An Overview Of Theories Within A Situational Leadership Approach

Table of contents:

Video: An Overview Of Theories Within A Situational Leadership Approach

Video: An Overview Of Theories Within A Situational Leadership Approach
Video: Situational Leadership Model Explained 2024, March
An Overview Of Theories Within A Situational Leadership Approach
An Overview Of Theories Within A Situational Leadership Approach
Anonim

The situational approach to the development of leadership theories can be understood as an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of the behavioral approach and trait theory.

In trait theory, a leader is defined as possessing a certain set of qualities, which allows him to occupy a dominant position. However, such a position does not allow to purposefully educate leaders, since leadership qualities are considered innate. Moreover, the very interpretation of personal qualities differed from one author to another.

The behavioral approach, in an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of trait theory, has concentrated on identifying behaviors characteristic of effective leaders. The main advantage of this approach was the identification of those characteristics and behavioral features of leaders that can be directly observed, and, consequently, can be modeled and transmitted to other people in the form of skills. Thus, for the first time, it was possible to teach leadership skills. However, as soon as scientists began to try to isolate one, the most effective style, it turned out that it simply does not exist. It has been noted that different behavioral styles can be effective depending on the situation. This is how the foundations of the situational approach to the study of leadership were laid. Some of the new theories considered the environment as a decisive factor in the nomination of a leader, some considered the influence of the environment in combination with the behavioral style or personality traits. Accordingly, we will consider situational, situational-behavioral and situational-personality theories.

Situational theories

This group of theories is based on the assumption that leadership is a function of the environment. This approach ignored the individual differences of people, explaining their behavior solely by the requirements of the environment.

Thus, Herbert Spencer [10] points out that it is not man that changes time (as was postulated in the theory of the "great man"), but that time creates great people.

According to E. Bogardus, the type of leadership in a group depends on the nature of the group and the problems facing it.

W. Hocking suggested that leadership is a function of the group, which is transferred to the leader, provided that the group is ready to follow the program put forward by the leader.

Person put forward two hypotheses: it is the situation that determines both the leader himself and his qualities; qualities that are defined by the situation as leadership are the result of previous leadership situations.

J. Schneider found that the number of generals in England at different times varied in direct proportion to the number of military conflicts.

Another theory in this vein is the theory of leadership as a group function, developed by G. Homans. The basic premise of the theory is that a social group needs a leader who is understood as a person who reflects group values, able to meet the needs and expectations of the group.

Also, the theory of situational leadership by R. M. Stogdill assumes that a person becomes a leader not because of his qualities, but because of the situation. One and the same person can become a leader in one situation, and not be a leader in another [3].

This group of theories does not deny the role of the personal qualities of the individual, but it gives priority to the situation. After all, it is the situation that determines whether certain personal qualities will be in demand or not. For this, this concept is criticized by scientists who point to the need to take into account the active role of the leader, his ability to change the situation and influence it.

Based on this criticism, a number of researchers have tried to correct the shortcomings of the theory. In particular, A. Hartley supplements it with the following provisions:

  1. obtaining the status of a leader in one situation increases the chances of obtaining the status of a leader in others;
  2. the acquisition of informal authority contributes to the appointment to a formal position, which contributes to the consolidation of leadership;
  3. due to the stereotypical nature of human perception, a person who is a leader in one situation is perceived by followers as a leader as a whole;
  4. people with appropriate motivation are more likely to become leaders.

These additions are largely empirical.

An interesting theory is also the theory of "substitutes for leadership" by S. Kerrow and J. Jermier (S. Kerr and J. Jermier) [8], proposed by them in 1978. The authors do not deny the influence of a leader on the performance of followers, however, they point out that the presence of a leader is not a necessary condition for the performance of a group, since the absence of a leader can be compensated for by the parameters of the situation itself.

These parameters, called "substitutes for leadership", were divided into three groups: those related to subordinates (abilities, expert knowledge, experience, the desire for independence, the value of reward), related to the task (structuredness, routine, unambiguous ways of performing, etc.) and related to the organization (formalization of processes, flexibility of relations, lack of contact with subordinates, etc.). Thus, if the subordinate has knowledge and experience, the task is clear and structured, and the process of its implementation is formalized, there is no need for a leader.

The model is often criticized for methodological research problems (Dionne and colleagues, 2002), lack of longitudinal research (Keller, 2006), and inconsistency of substitutes for leadership with specific behavior (Yukl, 1998).

