage is that it can be effective & ones identity is protected   
  The disadvantages of sabotage are that one may be caught, one may feel guilty, there is often an investigation, innocent people may be hurt, etc.   
  The biggest disadvantage of sabotage is that there is no dialogue so there is no opportunity for real change   
  10.  NEGOTIATE & BUILD CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE  
  Because in general when one person opposes a group of people in cooperate beh, that one person is likely to lose, it is difficult for one person in an org to bring about change   
  The advantages to building consensus for change are that 
-  there is strength in numbers 
-  the org is less likely to retaliate against a grp
-  it builds a cooperate climate 
 
  The best negotiation strat for change is the tit for tat ( TFT ) strat where the change agents respond to positive moves by the other side w/ positive moves, and response to negative move w/ negative moves   
  The difficulty of the TFT strat is that the change agents might not have positive or negative responses available, while the org has nearly unlimited options   
  It is not uncommon for people who are pursuing bad / unethical goals to use bad / unethical methods to cover them up or punish those that threaten them   
  Negotiating & building consensus are more likely to be successful when the org is accustomed to positive sum solutions to problems   
  Unfortunately many mgrs are only accustomed to negative sum solutions where they attempt to win & punish the loser   
  It is only natural to have the 'fight or flight' reaction, even in orgs wherein when one is confronted w/ a threat at work, one often wants to leave or attack rather than calmly negotiate & build consensus   
  An additional reward to negotiating & building consensus is that for many, these activities are in themselves satisfying; negotiating & peacemaking can be empowering, transformative, & satisfying   

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on  Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership
External
Links
 
FIEDLER'S CONTINGENCY THEORY MOVED THE LEADERSHIP DEBATE FROM FOCUSING ON LEADERSHIP TRAITS TO EXT & INT ENVL FACTORS AFFECTING LEADERSHIP 
 
 
Fred E. Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership effectiveness was based on studies of a wide range of group effectiveness, & concentrated on the relationship btwn leadership & orgl performance 
 
  Fiedler's contingency theory is founded upon determining the orientation of the leader, the elements of a given situation, & the leader orientation that was found to be most effective as the situation changed   
 
Fiedler's contingency theory is one of the earliest situation contingent leadership theories 
 
 
According to Fiedler, if an org attempts to achieve group effectiveness through leadership, then there is a need to assess the leader according to an underlying trait, assess the situation faced by the leader, & construct a proper match btwn the two 
 
 
One characteristic of the leader, ie their relationship w/ subordinate, & three characteristics of the situation determine leadership effectiveness, ie leader member relations, task structure, & position power 
 
  A LEADER'S ASSESSMENT OF THE LPC REVEALS A LOT ABOUT THEIR LEADERSHIP STYLE & SKILLS   
 
In order to assess the attitudes of the leader, Fiedler developed the ‘least preferred co worker’ (LPC) scale in which the leaders are asked about the person w/ whom they least like to work 
 
 
Although the name implies that it assesses the cowkr, the scale measures a characteristic of the leader, not the subordinate 
 
 
Leaders are asked to think about the LPC & describe them using the semantic differential type scale 
 
 
The LPC scale is a questionnaire consisting of 16 items used to reflect a leader’s underlying disposition toward others 
 
 
The items in the LPC scale are:
pleasant / unpleasant
friendly / unfriendly
rejecting / accepting
unenthusiastic / enthusiastic
tense / relaxed
cold / warm
helpful / frustrating
cooperative / uncooperative
supportive / hostile
quarrelsome / harmonious
efficient / inefficient
gloomy / cheerful
distant / close
boring / interesting
self assured / hesitant
open / guarded
 
 
Each item in the scale is given a single ranking of btwn one & eight points, w/ eight points indicating the most favorable rating. 
 