Speaking about the situational theory in general, one can only repeat the above criticism: despite all the amendments, in the situational approach to leadership, the underestimation of personal and behavioral factors is fatal. Not to mention the need for a systematic and process approach to the problem. On the other hand, the situational theory retains its relevance as an addition to more extensive theories and reveals a number of separate aspects of the formation of leaders.

Situational-behavioral theories

Representatives of this group of theories partly rely on the behavioral approach, i.e. use in their models the concept of the behavioral styles of a leader, but the main difference is that they do not try to identify the most effective leadership style, but indicate that each style can be effective in the appropriate situation. Thus, most situational-behavioral models include two sets of parameters: parameters of the leader's behavioral style and parameters of the situation.

The first proponents of this trend in 1958 were Tannenbaum & Schmidt [12]. They ranked the leadership styles known at that time, receiving a leadership scale, the extreme points of which indicated:

  1. leader of an authoritarian type (focused on a task, uses power to the maximum and minimum freedom of subordinates);
  2. a leader of a democratic type (focused on collective decision-making, makes the most of the freedom of his followers with minimal reliance on power).

The rest of the leadership styles were intermediate versions of the two above. Each of the styles was chosen depending on the following factors:

  1. characteristics of a leader: his values, confidence in subordinates, preferences, a sense of security in a situation of uncertainty;
  2. characteristics of subordinates: the need for independence; responsibility; resistance to uncertainty; interest in the solution; understanding the goal; availability of expert knowledge and experience;
  3. situational factors: type of organization, effectiveness of group work, nature of the problem, and time constraints.

Thus, only a leader who takes into account situational variables and is able to change his behavior depending on them is considered successful.

One of the most famous leadership models is Fred Fiedler's situational leadership model [4], which distinguishes three factors of leadership behavior:

  1. The relationship between the leader and followers: trust in the leader, his attractiveness to followers and their loyalty;
  2. Task structure: the routine of the task, clarity and structuring;
  3. Official powers (determined by the amount of legal power).

To determine the leadership style of a leader, the CPD index (least preferred colleague) is used. The index is calculated by asking the manager about his attitude to the CPD. If a person describes CPD in positive terms, it means that they are using a relationship-oriented style. Someone whose description is negative uses a task-oriented style.

Both styles can be used in two types of situations. The most favorable situation is in which the task is structured, large official powers and good relations with subordinates. A situation in which official powers are small, poor relations with subordinates, and the task is not structured, on the contrary, is the least favorable.

Effectiveness is achieved when, in the least and most favorable situations, leaders implement a work-oriented style, and in neutral situations, a relationship-oriented style.

And although each situation has its own leadership style, Fiedler argues that the style of this leader does not change, so it is proposed to initially place him in those situations where his leadership style will be most effective.

Fiedler's model, although one of the most popular, is also often criticized by experts. Since, firstly, the repetition of Fiedler's studies did not always give results similar to those obtained by the researcher himself, secondly, such a criterion as the NPS index simply cannot be considered valid, and thirdly, the limitations of the factors used by Fiedler indicates the impossibility a full description of the "favorable" situation. It is also interesting that the NPS index suggests a contradiction between a relationship-oriented style and a result-oriented style, but this is not always the case.

Another situational leadership model, called "path - goal", was developed by Terence Mitchell and Robert House (R. J. House & T. R. Mitchell) [7]. It assumes that leadership is achieved through the ability of the leader to influence the ways and means of achieving the goals of the group, which makes people become his followers. The leader's arsenal includes the following techniques: clarifying expectations from a subordinate; mentoring and eliminating hindrances; the creation of subordinates needs that he himself can satisfy; satisfaction of the needs of subordinates in achieving the goal.

The following leadership styles are considered in this model:

  1. Supporting style (person-centered): The leader is interested in the needs of subordinates, is open and friendly, creates a supportive atmosphere, treats subordinates as equals;
  2. Instrumental style (task-oriented): the leader explains what to do;
  3. Style that encourages decision-making: the leader shares information and consults with subordinates when making decisions;
  4. Achievement-oriented style: The leader sets clear and ambitious goals.

Situational variables in the model are divided into two groups:

Followers characteristics: locus of control, self-esteem, and need for belonging

Followers with an internal locus of control prefer the partner style, while those with an external locus of control prefer directive.

Subordinates with high self-esteem will not adopt a directive leadership style, while those with low self-esteem, on the contrary, need directives.