 
The LPC scores leaders from a continuum of those deriving the least satisfaction from interpersonal relationships to those deriving the most satisfaction from interpersonal relationships 
 
 
How the leader relates to the LPC indicates a lot about their leadership style & skills 
 
  Leaders low on the LPC scale do well under moderate situation control   
  Leaders high on the LPC scale do well under both high & low situation control   
 
SITUATIONAL FACTORS DETERMINE HOW FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE A SITUATION IS TO A LEADER 
 
 
According to Fiedler, a leader’s behavior is dependent upon the favorability of the leadership situation 
 
 
Three factors work together to determine how favorable a situation is to a leader, including member relations, task structure, & position power 
 
 
A.  Leader member relations are the degree to which the leader is trusted &  liked by the group members, & the willingness of the group members to follow the leaders guidance 
 
 
B.  Task structure is the degree to which the group's task has been described as structured or unstructured, has been clearly defined & the extent to which it can be carried out by detailed instructions 
 
 
C.  Position power is the power of the leader by virtue of the orgl position & the degree to which the leader can exercise authority on group members in order to comply w/ & accept his direction & leadership
 
 
A leader w/ good leader member relations, highly structures tasks, & high position power will be in a situation of high control 
 
  A leader w/ poor leader member relations, unstructured tasks, & low  position power will be in a situation of low control   
  THE RELATIONSHIP BTWN LPC FACTORS & SITUATIONAL CONTROL DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEADER / WKGRP  
  Fiedler posits that there are two varieties of leaders, the task oriented type and the people oriented type   
  In his studies, Fiedler discovered that task oriented leaders were more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, while relationship oriented leaders perform better in moderate control situations   
  Fiedler concludes that there is no leadership style that is effective in all situations, and that certain leadership styles adapt better to some situations than to others  
  The effectiveness of a leader / wkgrp is dependent upon the orientation of the leader and to the favorableness of the situation  
 
The Figure on Leadership & Power in Orgs demonstrates that leadership / grp effectiveness is a function of situational control & how the leader relates to subordinates (LPC scale) which indicates that leadership / grp effectiveness is contingent on factors beyond the leader's control, ie the situation, & factors w/in the leader's control, ie how they relate to subordinates 
 
 
CRITIQUES OF FIEDLER'S CONTINGENCY THEORY ARE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE, FINDING THAT FIEDLER'S FACTORS, & OTHERS, ARE NEEDED TO EXPLAIN LEADERSHIP 
 
  In 1981, the first meta analysis of Fiedler's contingency theory research was presented by Strube &  Garcia, &  they supported the theory overall   
  Their work was based on thirty three tests used by Fiedler to develop his model &  145 tests of the validity of the model   
  The accuracy of their conclusions, however, have been challenged on the basis of a flawed selection of studies, and on inappropriate statistical analysis   
  In a subsequent meta analysis, Peters, Harke, & Pohlmann (1985), used the data from studies based on the meta analytic procedures of Hunter, et al (1982)   
 
Peters et al (1985) used more recent &  improved research standards, &  although results were supportive of Fielder's theory, they also concluded that results required more explanation that just the contingency theory. 
 
 
They found that the theory was fitting for the studies on which it was based, but that studies specifically testing the theory yielded less supporting evidence
 

 
Internal
Links

Top

  Outline on  Leadership Styles
External
Links
  -  Project:  Styles of Leadership 
Link
  INTRO:  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EXCELLENT LEADERSHIP HAVE NEVER BEEN QUANTIFIED, THOUGH MANY HAVE TRIED   
  The characteristics of excellent leadership have never been quantified, though many have tried 
 
  Leadership may be as much a product of a situation as of any individual characteristics   
  One common belief is that first born children are more likely to be leaders, though evidence for this is weak   
  It is very difficult to teach leadership skills   
  THERE ARE FOUR STYLES OF LEADERSHIP, INCLUDING AUTHORITARIAN, LAISSEZ FAIRE, DEMOCRATIC, & OLIGARCHIC   
  There are FOUR styles of leadership / decision making 
 
  A.  AUTHORITARIAN LEADERS TELL THE GROUP WHAT TO DO   
Link
In the authoritarian style of leadership, the leader tells group what to do w/ little or no input from others
 
  Best for quick decisions   
  B.  LAISSEZ FAIRE LEADERS GIVE LITTLE DIRECTION   
Link
b. In the laissez faire style of leadership, the leader leaves things up to the group; gives no direction 
 
  Best for quality decisions   
  Laissez faire leadership allows the group to function more or less  on its own   
  C.  DEMOCRATIC LEADERS ATTEMPT TO GET THE GROUP TO MOVE ON ITS OWN   
Link
c. In the democratic style of leadership, the leader attempts to get the group to move on its own toward their ideas 
 
  Best for consensus decisions   
  D.  OLIGARCHIC LEADERS FORM A SMALL GROUP TO MAKE DECISIONS   
Link
d.  In the oligarchic style of leadership, a small group of people decide what to do, usually has an authoritarian leader 
 
  Capable of quick & quality decisions   
  Used by most democratic govts, "the old boy system," tribes, etc.   
 
INSTRUMENTAL LEADERS EMPHASIZE TASK COMPLETION & EXPRESSIVE LEADERS FOCUS ON THE GROUP'S WELL BEING 
 
  Groups typically benefit from two kinds of leadership   
  Instrumental leadership refers to group leadership that emphasizes the completion of tasks   
  Expressive leadership focuses on collective well being   
  Authoritarian leadership focuses on instrumental concerns, takes personal charge of decision making, & demands strict  compliance from subordinates   
  Democratic leadership is more expressive & tries to include  everyone in the decision making process   

 
Top  
1. Authoritarian
Hitler, Stalin

 
Top  
2. Laissez faire
Jimmy Carter
Many professionals & professional mgrs.

 
Top  
3. Democratic
FDR on entering WW2

 
Top  
4.  Oligarchic: 
Most US Presidents

 
 Internal
Links

Top

  Outline on  Instrumental, Expressive & Supportive Leadership Styles
 External
Links
  -  Project:  Instrumental, Expressive, & Supportive Leaders 
Link
  INSTRUMENTAL LEADERS FOCUS ON THE TASK, & EXPRESSIVE LEADERS FOCUS ON THE SOCIO EMOTIONS   
  Etzioni, 1965, developed a dual leadership approach, suggesting that in most cases leadership rests in more than 1 form & that the two forms may conflict   
  For Etzioni, there are TWO primary functions of leadership which include:   
     a.  instrumental or task leadership   
     b.  expressive or socio emotional leadership   
  Orgl demands will determine which form will be successful   
  The majority of leaders display both instrumental & expressive qualities   
  Most research demonstrates that a group needs both instrumental & expressive leadership   
  Etzioni believes that socio emotive leadership by supervisors is doomed to failure because these efforts run into existing socio emotional interactions as determined by upper level mgt  
  The use of human relations in leadership is no guarantee that any behavioral change will take place (Perrow, 1979)   
  In Western culture, a leader who focuses on instrumental leadership often uses an authoritarian style & is thus likely to rely on the power of the position & be more punishment centered   
  The expressive or supportive leader is "characterized by... employee oriented, democratic behavior, uses general supervision, & is considerate of this subordinates" (Filley & House, 1969)   
  People who exercise leadership by taking care of the social & emotional needs of people in their group are known as expressive leaders   
  Other studies have paralleled the findings on instrumental & expressive leadership using the terms, respectively, "initiating & consideration" or "production orientation & employee orientation"   
  SOCIO EMOTIONAL LEADERS EMPLOY CONSIDERATION, CONSULTATION, & SUPERVISION  
  The supportive leader uses THREE socio emotional appeals, including:   
    a.  consideration for subordinates through being considerate of needs, treats w/ dignity, kindness, not punitive, through the increase of employee centered as opposed to work or task centered work relationships   
    b.  consultative decision making by asking subordinates for their ideas or opinions, & is participative, & democratic   
    c.  general supervision as opposed to a close supervision, which delegates authority & allows freedom of discretion   
  Filley & House, 1969, found that supportive leadership, as opposed to autocratic leadership, is related to FOUR indicators of subordinate satisfaction & productivity   
  SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP FOSTERS COOPERATION, DESIRABILITY, PRODUCTIVITY, LOWER TURNOVER, & LOWER GRIEVANCES   
  Supportive leadership has:   
    a.  less intragroup stress & more cooperation   
    b.  leaders who are viewed as more desirable   
    c.  greater productivity   
    d.  lower turnover rates   
    e.  lower grievance rates   
  EFFECTIVE LEADERS FOSTER A CLIMATE OF INDEPENDENCE & PARTICIPATION   
Link
Filley & House conclude that supportive leadership is most effective when:   
    1.  decisions are not routine in nature   
    2.  the info required cannot be standardized or centralized   
    3.  decisions w/o time pressure: integrate subordinates into a participative decision making process   
    4.  subordinates feel a strong need for independence   
    5.  subordinates regard their participation in decision making as legitimate   
    6.  subordinates see themselves as able to contribute to the decision making process   
    7. subordinates are confident of their ability to work w/o the reassurance of close supervision   
  PARTICIPATION, SATISFACTION, COMMITMENT, PRODUCTIVITY, ETC. ARE ALL INTERDEPENDENT VARIABLES IN THAT THEY ALL IMPACT EACH OTHER   
  Jermier & Berkes, 1979, found that satisfaction & commitment to the org were related to supportive leadership   
  The positive findings around supportive leadership may be confounded by the fact that the workers themselves may be supportive / productive & require less supervision & be more productive   
  But Dubin, 1965, has found that autocratic styles increase productivity   
  They suggest that the causal ordering btwn satisfaction & productivity might be reversed   
  Lawler & Porter suggest that productivity might lead to satisfaction   
  But does an org care if workers are satisfied or not? 
If workers expect autocratic supervision, supportive leadership may be counterproductive 
 