A developed need for achievement suggests that a person will prefer a result-oriented leader, and, conversely, people with a developed need for belonging will prefer a support-oriented leader.

Organizational factors: the content and structure of work, the formal system of power, the culture of the group

The theory is criticized for two points: firstly, structured routine work initially has a negative impact on the motivation of subordinates, and, secondly, a clear definition of roles is a prerequisite for performing any work. Schriesheim and Schriesheim (1982) point to a more subtle relationship between job variables, clarity of roles, and job satisfaction.

Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard (Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.) [6]. developed a situational theory, which they called life cycle theory. In it, the choice of leadership style depends on the "maturity" of the performers. This is how the following leadership styles stand out:

  1. The directive style reflects an increased focus on production and a lower focus on people. It involves the issuance of clear instructions;
  2. A persuasive style is associated with high attention to both people and production. The leader explains his decisions, gives the opportunity to ask questions and delve into the essence of the problem;
  3. Participatory style combines an emphasis on people and a low focus on production. The leader shares ideas with subordinates, makes it possible to participate in decision-making, while acting as an assistant;
  4. Delegating style reflects low attention to production and people. All responsibility for making and implementing decisions rests with subordinates.

"Maturity" refers to the ability to take responsibility, the desire to achieve a goal, and the availability of knowledge and experience. The following levels of maturity are distinguished:

  1. Low level of maturity: employees are not qualified, have little experience, do not want to be responsible, directive style is most appropriate;
  2. Moderate level of maturity: employees may not have sufficient education and experience, but demonstrate self-confidence, ability and willingness to work, persuasive style is best;
  3. High level of maturity: subordinates may have the necessary education and experience, but they cannot be relied on, which requires supervision from the leader, the participating style is effective;
  4. Very high level of maturity: subordinates have a high level of education, experience and readiness to take responsibility, the most appropriate is the delegating style.

Although the model is quite simple and theoretically convenient, it has not received universal acceptance. In particular, critics pointed to the lack of a consistent method for measuring maturity; a simplified division of leadership styles and lack of clarity about the flexibility in the behavior of the leader.

Another situational model of leadership was the decision-making model developed by V. Vroom and Yotton (Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W., 1973) [13]. According to the model, there are five leadership styles that are used depending on the extent to which subordinates are allowed to participate in decision making:

  1. Authoritarian I: all decisions by the leader are made independently;
  2. Authoritarian II: the leader uses information received from subordinates, but then independently makes a decision;
  3. Advisory I: the manager's independent decision is based on individual consultations with subordinates;
  4. Advisory II: the manager's independent decision is based on group consultation with subordinates;
  5. Group (partner) II: decisions are made together with the group.
  6. Early in the model there was a style of "group I", but it was excluded, since it differed little from the style of "group II".

To assess the situation by the leader, seven criteria have been developed, which include: the value of the decision; availability of information and experience; structuredness of the problem; the meaning of the consent of subordinates; the likelihood of supporting a sole decision; motivation of subordinates; the likelihood of conflict between subordinates.

Each criterion is converted into a question that the manager can ask himself to assess the situation.

This model is very convenient for structuring decision-making methods. However, the model itself is only a decision-making model, not leadership. It does not explain how to effectively manage subordinates and does not say anything about how to create motivation for achieving the goal among followers, although the very criterion of motivating subordinates is taken into account in the decision-making process. The model, rather, is aimed at avoiding conflicts and discontent of subordinates, with the sole decision-making, and, conversely, at the process of increasing the efficiency of the decision by involving subordinates in the process of its adoption.

The Stinson & Johnson Situational Leadership Model [11] suggests that a relationship-oriented leadership style is important when performing highly structured work, and the level of interest in the work should be determined by both the characteristics of the followers and the nature of the work itself.

A high interest in work is effective in situations where:

  1. work is structured, followers have a high need for achievement and independence and have knowledge and experience;
  2. the work is unstructured, and the followers do not feel the need for achievement and independence, their knowledge and experience is below the required level.

Low interest in work is effective for a leader when:

  1. the work is highly structured and the followers do not feel the need for achievement and independence, provided they have the necessary knowledge and experience;
  2. the work is not structured and followers have a strong need for achievement and independence, given they have a lot of knowledge and experience.

The model assumes that the characteristics of followers are critical in choosing an effective style for a leader.

In the theory of conscious resources, F. Fiedler and J. Garcia (Fiedler & Garcia) [5] sought to investigate the process of achieving high group performance. The theory is based on the following premises:

  1. Under stress, the leader concentrates on less important issues, and his cognitive abilities are distracted from the main goal. As a result, the group is not working at full capacity.
  2. The cognitive ability of authoritarian leaders correlates more closely with group performance than non-authoritarian ones. However, in both cases the correlation is positive.
  3. If the group does not obey the instructions of the leader, plans and decisions cannot be executed. This means that the correlation between the cognitive abilities of the leader and the performance of the group is higher when the group supports the leader.
  4. The cognitive abilities of the leader will only increase the effectiveness of the group to the extent that they are necessary to complete the task.
  5. The authoritarian behavior of a leader will be determined by the nature of his relationship with subordinates, the degree of structured task and the degree of control over the situation.

Fiedler has conducted research that supports the main provisions of the theory of cognitive resource. However, for the most part, this is not field, but laboratory research, i.e. the question of the generalization of this theory is still open.

Another modern model of situational leadership is the "3D model of situational leadership" by W. J. Reddin [9]. It relies on such situational factors as: technology, the organization's value system, the leader of the leader and his requirements, the leader's colleagues and his subordinates.

The use of inappropriate style leads to the fact that the leader is perceived by subordinates as playing an unusual role.

The model also distinguishes two modes of leader behavior: task orientation and relationship orientation.

Based on these parameters, two matrices are built: the matrix of leadership styles and the matrix of perception of leadership styles. As a result, you can get the following combinations:

  1. The isolating style is characterized by a combination of low orientation toward both relationship and task. Subordinates perceive such a leader as a bureaucrat (deserter);
  2. A dedication style is defined by a high task orientation and a low relationship orientation. Subordinates perceive such a leader as a benevolent autocrat (despot);
  3. A cohesive style is used with a high degree of relationship orientation and a low degree of task orientation. Such a leader is perceived by his subordinates as a “developer” (missionary);
  4. A unifying style assumes both a task orientation and a relationship. For subordinates, such a leader acts as a unifying leader (conciliator).

If the style is chosen correctly, then the subordinates perceive the leader in accordance with the first characteristic (without brackets). If it is chosen incorrectly, then the characteristics in parentheses are assigned to the manager.

This concept is interesting if we are trying to assess the relationship between subordinates and the leader, however, it says nothing about the effectiveness of the group depending on the style of leadership. After all, it cannot be said for sure that by perceiving the leader as a bureaucrat, the group will work more efficiently than perceiving him as a dither.

Thus, situational-personality theories manage to include in their consideration both the importance of situational variables and the leader's activity, which makes up for the shortcomings of situational theories. At the same time, the number of problems associated with the increasing complexity of concepts is also increasing. There is a need to develop not only methods for forming a leadership style, but also methods for competently assessing situational variables, the development of which is a rather difficult matter, and those methods that have already been developed do not always meet the criteria of scientific character. Added to this is the problem of the flexibility of the leader's behavior. On the one hand, behavioral theories postulated the possibility of teaching leadership behavior, but on the other hand, no one canceled the main provisions of the theory of personality traits. In this regard, we can say that even with the correct determination of the parameters of the situation and the correct choice of leadership style, the implementation of this leadership style may turn out to be an impossible task for a particular person.

Personality-situational theories

The group of personality-situational theories touches upon the above. Within its framework, both the psychological traits of a leader and the conditions in which the leadership process takes place are simultaneously considered.

So, E. Wesbur (E. Wesbur) declares that the study of leadership should include the traits of the individual and the conditions in which he acts.

According to K. Keis, leadership is the result of three factors: personality traits; properties of the group and its members; group problem.

S. Kaze says that leadership is generated by three factors: the personality of the leader, the group of his followers and the situation.

H. Gert and S. Mills believe that in order to understand the phenomenon of leadership it is necessary to pay attention to such factors as traits and motives of a leader, his image, motives of followers, traits of a leadership role, "institutional context" and "situation".

Thus, this group of theories limits the use of leadership to an even greater extent than the theory of personality traits, since it indicates not only the need for a leader to have certain innate personal qualities, but also that these qualities can be applied only in a certain situation. As a result, there is a problem of training and development of leaders, which in this case is not possible, as well as the problem of selecting a leader for a specific situation. This, in turn, leads to the need to develop valid methods: firstly, analyzing the situation, and secondly analyzing leadership qualities.