  A supportive org has THREE features including a less formalized structure, a reliance on inputs of members, &  technology that is constantly changing   
  Thus orgs in which decisions are routine, info is standardized, etc. will have effective leadership that is more task oriented   
  In this type of org, members may be threatened by the decision making process or have no wish to participate   
  Fiedler, et al, 1967...1987 find that stable, structured situation, a strict, autocratic form of leadership is most likely to be successful   
  In a dynamic situation, external threats, ambiguity, etc. the more lenient, participative form of supervision would work better   

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on the  Factors Affecting Leadership Outcomes
External
Links
  TOP MGRS HAVE A GREATER IMPACT THAN MID & LO LEVEL MGRS, & ALL CAN FOSTER PARTICIPATIVE DECISION MAKING, OR NOT   
  While it would be good if all personnel were self motivating & desirous of participating in decision making, & that the org as a whole innovated & engaged in continual interaction w/ its env, this rarely happens 
 
  Leadership at the top of the org does make a difference in terms of objective performance indicators & the attitudes of the personnel involved 
 
  The range of behavior affected by 1st or 2d line supervisors is proportionally small 
 
  But orgs do face limits of what top leaders can do based on technology, the org env, etc. 
 
  LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION IS PROBLEMATIC IF THE NEW MGR IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OLD MGR
 
  Gouldner's Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, 1954, is the best known case study of managerial succession 
 
  The old manager was loose, indulgent & the gypsum plant ran on the "brother" system: people were treated as friends & co workers 
 
  The new manager changed the system to one that was punishment centered which led to a severe increase in internal tension & stress & a lowering of overall performance 
 
  Guest, 1962, studied an auto factory & found that new management created an increase in productivity 
 
  In the gypsum & the auto plants, the two mgrs.' expectations toward operation of the plants were different 
 
  The new gypsum mgr. believed that top mgt. expected him to clear out non productive personnel, while the auto mgr. did not 
 
  In the gypsum plant, the tradition for the mgr. to come from the inside was violated 
 
  The old gypsum mgr had been active in the community 
 
  LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION IS OFTEN PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE ORGS DO NOT ACTIVELY PREPARE FOR IT   
  The new gypsum mgr had little recourse but to use a formal bureaucratic mechanism of control since he did not have the personal connections to the workers or the community 
 
  The auto plant was in a metro area where the mgrs. were not community leaders, there had been rapid turnover of mgrs., new mgrs. came from the outside   
  The gypsum plant workers had no orientation toward cutting costs & improving productivity   
  The "brother sysetm" was comfortable one where rewards, intrinsic & extrinsic, came w/o an orientation toward efficiency & productivity   
  In the auto plant, the mgr moved to use informal contacts w/ his subordinates & bring them into the decision making process & relegated "rule enforcement to a 2nd level of importance."   
  The auto mgr worked w/ the existing personnel & structure, whereas the gypsum mgr. brought in new staff & set up a new hierarchy   
 
Guest concludes that the auto mgr was successful because he gained the consent of the governed 
 
  Grusky, 1961 & Gordon & Becker, 1964, found that the larger the org, the higher the rate of succession, though this has been contradicted   
  The larger the org, the less the impact of succession because large orgs are apt to be more complex & formalized, & thus more resistant to change   
  LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION IS AFFECTED BY THE SUCCESS OF THE ORG, ORGL STRUCTURE, THE EXTL ENV, THE INTL ENV, MGT STYLE, ETC.   
  In baseball there is little doubt that the rate of succession is affected by the success of the org   
  Gamson & Scotch note that the firing of baseball coaches may be more of a ritual scapegoating than an attempt to hire a better coach   
  They support the previously discussed finding that those at the top of the org have a greater impact than those lower in the hierarchy   
  Grusky & Brown's argument follows Gouldner & Guest that external & internal pressures for success affect performance   
  Grusky, 1970, found that rapid succession is associated w/ limited control by top mgrs   
  Pfeffer & Moore, 1980, found that length of dept heads' tenure was increased as the "paradigm development" increased, i.e. as there was greater agreement of the theoretical basis of the discipline   
  Meyer, 1975, found that in periods of env & org uncertainty there is a greater rate of succession   
  In orgs w/ loose structures & where leaders are expected to have a great deal to do w/ what goes on in the org (involvement), leadership will have a large impact   
  Some observers hold that a new US President has a small effect because the bureaucratic system is designed to maintain stability   
  The argument thus far is that org structure affects how much impact leadership can have   
  Family ties make top leadership succession less sensitive to performance   
  Top mgrs tend to be succeeded by individuals w/ the same career specialization   
  Mgt succession is political in that players manipulate impressions as the successes & failures of a mgr  
  Galbraith notes that mgrs are captives of their orgs in that as they come into an org they may have little control of the situation   
  Example: Gov. Warner coming into office as state moves into a deficit situation   
  Lieberson & O'Conner, 1972, found that sales, earnings, & profits of major corps were more affected by the env (macro economic factors) than by the leaders of these corps   
  These findings are disturbing to many analysts & business leaders   
  Thomas suggests that leadership does have an effect on individual firms, but at the aggregate level, the loss of the losers cancels out the wins of the winners, making it appear as if there were no effect   
  Thus we must see the effect of leadership as a variable ranging from transformational to little or nothing   

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on the  Motivation of Leadership
External
Links
  MGRS MAY BE MOTIVATED BY GAINING CONTROL & / OR BY THE ACQUISITION OF POWER & WEALTH   
  Berle & Means, 1932, argue that corporate executives have become technical mgrs, separated from the concerns of capitalist owners 
 
  Zeitlin, 1974, argued that corp. leaders are part of the capitalist class because of their phenomenal power & wealth, though their interests may be different 
 
  For Zeitlin, the motivations of mgrs & corp execs appear simple as compared to capitalist owners (i.e., old money) wherein the former appear only to want money like any wkr, while the latter want power   
  But because execs can accumulate a fortune, they have the possibility of gaining power & control & effectively entering the upper class   
 
From Zeitlin's corp class theory, one assumes that orgl decision are made on the basis of continuing the acquisition of power & wealth 
 
  James & Soref, 1981, support Zeitlin & oppose Berle & Means in that mgrs are hired/fired on the basis of profit performance demonstrating that mgt. & owner interests overlap 
 
  But what is good for a corp may or may not be good for society 
 
  Zeitlin concludes that the interest of accumulation of wealth contradicts social interests only when the concentration of wealth gets so large that it harms the development & efforts of the middle class 
 

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on  Leadership in Voluntary Organizations
External
Links
  LEADERS IN VOL ORGS ARE BECOMING LIKE MGRS IN BUSINESS ORGS   
  In most orgs, voluntary or non voluntary, the leader is hired by the board of directors & top mgt. based on criteria set up in advance 
 
  In many volunteer orgs, the leader is elected, though many are also hired as in a non voluntary orgs 
 
  LEADERS IN VOL ORGS ARE NORMATIVELY MOTIVATED & OFTEN USE AN OLIGARCHIC STYLE   
  According to Etzioni, voluntary orgs leaders & members are normatively motivated 
 
  See Also:  Etzioni 
 
  Voluntary orgs are often ruled w/ an oligarchic style, in that several people at the top rule the org via a 'dominant coalition' 
 
  When an oligarchy rules, like an individual, they often wants to stay in power   
  See Also:  Styles of Leadership 
 
  Tannenbaum, 1968, found that union leaders have higher incomes than the rank & file & are more likely to live like there mgt. counter parts 
 
  VOL ORG LEADERS DEVELOP SKILLS UNIQUE TO VOL ORGS, DEV PATRONAGE, GROOM A SUCCESSOR, REMIND PARTICIPANTS OF BENEFITS   
  Voluntary org leaders tend to stay in office for the same reasons that other leaders stay in power 
 
  Vol org leaders stay in power because they:   
  a.  develop skills which are unique to them & advantageous for themselves & the org 
 
  b.  develop political power through patronage & other favors 
 
  c.  tend to groom their successor 
 
  d.  remind members of the benefits they have brought to them 
 
 
VOL ORG  LEADERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE DEMOCRATIC WHICH IS FOSTERED BY A SMALL WAGE GAP, GOOD PAY, SENSE OF COMMUNITY AMONG MEMBERS & THE WIDER COMMUNITY, & ORGANIZED FACTIONS   
  Lipset, Trow, & Coleman, 1956, found that in the ITU, FIVE factors created a greater tendency toward democracy 
 
  a.  the wage gap btwn leaders & followers is small 
 
  b.  the relatively high pay of members   
  c.  a strong sense of community among members   
  d.  a strong sense of community w/ the community   
  e.  the formation of orgl factions that are similar to political parties   
 
Voluntary orgs are more likely to form "dual leadership" where factions develop than are non voluntary orgs   
 
Political parties often develop public & associational leadership 
 
  Public leaders run for & hold public office   
  Associational leaders operate as administrators behind the scene   
  While unofficial power arrangements exist in utilitarian orgs, they are more fully developed & common in voluntary orgs because of the loose org structure   
  Leaders are more likely to have a strong impact than in a more structured org   

 
Internal
Links

Top

 Outline on the  Leadership & Organization in Social Movement Orgs (SMOs)
External
Links
  Strong, existing groups often become mobilized as movements (Oberschall, 1993) & existing soc groups make mvmts more likely to form if they are segmented so that they draw their members & other resources from different levels of society
 
  One segment of a soc mvmt, i.e. one group w/ one segment draws members & other resources from one level of society
 
  The more segmented the group associations are in any society, the more likely those groups are to mobilize into soc mvmt orgs
 
  For resource mobilization theory, members of a segment are alike & so want their wants tend to be alike as well
 
  Existing groups make the mobilization easier because they have established members, communications networks, partially mobilized resources, members w/ leadership skills, a tradition of participation, meeting places, an activity routine, social bonds, shared beliefs & symbols, & a common language, etc. (Oberschall, 1993)
 
  Leaders of SMOs focus on problems of mobilization, the manufacture of discontent, tactical choices, & the infrastructure of society & mvmts necessary for success (McCarthy & Zald, 1977)
 
  See Also:  Leadership  
  Resource mobilization theory notes that the block recruitment of existing groups means that much of the groundwork is already done & simplifies the process of enlisting a group into a soc mvmt
 
  Leaders of SMOs take greater risks than followers & receive greater rewards in the form of status, authority, & sometimes wealth & can therefore be a step to upward social mobility
 
  SMO leaders are political entrepreneurs & their status is dependent on their success or failure
 
  An effective SMO leader brings members & network members together & creates a common loyalty
 
  SMO leaders do not make or break a mvmt in the way the public often assumes in that leaders today often cater to the wants of the followers
 
  Charismatic, brilliant leaders in SMOs function in the same way as such individuals in private sector orgs
 
  Communications & influence in SMOs takes place in small groups w/in the mvmt & thus groups have influence over leaders just as leaders have influence over followers
 
  In most SMOs there is a higher level of organizational democracy than in a traditional private sector org  
 
See Also:  Org Democracy  
  In the early stages of the development of an SMO organization is informal & the leaders have a high level of face to  face interaction w/ members & potential members but once the mvmt grows, it must acquire a more formal structure & implement a division of labor such that there is less personal contact  
  Too much formal organization too early results in less attractiveness w/ respect to sociability for members  
  Too little formal organization in an SMO & effectiveness will suffer, resulting in members becoming discouraged  

The End
 
Top