Conclusion.

As noted by F. Smith (F. Smith, 1999), at the moment none of the models assumes the possibility of accurately determining which elements of the situation can have a decisive influence on the effectiveness of leadership or under what conditions it can have the greatest influence.

Continuing his thought, it is worth saying that the problem here, rather, is not the wrong approach to determining the situational factors, but the wrong approach to understanding the very phenomenon of leadership.

This means that, more often than not, leadership is understood as "effective leadership", and not leadership as such. This misconception came from the incorrect translation of the foreign term "leadership", which in English-speaking countries means both leadership and leadership (thus, there is simply no distinction between leadership and leadership). As a result, the situational approach is a continuation of the shortcomings of the behavioral and personal approach, since most researchers within its framework continue to use the misunderstanding of leadership, although they supplement this understanding with situational variables. In most cases, no attention is paid to the followers themselves and their motivation, and it is precisely the creation of internal motivation for the follower to achieve a goal that is the main function of the leader.

This leads us to the need to create new alternative models of situational leadership, in which leadership will initially be understood correctly and only then considered in a specific situational context.

One of these attempts was presented in another article by the author [1]. It considered three leadership styles: competitive, complementary, and cooperative. The use of one style or another depends on the degree of primativeness of the group members (at the moment, the study of this dependence is under development). At the same time, these leadership styles were also developed in the master's thesis, where a large number of situational variables influencing the formation of a leadership style were highlighted, already in the context of the organization.

The value of this model lies in the fact that initially the manifestation of the identified leadership styles was studied in isolation from management (the author of the studies on the basis of which the above classification of leadership styles was created is T. V. Bendas). Thus, these styles allow at least to isolate oneself from the influence of the formal factor on the effectiveness of leadership, which gives us a "purer" correlation between leadership manifestations and group activities.

However, the model proposed above is planned to be developed within the framework of an integrative, systemic and process approach, including more and more variables in consideration. In particular, the above-described dependence of leadership styles and situations is included in a broader model called the "Leadership Complex" [1] [2], which involves taking into account such variables as: the qualities of the leader, the way the leader interacts with the group, the qualities of the group and individual followers. and external factors.

As a conclusion, it should be reminded of the need to understand leadership, firstly, as a complex socio-psychological process, and not just as a chain of behavioral reactions, and secondly, as a process associated with the motivation of followers, while efficiency is only a side effect. the effect. Management theory is concerned with leadership theory, not leadership. But, oddly enough, it is true leadership that helps to increase the productivity of activities many times over. The greatest efficiency will be achieved when we consider leadership as a superstructure over leadership, thereby combining rational and motivating components.

Bibliographic list:

1. Avdeev P. A modern view on the formation of leadership styles in an organization // Prospects for the world economy in conditions of uncertainty: materials of scientific and practical conferences of the All-Russian Academy of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia. - M.: VAVT, 2013. (Collection of articles of students and graduate students; Issue 51).

2. Avdeev P. Modern directions of leadership development in foreign trade organizations // Prospects and risks of the development of the global economy: materials of scientific and practical conferences VAVT / All-Russian Academy of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia. - M.: VAVT, 2012. (Collection of articles of students and graduate students; Issue 49).

3. Tebut L. G., Chiker V. A. Organizational social psychology. SPb.: Rech, 2000. S. 84-85.

4. Fiedler F. E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. N. Y.: McGraw-Hill. 1967.

5. Fiedler, F. E. and Garcia, J. E. New Approaches to Leadership, Cognitive Resources and Organizational Performance, N. Y.: John Wiley and Sons. 1987

6. Hersey P., Blanchard K. H. So you want to know your leadership style. Training and Development (2): 1974.1-15.

7. House R. J.. A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (3). 1971 321-338.

8. Kerr S., Jermier J. M. Substitute for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23 (3). 1978.375-403.

9. Reddin. W. Managerial Effectiveness N. Y., 1970.

10. Spencer, Herbert. The Study of Sociology. New York: D. A. Appleton. 1841

11. Stinson J. E., Johnson T. W. The Path Goal Theory of Leadership: A Partial Test and Suggested Refinement // Academy of Management Journal -18, No. 2, 1974.

12. Tannenbaum. R. Leadership and Organization. A Behavioral Science Approach N. Y., 1961.

13. Vroom V. H., Yetton P. W. Leadership and Decision Making. University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh. 1973.

Recommended: