The Trait Approach to Leadership What are the trait perspectives on leadership? Ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Chinese scholars were keenly interested in leaders and leadership. Their writings portray leaders as heroes. Homer, in his poem The Odyssey , portrays Odysseus during and after the Trojan War as a great leader who had vision and self-confidence. His son Telemachus, under the tutelage of Mentor, developed his father’s courage and leadership skills. F. A. Kramer. 1992 (Summer). Perspectives on leadership from Homer’s Odyssey. Business and the Contemporary World 168–173. Out of such stories there emerged the “great man” theory of leadership, and a starting point for the contemporary study of leadership. The great man theory of leadership states that some people are born with the necessary attributes to be great leaders. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Napoleon, and Mahatma Gandhi are cited as naturally great leaders, born with a set of personal qualities that made them effective leaders. Even today, the belief that truly great leaders are born is common. For example, Kenneth Labich, writer for Fortune magazine, commented that “the best leaders seem to possess a God-given spark.” K. Labich. 1988 (Oct. 24). The seven keys to business leadership. Fortune, 58. During the early 1900s, scholars endeavored to understand leaders and leadership. They wanted to know, from an organizational perspective, what characteristics leaders hold in common in the hope that people with these characteristics could be identified, recruited, and placed in key organizational positions. This gave rise to early research efforts and to what is referred to as the trait approach to leadership. Prompted by the great man theory of leadership and the emerging interest in understanding what leadership is, researchers focused on the leader—Who is a leader? What are the distinguishing characteristics of the great and effective leaders? The great man theory of leadership holds that some people are born with a set of personal qualities that make truly great leaders. Mahatma Gandhi is often cited as a naturally great leader. Leader Trait Research Ralph Stogdill, while on the faculty at The Ohio State University, pioneered our modern (late 20th century) study of leadership. Stogdill, 1948; R. M. Stogdill. 1974. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Scholars taking the trait approach attempted to identify physiological (appearance, height, and weight), demographic (age, education, and socioeconomic background), personality (dominance, self-confidence, and aggressiveness), intellective (intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, and knowledge), task-related (achievement drive, initiative, and persistence), and social characteristics (sociability and cooperativeness) with leader emergence and leader effectiveness. After reviewing several hundred studies of leader traits, Stogdill in 1974 described the successful leader this way: The [successful] leader is characterized by a strong drive for responsibility and task completion, vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals, venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, self-confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept consequences of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other person’s behavior, and capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand. Ibid., 81. See also Stogdill, 1948. The last three decades of the 20th century witnessed continued exploration of the relationship between traits and both leader emergence and leader effectiveness. Edwin Locke from the University of Maryland and a number of his research associates, in their recent review of the trait research, observed that successful leaders possess a set of core characteristics that are different from those of other people. S.A. Kirkpatrick & E.A. Locke. 1991. Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executive 5(2):48–60. E.A. Locke, S. Kirkpatrick, J.K. Wheeler, J. Schneider, K. Niles, H. Goldstein, K. Welsh, & D.-O. Chad. 1991. The essence of leadership: The four keys to leading successfully. New York: Lexington. Although these core traits do not solely determine whether a person will be a leader—or a successful leader—they are seen as preconditions that endow people with leadership potential. Among the core traits identified are: Drive —a high level of effort, including a strong desire for achievement as well as high levels of ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative Leadership motivation —an intense desire to lead others Honesty and integrity —a commitment to the truth (nondeceit), where word and deed correspond Self-confidence —an assurance in one’s self, one’s ideas, and one’s ability Cognitive ability —conceptually skilled, capable of exercising good judgment, having strong analytical abilities, possessing the capacity to think strategically and multidimensionally Knowledge of the business —a high degree of understanding of the company, industry, and technical matters Other traits —charisma, creativity/originality, and flexibility/adaptiveness Kirkpatrick & Locke. 1991. The best managers: What it takes. 2000 (Jan. 10). Business Week, 158. While leaders may be “people with the right stuff,” effective leadership requires more than simply possessing the correct set of motives and traits. Knowledge, skills, ability, vision, strategy, and effective vision implementation are all necessary for the person who has the “right stuff” to realize their leadership potential. Locke et al., 1991; T.A. Stewart. 1999 (Oct. 11). Have you got what it takes? Fortune 140(7):318–322. According to Locke, people endowed with these traits engage in behaviors that are associated with leadership. As followers, people are attracted to and inclined to follow individuals who display, for example, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, and the motivation to lead. Personality psychologists remind us that behavior is a result of an interaction between the person and the situation—that is, Behavior = f [(Person) (Situation)]. To this, psychologist Walter Mischel adds the important observation that personality tends to get expressed through an individual’s behavior in “weak” situations and to be suppressed in “strong” situations. W. Mischel. 1973. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review 80:252– 283. A strong situation is one with strong behavioral norms and rules, strong incentives, clear expectations, and rewards for a particular behavior. Our characterization of the mechanistic organization with its well-defined hierarchy of authority, jobs, and standard operating procedures exemplifies a strong situation. The organic social system exemplifies a weak situation. From a leadership perspective, a person’s traits play a stronger role in their leader behavior and ultimately leader effectiveness when the situation permits the expression of their disposition. Thus, personality traits prominently shape leader behavior in weak situations. Finally, about the validity of the “great person approach to leadership”: Evidence accumulated to date does not provide a strong base of support for the notion that leaders are born. Yet, the study of twins at the University of Minnesota leaves open the possibility that part of the answer might be found in our genes. Many personality traits and vocational interests (which might be related to one’s interest in assuming responsibility for others and the motivation to lead) have been found to be related to our “genetic dispositions” as well as to our life experiences. R.J. House & R.N. Aditya. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management 23:409– 473; T.J. Bouchard, Jr., D.T. Lykken, M. McGue, N.L. Segal, & A. Tellegen. 1990. Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science 250:223–228. Each core trait recently identified by Locke and his associates traces a significant part of its existence to life experiences. Thus, a person is not born with self-confidence. Self-confidence is developed, honesty and integrity are a matter of personal choice, motivation to lead comes from within the individual and is within his control, and knowledge of the business can be acquired. While cognitive ability does in part find its origin in the genes, it still needs to be developed. Finally, drive, as a dispositional trait, may also have a genetic component, but it too can be self- and other-encouraged. It goes without saying that none of these ingredients are acquired overnight. Other Leader Traits Sex and gender, disposition, and self-monitoring also play an important role in leader emergence and leader style. Sex and Gender Role Much research has gone into understanding the role of sex and gender in leadership. S. Helgesen. 1990. The female advantage. New York: Doubleday/Currency; J. Fierman. 1990 (Dec. 17). Do women manage differently? Fortune 122:115–120; J.B. Rosener. 1990 (Nov.–Dec.). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review 68(6): 119–125. Two major avenues have been explored: sex and gender roles in relation to leader emergence, and whether style differences exist across the sexes. Evidence supports the observation that men emerge as leaders more frequently than women. J.B. Chapman. 1975. Comparison of male and female leadership styles. Academy of Management Journal 18:645–650; E.A. Fagenson 1990. Perceived masculine and feminine attributes examined as a function of individual’s sex and level in the organizational power hierarchy: A test of four theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology 75:204–211. Throughout history, few women have been in positions where they could develop or exercise leadership behaviors. In contemporary society, being perceived as experts appears to play an important role in the emergence of women as leaders. Yet, gender role is more predictive than sex. Individuals with “masculine” (for example, assertive, aggressive, competitive, willing to take a stand) as opposed to “feminine” (cheerful, affectionate, sympathetic, gentle) characteristics are more likely to emerge in leadership roles. R.L. Kent & S.E. Moss. 1994. Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal 37: 1335–1346. In our society males are frequently socialized to possess the masculine characteristics, while females are more frequently socialized to possess the feminine characteristics. Recent evidence, however, suggests that individuals who are androgynous (that is, who simultaneously possess both masculine and feminine characteristics) are as likely to emerge in leadership roles as individuals with only masculine characteristics. This suggests that possessing feminine qualities does not distract from the attractiveness of the individual as a leader. Ibid. With regard to leadership style, researchers have looked to see if male-female differences exist in task and interpersonal styles, and whether or not differences exist in how autocratic or democratic men and women are. The answer is, when it comes to interpersonal versus task orientation, differences between men and women appear to be marginal. Women are somewhat more concerned with meeting the group’s interpersonal needs, while men are somewhat more concerned with meeting the group’s task needs. Big differences emerge in terms of democratic versus autocratic leadership styles. Men tend to be more autocratic or directive, while women are more likely to adopt a more democratic/participative leadership style. A.H. Early & B.T. Johnson. 1990. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 108:233–256. In fact, it may be because men are more directive that they are seen as key to goal attainment and they are turned to more often as leaders. G.H. Dobbins, W.S. Long, E. Dedrick, & T.C. Clemons. 1990. The role of self-monitoring and gender on leader emergence: A laboratory and field study. Journal of Management 16:609–618. Dispositional Trait Psychologists often use the terms disposition and mood to describe and differentiate people. Individuals characterized by a positive affective state exhibit a mood that is active, strong, excited, enthusiastic, peppy, and elated. A leader with this mood state exudes an air of confidence and optimism and is seen as enjoying work-related activities. Recent work conducted at the University of California-Berkeley demonstrates that leaders (managers) with positive affectivity (a positive mood state) tend to be more competent interpersonally, to contribute more to group activities, and to be able to function more effectively in their leadership role. B.M. Staw & S.G. Barsade. 1993. Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-but-wiser vs happier-and-smarter hypothesis. Administrative Science Quarterly 38:304–331. Their enthusiasm and high energy levels appear to be infectious, transferring from leader to followers. Thus, such leaders promote group cohesiveness and productivity. This mood state is also associated with low levels of group turnover and is positively associated with followers who engage in acts of good group citizenship. J.M. George & K. Bellenhausen. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology 75:698–709. Self-Monitoring Self-monitoring as a personality trait refers to the strength of an individual’s ability and willingness to read verbal and nonverbal cues and to alter one’s behavior so as to manage the presentation of the self and the images that others form of the individual. “High self-monitors” are particularly astute at reading social cues and regulating their self-presentation to fit a particular situation. “Low self-monitors” are less sensitive to social cues; they may either lack motivation or lack the ability to manage how they come across to others. Some evidence supports the position that high self-monitors emerge more often as leaders. In addition, they appear to exert more influence on group decisions and initiate more structure than low self-monitors. Perhaps high self-monitors emerge as leaders because in group interaction they are the individuals who attempt to organize the group and provide it with the structure needed to move the group toward goal attainment. Dobbins et al., 1990. What are the trait perspectives on leadership? What are the trait perspectives on leadership? great man theory of leadership The belief that some people are born to be leaders and others are not.

Business


Behavioral Approaches to Leadership What are the behavioral perspectives on leadership? The nearly four decades of research that focused on identifying the personal traits associated with the emergence of leaders and leader effectiveness resulted in two observations. First, leader traits are important—people who are endowed with the “right stuff” (drive, self-confidence, honesty, and integrity) are more likely to emerge as leaders and to be effective leaders than individuals who do not possess these characteristics. Second, traits are only a part of the story. Traits only account for part of why someone becomes a leader and why they are (or are not) effective leaders. Still under the influence of the great man theory of leadership, researchers continued to focus on the leader in an effort to understand leadership—who emerges and what constitutes effective leadership. Researchers then began to reason that maybe the rest of the story could be understood by looking at what it is that leaders do . Thus, we now turn our attention to leader behaviors and the behavioral approaches to leadership. It is now common to think of effective leadership in terms of what leaders do. CEOs and management consultants agree that effective leaders display trust in their employees, develop a vision, keep their cool, encourage risk, bring expertise into the work setting, invite dissent, and focus everyone’s attention on that which is important. K. Labich, 1988, 58–66. William Arruda, in a Fortune article, noted that “organizations with strong coaching cultures report their revenue to be above average, compared to their peer group.” Sixty-five percent of employees “from strong coaching cultures rated themselves as highly engaged,” compared to 13 percent of employees worldwide.” C. Williams. 2017 (June 23). Leadership: Coaching has a Role to Play in Business. Central Penn Business Journal . http://www.cpbj.com/article/20170623/CPBJ01/170629935/leadership-coaching-has-role-to-play-in-business Jonathan Anthony calls himself an intrapreneur and corporate disorganizer, because same-old, same-old comms practices are dying in front of our eyes. J. Anthony. 2017. This Much We Know. (Accessed August 4, 2017). https://thismuchweknow.net/2016/09/21/10-ideas-and-concepts-that-describe-me-really-well/ Apple founder Steve Jobs believed that the best leaders are coaches and team cheerleaders. Similar views have been frequently echoed by management consultant Tom Peters. During the late 1940s, two major research programs—The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan leadership studies—were launched to explore leadership from a behavioral perspective. The Ohio State University Studies A group of Ohio State University researchers, under the direction of Ralph Stogdill, began an extensive and systematic series of studies to identify leader behaviors associated with effective group performance. Their results identified two major sets of leader behaviors: consideration and initiating structure. Consideration is the “relationship-oriented” behavior of a leader. It is instrumental in creating and maintaining good relationships (that is, addressing the group’s maintenance needs) with organizational members. Consideration behaviors include being supportive and friendly, representing people’s interests, communicating openly with group members, recognizing them, respecting their ideas, and sharing concern for their feelings. Initiating structure involves “task-oriented” leader behaviors. It is instrumental in the efficient use of resources to attain organizational goals, thereby addressing the group’s task needs. Initiating structure behaviors include scheduling work, deciding what is to be done (and how and when to do it), providing direction to organizational members, planning, coordinating, problem-solving, maintaining standards of performance, and encouraging the use of uniform procedures. After consideration and initiating structure behaviors were first identified, many leaders believed that they had to behave one way or the other. If they initiated structure, they could not be considerate, and vice versa. It did not take long, however, to recognize that leaders can simultaneously display any combination of both behaviors. The Ohio State studies are important because they identified two critical categories of behavior that distinguish one leader from another. Both consideration and initiating structure behavior can significantly impact work attitudes and behaviors. Unfortunately, the effects of consideration and initiating structure are not consistent from situation to situation. E.A. Fleishman. 1953. The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology 37:1–6; E.A. Fleishman & E.F. Harris. 1962. Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology 15:43–56; A. W. Halpin & B. J. Winer. 1957. A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R.M. Stogdill & A.C. Coons (eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University; J.K. Hemphill & A.E. Coons. 1975. Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (eds.), Leader behavior ; S. Kerr & C. Schriesheim. 1974. Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria—an update of Korman’s 1966 review. Personnel Psychology 27:555–568. In some of the organizations studied, for example, high levels of initiating structure increased performance. In other organizations, the amount of initiating structure seemed to make little difference. Although most organizational members reported greater satisfaction when leaders acted considerately, consideration behavior appeared to have no clear effect on performance. Initially, these mixed findings were disappointing to researchers and managers alike. It had been hoped that a profile of the most effective leader behaviors could be identified so that leaders could be trained in the best ways to behave. Research made clear, however, that there is no one best style of leader behavior for all situations. The University of Michigan Studies At about the same time that the Ohio State studies were underway, researchers at the University of Michigan also began to investigate leader behaviors. As at Ohio State, the Michigan researchers attempted to identify behavioral elements that differentiated effective from ineffective leaders. D. Katz & R.L. Kahn. 1952. Some recent findings in human relations research. In E. Swanson, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley (eds.), Readings in social psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston; D. Katz, N. Macoby, & N. Morse. 1950. Productivity, supervision, and morale in an office situation, Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research; F.C. Mann & J. Dent. 1954. The supervisor: Member of two organizational families. Harvard Business Review 32:103–112. The two types of leader behavior that stand out in these studies are job centered and organizational member centered. Job-centered behaviors are devoted to supervisory functions, such as planning, scheduling, coordinating work activities, and providing the resources needed for task performance. Employee-member-centered behaviors include consideration and support for organizational members. These dimensions of behavior, of course, correspond closely to the dimensions of initiating structure and consideration identified at Ohio State. The similarity of the findings from two independent groups of researchers added to their credibility. As the Ohio State researchers had done, the Michigan researchers also found that any combination of the two behaviors was possible. The studies at Michigan are significant because they reinforce the importance of leader behavior. They also provide the basis for later theories that identify specific, effective matches of work situations and leader behaviors. Subsequent research at Michigan and elsewhere has found additional behaviors associated with effective leadership: support, work facilitation, goal emphasis, and interaction facilitation. D. G. Bowers & S. C. Seashore. 1966. Pretesting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly 11:238–262; Yukl, 1971; D.A. Nadler, G.D. Jenkins, Jr., C. Cammonn, and E.E. Lawler, III. 1975. The Michigan organizational assessment package progress report. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. These four behaviors are important to the successful functioning of the group in that support and interaction facilitation contribute to the group’s maintenance needs, and goal emphasis and work facilitation contribute to the group’s task needs. The Michigan researchers also found that these four behaviors do not need to be brought to the group by the leader. In essence, the leader’s real job is to set the tone and create the climate that ensure these critical behaviors are present. Bowers & Seashore, 1966. The Leadership Grid ® Much of the credit for disseminating knowledge about important leader behaviors must go to Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, who developed a method for classifying styles of leadership compatible with many of the ideas from the Ohio State and Michigan studies. R.R. Blake & J.S. Mouton. 1964. The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf; R.R. Blake & J.S. Mouton. 1981. The versatile manager: A grid profile, Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin; R.R. Blake & J.S. Mouton. 1984. The new managerial grid III. Houston: Gulf. In their classification scheme, concern for results (production) emphasizes output, cost effectiveness, and (in for-profit organizations) a concern for profits. Concern for people involves promoting working relationships and paying attention to issues of importance to group members. As shown in , the Leadership Grid ® demonstrates that any combination of these two leader concerns is possible, and five styles of leadership are highlighted here. Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid ® Source: Adapted from R. McKee and B. Carlson. 1999. The Power to Change , p.16. Blake and Mouton contend that the sound (contribute and commit) leader (a high concern for results and people, or 9,9) style is universally the most effective. R.R. Blake & J.S. Mouton. 1981. Management by grid ® principles or situationalism: Which? Group and Organization Studies 6:439–455. While the Leadership Grid ® is appealing and well structured, research to date suggests that there is no universally effective style of leadership (9,9 or otherwise). L. L. Larson, J. G. Hunt, & R. N. Osborn. 1976. The great hi-hi leader behavior myth: A lesson from Occam’s razor. Academy of Management Journal 19:628–641. There are, however, well-identified situations in which a 9,9 style is unlikely to be effective. Organizational members of high-involvement organizations who have mastered their job duties require little production-oriented leader behavior. Likewise, there is little time for people-oriented behavior during an emergency. Finally, evidence suggests that the “high-high” style may be effective when the situation calls for high levels of initiating structure. Under these conditions, the initiation of structure is more acceptable, favorably affecting follower satisfaction and performance, when the leader is also experienced as warm, supportive, and considerate. D. Tjosvold. 1984. Effects of warmth and directiveness on subordinate performance on a subsequent task. Journal of Applied Psychology 69:422–427; A.W. Halpin. 1957. The leader behavior and effectiveness of aircraft commanders. In R.M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (eds.). Leader Behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.; E.A. Fleishman & J. Simmons. 1970. Relationship between leadership patterns and effectiveness ratings among Israeli foremen. Personnel Psychology 23:169–172. What are the behavioral approaches to defining leadership? What roles do gender and the popular perceptions of gender roles have on views of leadership traits? What are the behavioral perspectives on leadership? It is clear that effective leaders are endowed with the “right stuff,” yet this “stuff” is only a precondition to effective leadership. Leaders need to connect with their followers and bring the right configuration of knowledge, skills, ability, vision, and strategy to the situational demands confronting the group. consideration A “relationship-oriented” leader behavior that is supportive, friendly, and focused on personal needs and interpersonal relationships. initiating structure A “task-oriented” leader behavior that is focused on goal attainment, organizing and scheduling work, solving problems, and maintaining work processes.

Business


Situational (Contingency) Approaches to Leadership What are the situational perspectives on leadership? As early as 1948, Ralph Stogdill stated that “the qualities, characteristics, and skills required in a leader are determined to a large extent by the demands of the situation in which he is to function as a leader.” Stogdill, 1948, 63. In addition, it had been observed that two major leader behaviors, initiating structure and consideration, didn’t always lead to equally positive outcomes. That is, there are times when initiating structure results in performance increases and follower satisfaction, and there are times when the results are just the opposite. Contradictory findings such as this lead researchers to ask “Under what conditions are the results positive in nature?” and “When and why are they negative at other times?” Obviously, situational differences and key contingencies are at work. Several theories have been advanced to address this issue. These are Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership, the path-goal theory of leader effectiveness, Hersey and Blanchard’s life cycle theory, cognitive resource theory, the decision tree, and the decision process theory. House & Aditya, 1997. We explore two of the better-known situational theories of leadership, Fred Fiedler’s contingency model and Robert J. House’s path-goal theory, here. Victor Vroom, Phillip Yetton, and Arthur Jago’s decision tree model also applies. Fiedler’s Contingency Model One of the earliest, best-known, and most controversial situation-contingent leadership theories was set forth by Fred E. Fiedler from the University of Washington. F.E. Fiedler & M.M. Chemers. 1974. Leadership and effective management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. This theory is known as the contingency theory of leadership. According to Fiedler, organizations attempting to achieve group effectiveness through leadership must assess the leader according to an underlying trait, assess the situation faced by the leader, and construct a proper match between the two. The Leader’s Trait Leaders are asked about their least-preferred coworker (LPC), the person with whom they least like to work. The most popular interpretation of the LPC score is that it reflects a leader’s underlying disposition toward others—for example: pleasant/unpleasant, cold/warm, friendly/unfriendly, and untrustworthy/trustworthy. (You can examine your own LPC score by completing the LPC self-assessment on the following page.) Fiedler states that leaders with high LPC scores are relationship oriented —they need to develop and maintain close interpersonal relationships. They tend to evaluate their least-preferred coworkers in fairly favorable terms. Task accomplishment is a secondary need to this type of leader and becomes important only after the need for relationships is reasonably well satisfied. In contrast, leaders with low LPC scores tend to evaluate the individuals with whom they least like to work fairly negatively. They are task-oriented people, and only after tasks have been accomplished are low-LPC leaders likely to work on establishing good social and interpersonal relations. The Situational Factor Some situations favor leaders more than others do. To Fiedler, situational favorableness is the degree to which leaders have control and influence and therefore feel that they can determine the outcomes of a group interaction. F.E. Fiedler. 1976. The leadership game: Matching the men to the situation. Organizational Dynamics, 4, 9. Several years later, Fiedler changed his situational factor from situational favorability to situational control—where situational control essentially refers to the degree to which a leader can influence the group process. Personal conversation between Robert J. House and Fred Fiedler in September 1996, as reported in House & Aditya, 1997. Three factors work together to determine how favorable a situation is to a leader. In order of importance, they are (1) leader-member relations —the degree of the group’s acceptance of the leader, their ability to work well together, and members’ level of loyalty to the leader; (2) task structure —the degree to which the task specifies a detailed, unambiguous goal and how to achieve it; and (3) position power —a leader’s direct ability to influence group members. The situation is most favorable for a leader when the relationship between the leader and group members is good, when the task is highly structured, and when the leader’s position power is strong (cell 1 in ). The least-favorable situation occurs under poor leader-member relations, an unstructured task, and weak position power (cell 8). Fiedler’s Contingency Model of Leader-Situation Matches Source: Adapted from F. E. Fiedler and M. M. Chemers. 1974. Leadership and effective management . Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Leader-Situation Matches Some combinations of leaders and situations work well; others do not. In search of the best combinations, Fiedler examined a large number of leadership situations. He argued that most leaders have a relatively unchangeable or dominant style, so organizations need to design job situations to fit the leader. F.E. Fiedler. Sept.–Oct. 1965. Engineering the job to fit the manager. Harvard Business Review, 115–122. While the model has not been fully tested and tests have often produced mixed or contradictory findings, See, for example, the supporting results of M.M. Chemers & G.J. Skrzypek. 1972. Experimental test of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24:172–177; and the contradictory results of R.P. Vecchio. 1977. An empirical examination of the validity of Fiedler’s model of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 19:180–206. Fiedler’s research indicates that relationship-oriented (high-LPC) leaders are much more effective under conditions of intermediate favorability than under either highly favorable or highly unfavorable situations. Fiedler attributes the success of relationship-oriented leaders in situations with intermediate favorability to the leader’s nondirective, permissive attitude; a more directive attitude could lead to anxiety in followers, conflict in the group, and a lack of cooperation. For highly favorable and unfavorable situations, task-oriented leaders (those with a low LPC) are very effective. As tasks are accomplished, a task-oriented leader allows the group to perform its highly structured tasks without imposing more task-directed behavior. The job gets done without the need for the leader’s direction. Under unfavorable conditions, task-oriented behaviors, such as setting goals, detailing work methods, and guiding and controlling work behaviors, move the group toward task accomplishment. As might be expected, leaders with mid-range LPC scores can be more effective in a wider range of situations than high- or low-LPC leaders. R.B. Dunham. 1984. [Interview with Fred E. Fiedler.] Organizational behavior: People and processes in management. Homewood, IL: Irwin, 368; J. L. Kennedy, Jr. 1982. Middle LPC leaders and the contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 30:1–14. Under conditions of low favorability, for example, a middle-LPC leader can be task oriented to achieve performance, but show consideration for and allow organizational members to proceed on their own under conditions of high situational favorability. Controversy over the Theory Although Fiedler’s theory often identifies appropriate leader-situation matches and has received broad support, it is not without critics. Some note that it characterizes leaders through reference to their attitudes or personality traits (LPC) while it explains the leader’s effectiveness through their behaviors—those with a particular trait will behave in a particular fashion. The theory fails to make the connection between the least-preferred coworker attitude and subsequent behaviors. In addition, some tests of the model have produced mixed or contradictory findings. Chemens & Skrzpek, 1972; Vecchio, 1977. Finally, what is the true meaning of the LPC score—exactly what is being revealed by a person who sees their least-preferred coworker in positive or negative terms? Robert J. House and Ram N. Aditya recently noted that, in spite of the criticisms, there has been substantial support for Fiedler’s theory. House & Aditya. 1997; L.H. Peters, D.D. Hartke, & J.T. Pohlman. 1985. Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedure of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin 97:274–285. Path-Goal Theory Robert J. House and Martin Evans, while on the faculty at the University of Toronto, developed a useful leadership theory. Like Fiedler’s, it asserts that the type of leadership needed to enhance organizational effectiveness depends on the situation in which the leader is placed. Unlike Fiedler, however, House and Evans focus on the leader’s observable behavior. Thus, managers can either match the situation to the leader or modify the leader’s behavior to fit the situation. The model of leadership advanced by House and Evans is called the path-goal theory of leadership because it suggests that an effective leader provides organizational members with a path to a valued goal. According to House, the motivational function of the leader consists of increasing personal payoffs to organizational members for work-goal attainment, and making the path to these payoffs easier to travel by clarifying it, reducing roadblocks and pitfalls, and increasing the opportunities for personal satisfaction en route. R.J. House. 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 16:324. Effective leaders therefore provide rewards that are valued by organizational members. These rewards may be pay, recognition, promotions, or any other item that gives members an incentive to work hard to achieve goals. Effective leaders also give clear instructions so that ambiguities about work are reduced and followers understand how to do their jobs effectively. They provide coaching, guidance, and training so that followers can perform the task expected of them. They also remove barriers to task accomplishment, correcting shortages of materials, inoperative machinery, or interfering policies. An Appropriate Match According to the path-goal theory, the challenge facing leaders is basically twofold. First, they must analyze situations and identify the most appropriate leadership style. For example, experienced employees who work on a highly structured assembly line don’t need a leader to spend much time telling them how to do their jobs—they already know this. The leader of an archeological expedition, though, may need to spend a great deal of time telling inexperienced laborers how to excavate and care for the relics they uncover. Second, leaders must be flexible enough to use different leadership styles as appropriate. To be effective, leaders must engage in a wide variety of behaviors. Without an extensive repertoire of behaviors at their disposal, a leader’s effectiveness is limited. R. Hoojiberg. 1996. A multidimensional approach toward leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations 49(7):917–946. All team members will not, for example, have the same need for autonomy. The leadership style that motivates organizational members with strong needs for autonomy (participative leadership) is different from that which motivates and satisfies members with weaker autonomy needs (directive leadership). The degree to which leadership behavior matches situational factors will determine members’ motivation, satisfaction, and performance (see ). R.J. House & T.R. Mitchell. 1974 (Autumn). Path-goal theory of leadership, Journal of Contemporary Business, 86; R.J. House & G. Dessler. 1974. The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. Hunt & L. Larson (eds.). Contingency approaches to leadership. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. The Path-Goal Leadership Model (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC-BY 4.0 license) Behavior Dimensions According to path-goal theory, there are four important dimensions of leader behavior, each of which is suited to a particular set of situational demands. House & Mitchell, 1974; House & Dessler, 1974; R.T. Keller. 1989. A test of the path-goal theory of leadership with need for clarity as a moderator in research and development organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 74:208–212. Supportive leadership —At times, effective leaders demonstrate concern for the well-being and personal needs of organizational members. Supportive leaders are friendly, approachable, and considerate to individuals in the workplace. Supportive leadership is especially effective when an organizational member is performing a boring, stressful, frustrating, tedious, or unpleasant task. If a task is difficult and a group member has low self-esteem, supportive leadership can reduce some of the person’s anxiety, increase his confidence, and increase satisfaction and determination as well. Directive leadership —At times, effective leaders set goals and performance expectations, let organizational members know what is expected, provide guidance, establish rules and procedures to guide work, and schedule and coordinate the activities of members. Directive leadership is called for when role ambiguity is high. Removing uncertainty and providing needed guidance can increase members’ effort, job satisfaction, and job performance. Participative leadership —At times, effective leaders consult with group members about job-related activities and consider their opinions and suggestions when making decisions. Participative leadership is effective when tasks are unstructured. Participative leadership is used to great effect when leaders need help in identifying work procedures and where followers have the expertise to provide this help. Achievement-oriented leadership —At times, effective leaders set challenging goals, seek improvement in performance, emphasize excellence, and demonstrate confidence in organizational members’ ability to attain high standards. Achievement-oriented leaders thus capitalize on members’ needs for achievement and use goal-setting theory to great advantage. Cross-Cultural Context Gabriel Bristol, the CEO of Intelifluence Live, a full-service customer contact center offering affordable inbound customer service, outbound sales, lead generation and consulting services for small to mid-sized businesses, notes “diversity breeds innovation, which helps businesses achieve goals and tackle new challenges.” G. Bristol. 2016. Why Diversity in the Workplace is Imperrative. Entrepreneur, March 25. (Accessed august 4, 2017) https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/270110 Multiculturalism is a new reality as today’s society and workforce become increasingly diverse. This naturally leads to the question “Is there a need for a new and different style of leadership?” The vast majority of the contemporary scholarship directed toward understanding leaders and the leadership process has been conducted in North America and Western Europe. Westerners have “developed a highly romanticized, heroic view of leadership.” J.R. Meindl, S.B. Ehrlich, & J.M. Dukerich. 1985. The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly 30:78–102. Leaders occupy center stage in organizational life. We use leaders in our attempts to make sense of the performance of our groups, clubs, organizations, and nations. We see them as key to organizational success and profitability, we credit them with organizational competitiveness, and we blame them for organizational failures. At the national level, recall that President Reagan brought down Communism and the Berlin Wall, President Bush won the Gulf War, and President Clinton brought unprecedented economic prosperity to the United States during the 1990s. This larger-than-life role ascribed to leaders and the Western romance with successful leaders raise the question “How representative is our understanding of leaders and leadership across cultures?” That is, do the results that we have examined in this chapter generalize to other cultures? Geert Hofstede points out that significant value differences (individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and time orientation) cut across societies. Thus, leaders of culturally diverse groups will encounter belief and value differences among their followers, as well as in their own leader-member exchanges. There appears to be consensus that a universal approach to leadership and leader effectiveness does not exist. Cultural differences work to enhance and diminish the impact of leadership styles on group effectiveness. For example, when leaders empower their followers, the effect for job satisfaction in India has been found to be negative, while in the United States, Poland, and Mexico, the effect is positive. C. Robert, T. M. Probst, J. J. Martocchion, F. Drasgow, & J. J. Lawler. 2000. Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology 85:643–658. The existing evidence suggests similarities as well as differences in such areas as the effects of leadership styles, the acceptability of influence attempts, and the closeness and formality of relationships. The distinction between task and relationship-oriented leader behavior, however, does appear to be meaningful across cultures. P.W. Dorfman & S. Roonen. 1991. The universality of leadership theories: Challenges and paradoxes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Miami. Leaders whose behaviors reflect support, kindness, and concern for their followers are valued and effective in Western and Asian cultures. Yet it is also clear that democratic, participative, directive, and contingent-based rewards and punishment do not produce the same results across cultures. The United States is very different from Brazil, Korea, New Zealand, and Nigeria. The effective practice of leadership necessitates a careful look at, and understanding of, the individual differences brought to the leader-follower relationship by cross-cultural contexts. P.W. Dorfman, J.P. Howell, S. Hiblino, J.K. Lee, U. Tate, & A. Bautista. 1997. Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly 8(3):233–274. Identify and describe the variables presented in Fiedler’s theory of leadership. What are the leadership behaviors in the path-goal theory of leadership? What role does culture have in how leadership is viewed? What are the differences between the trait, behavioral, and situational approaches to defining leadership? What are the situational perspectives on leadership? We now know that there is no one best way to be an effective leader in all circumstances. Leaders need to recognize that how they choose to lead will affect the nature of their followers’ compliance with their influence tactics, and ultimately impacts motivation, satisfaction, performance, and group effectiveness. In addition, the nature of the situation—contextual demands and characteristics of the follower—dictates the type of leadership that is likely to be effective. Fiedler focuses on leader traits and argues that the favorableness of the leadership situation dictates the type of leadership approach needed. He recommends selecting leaders to match the situation or changing the situation to match the leader. Path-goal theory focuses on leader behavior that can be adapted to the demands of a particular work environment and organizational members’ characteristics. Path-goal theorists believe both that leaders can be matched with the situation and that the situation can be changed to match leaders. Together, these theories make clear that leadership is effective when the characteristics and behavior of the leader match the demands of the situation. contingency theory of leadership A theory advanced by Dr. Fred E. Fiedler that suggests that different leadership styles are effective as a function of the favorableness of the leadership situation least preferred. Least-preferred coworker (LPC) The person with whom the leader least likes to work. path-goal theory of leadership A theory that posits that leadership is path- and goal-oriented, suggesting that different leadership styles are effective as a function of the task confronting the group.

Business


Substitutes for and Neutralizers of Leadership What does the concept “substitute for leadership” mean? Several factors have been discovered that can substitute for or neutralize the effects of leader behavior (see ). P.M. Podsakoff, B.P. Niehoff, S.B. MacKenzie, & M.L. Williams. 1993. Do substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership: An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s situational leadership model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54:1–44; S. Kerr. 1977. Substitutes for leadership: Some implications for organizational design. Organization and Administrative Sciences 8:135–146; S. Kerr & J.M. Jermier. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22:375– 403; J. P. Howell & P. W. Dorfman. 1981. Substitutes for leadership: Test of a construct. Academy of Management Journal 24:714– 728; J.L. Pierce, R.B. Dunham, & L.L. Cummings. 1984. Sources of environmental structuring and participant responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 33:214–242. Substitutes for leadership behavior can clarify role expectations, motivate organizational members, or satisfy members (making it unnecessary for the leader to attempt to do so). In some cases, these substitutes supplement the behavior of a leader. Sometimes it is a group member’s characteristics that make leadership less necessary, as when a master craftsperson or highly skilled worker performs up to his or her own high standards without needing outside prompting. Sometimes the task’s characteristics take over, as when the work itself—solving an interesting problem or working on a familiar job—is intrinsically satisfying. Sometimes the characteristics of the organization make leadership less necessary, as when work rules are so clear and specific that workers know exactly what they must do without help from the leader (see An Inside Look at flat management structure and the orchestra with no leader). Substitutes for and Neutralizers of Leader Behavior Leader Behavior Influenced Supportive or Neutralizer Substitute Leadership Instrumental Leadership Source: Adapted from Leadership in organizations by G. A. Yukl. A. Subordinate Characteristics: 1. Experience, ability, training Substitute 2. “Professional” orientation Substitute Substitute 3. Indifference toward rewards offered by organization Neutralizer Neutralizer B. Task Characteristics: 1. Structured, routine, unambiguous task Substitute 2. Feedback provided by task Substitute 3. Intrinsically satisfying task Substitute C. Organization Characteristics: 1. Cohesive work group Substitute Substitute 2. Low position power (leader lacks control over organizational rewards) Neutralizer Neutralizer 3. Formalization (explicit plans, goals, areas of responsibility) Substitute 4. Inflexibility (rigid, unyielding rules and procedures) Neutralizer 5. Leader located apart from subordinates with only limited communication possible Neutralizer Neutralizer Neutralizers of leadership, on the other hand, are not helpful; they prevent leaders from acting as they wish. A computer-paced assembly line, for example, prevents a leader from using initiating structure behavior to pace the line. A union contract that specifies that workers be paid according to seniority prevents a leader from dispensing merit-based pay. Sometimes, of course, neutralizers can be beneficial. Union contracts, for example, clarify disciplinary proceedings and identify the responsibilities of both management and labor. Leaders must be aware of the presence of neutralizers and their effects so that they can eliminate troublesome neutralizers or take advantage of any potential benefits that accompany them (such as the clarity of responsibilities provided by a union contract). If a leader’s effectiveness is being neutralized by a poor communication system, for example, the leader might try to remove the neutralizer by developing (or convincing the organization to develop) a more effective system. Followers differ considerably in their focus of attention while at work, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the act of leadership. Focus of attention is an employee’s cognitive orientation while at work. It reflects what and how strongly an individual thinks about various objects, events, or phenomena while physically present at work. Focus of attention reflects an individual difference in that not all individuals have the same cognitive orientation while at work—some think a great deal about their job, their coworkers, their leader, or off-the-job factors, while others daydream. D.G. Gardner, R.B. Dunham, L.L. Cummings, & J.L. Pierce. 1989. Focus of attention at work: Construct definition and empirical validation. Journal of Occupational Psychology 62:61–77. An employee’s focus of attention has both “trait” and “state” qualities. For example, there is a significant amount of minute-by-minute variation in an employee’s focus of attention (the “state” component), and there is reasonable consistency in the categories of events that employees think about while they are at work (the “trait” component). Research suggests that the more followers focus on off-job (nonleader) factors, the less they will react to the leader’s behaviors. Thus, a strong focus on one’s life “away from work” (for example, time with family and friends) tends to neutralize the motivational, attitudinal, and/or behavioral effects associated with any particular leader behavior. It has also been observed, however, that a strong focus on the leader, either positive or negative, enhances the impact that the leader’s behaviors have on followers. D.G. Gardner, R.B. Dunham, L.L. Cummings, & J.L. Pierce. 1987. Focus of attention at work and leader-follower relationships. Journal of Occupational Behaviour 8:277–294. You Are Now the Leader Leading and managing are two very different things. Being a manager means something more than gaining authority or charge over former colleagues. With the title does come the power to affect company outcomes, but it also comes with something more: the power to shape the careers and personal growth of subordinates. According to Steve Keating, a senior manager at the Toro Company, it is important not to assume that being made a manager automatically makes you a leader. Rather, being a manager means having the opportunity to lead. Enterprises need managers to guide processes, but the employees—the people—need a leader. Keating believes that leaders need a mindset that emphasizes people, and the leader’s job is to help the people in the organization to be successful. According to Keating, “If you don’t care for people, you can’t lead them” (Hakim 2017 n.p.). For someone who has been promoted over his peers, ground rules are essential. "Promotion doesn’t mean the end of friendship but it does change it," according to Keating. If a peer has been promoted, rather than grouse and give in to envy, it is important to step back and look at the new manager; take a hard look at why the peer was promoted and what skill or characteristic made you a less appealing fit for the position (Hakim 2017). Carol Walker, president of Prepared to Lead, a management consulting firm, advises new managers to develop a job philosophy. She urges new managers to develop a core philosophy that provides a guide to the day-to-day job of leading. She urges managers to build up the people they are leading and work as a "servant leader." The manager’s perspective should be on employee growth and success. Leaders must bear in mind that employees don’t work for the manager; they work for the organization—and for themselves. Managers coordinate this relationship; they are not the center of it. Work should not be assigned haphazardly, but with the employee’s skills and growth in mind. “An employee who understands why she has been asked to do something is far more likely to assume true ownership for the assignment," Walker says (Yakowicz 2015 n.p.). A leader’s agenda should be on employee success, not personal glory. Employees are more receptive when they recognize that their leader is working not for their own success, but for the employee’s success. A survey from HighGround revealed one important item that most new managers and even many seasoned managers overlook: asking for feedback. Everyone has room for growth, even managers. Traditional management dictates a top-down style in which managers review subordinates. But many companies have found it beneficial to turn things around and ask employees, “How can I be a better manager?” Of course, this upward review only works if employees believe that their opinion will be heard. Managers need to carefully cultivate a rapport where employees don't fear reprisals for negative feedback. Listening to criticism from those you are leading builds trust and helps ensure that as a manager, you are providing the sort of leadership that employees need to be successful (Kauflin 2017). Showing respect and caring for employees by asking this simple question is inspiring —an important aspect of leadership itself. Whether asking for feedback or focusing on an employee’s fit with a particular job description, a leader helps guide employees through the day-to-day, builds a positive culture, and helps employees improve their skills. Sources Hakim, Amy C. 2017. “When a Manager Becomes a Leader.” Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/working-difficult-people/201706/when-manager-becomes-leader Yakowicz, Will. 2015. “How to Help a New Manager Become a Great Leader.” Inc. https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/how-new-managers-become-great-leaders.html Kauflin, Jeff. 2017. “Every Manager Can Become A Better Leader By Asking This One Question.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkauflin/2017/04/21/every-manager-can-become-a-better-leader-by-asking-this-one-question/#3ca1eaff4ac1 Questions What do you think are the most important qualities in a leader? In a manager? Are your two lists mutually exclusive? Why? How do you think a leader can use feedback to model the growth process for employees? Identify and describe substitutes of leadership. What does the concept of “substitute for leadership” mean? Characteristics of followers, tasks, and organizations can substitute for or neutralize many leader behaviors. Leaders must remain aware of these factors, no matter which perspective on leadership they adopt. Such awareness allows managers to use substitutes for, and neutralizers of, leadership to their benefit, rather than be stymied by their presence.

Business


Transformational, Visionary, and Charismatic Leadership What are the characteristics of transactional, transformational, and charismatic leadership? Many organizations struggling with the need to manage chaos, to undergo a culture change, to empower organizational members, and to restructure have looked for answers in “hiring the right leader.” Many have come to believe that the transformational, visionary, and charismatic leader represents the style of leadership needed to move organizations through chaos. The Transformational and Visionary Leader Leaders who subscribe to the notion that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” are often described as transactional leaders. They are extremely task oriented and instrumental in their approach, frequently looking for incentives that will induce their followers into a desired course of action. G.A. Yukl. 1981. Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. These reciprocal exchanges take place in the context of a mutually interdependent relationship between the leader and the follower, frequently resulting in interpersonal bonding. B. Kellerman. 1984. Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; F. L. Landy. 1985. Psychology of work behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. The transactional leader moves a group toward task accomplishment by initiating structure and by offering an incentive in exchange for desired behaviors. The transformational leader , on the other hand, moves and changes (fixes) things “in a big way”! Unlike transactional leaders, they don’t cause change by offering inducements. Instead, they inspire others to action through their personal values, vision, passion, and belief in and commitment to the mission. J.M. Burns. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row; B. M. Bass. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Through charisma (idealized influence), individualized consideration (a focus on the development of the follower), intellectual stimulation (questioning assumptions and challenging the status quo), and/or inspirational motivation (articulating an appealing vision), transformational leaders move others to follow. The transformational leader is also referred to as a visionary leader. Visionary leaders are those who influence others through an emotional and/or intellectual attraction to the leader’s dreams of what “can be.” Vision links a present and future state, energizes and generates commitment, provides meaning for action, and serves as a standard against which to assess performance. R.L. Daft. 2018. The Leadership Experience 7 th edition . Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Evidence indicates that vision is positively related to follower attitudes and performance. J. R. Baum, E. A. Locke, & S. A. Kirkpatrick. 1998. A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology 83:43–54; J.M. Howell & P.J. Frost. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43:243–269. As pointed out by Warren Bennis, a vision is effective only to the extent that the leader can communicate it in such a way that others come to internalize it as their own. Bennis, 1989. As people, transformational leaders are engaging. They are characterized by extroversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience. T. A. Judge & J.E. Bono. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 85:751–765. They energize others. They increase followers’ awareness of the importance of the designated outcome. R. Pillai, C.A. Schriesheim, & E.S. Williams. 1999. Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management 25:897–933. They motivate individuals to transcend their own self-interest for the benefit of the team and inspire organizational members to self-manage (become self-leaders). C.C. Manz & H.P. Sims, Jr. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managed work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 32:106–129. Transformational leaders move people to focus on higher-order needs (self-esteem and self-actualization). When organizations face a turbulent environment, intense competition, products that may die early, and the need to move fast, managers cannot rely solely on organizational structure to guide organizational activity. In these situations, transformational leadership can motivate followers to be fully engaged and inspired, to internalize the goals and values of the organization, and to move forward with dogged determination! Transformational leadership is positively related to follower satisfaction, performance, and acts of citizenship. These effects result from the fact that transformational leader behaviors elicit trust and perceptions of procedural justice, which in turn favorably impact follower satisfaction and performance. Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999. As R. Pillai, C. Schriesheim, and E. Williams note, “when followers perceive that they can influence the outcomes of decisions that are important to them and that they are participants in an equitable relationship with their leader, their perceptions of procedural justice [and trust] are likely to be enhanced.” Ibid., 901. Trust and experiences of organizational justice promote leader effectiveness, follower satisfaction, motivation, performance, and citizenship behaviors. Charismatic Leadership Ronald Reagan, Jesse Jackson, and Queen Elizabeth I have something in common with Martin Luther King Jr., Indira Gandhi, and Winston Churchill. The effectiveness of these leaders originates in part in their charisma , a special magnetic charm and appeal that arouses loyalty and enthusiasm. Each exerted considerable personal influence to bring about major events. It is difficult to differentiate the charismatic and the transformational leader. True transformational leaders may achieve their results through the magnetism of their personality. In this case, the two types of leaders are essentially one and the same, yet it is important to note that not all transformational leaders have a personal “aura.” Sociologist Max Weber evidenced an interest in charismatic leadership in the 1920s, calling charismatic leaders people who possess legitimate power that arises from “exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character.” S.N. Eisenstadt. 1968. Max Weber: On charisma and institution building. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 46. Charismatic leaders “single-handedly” effect changes even in very large organizations. Their personality is a powerful force, and the relationship that they forge with their followers is extremely strong. Travis Kalanick Travis Kalanick was a praised CEO of Uber who managed to increase the value of the company to over $60 billion. He was forced to resign after taking a leave of absence and having several key executives resign due to allegations of creating a hostile and unethical workplace. The charismatic leadership phenomenon involves a complex interplay between the attributes of the leader and followers’ needs, values, beliefs, and perceptions. J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review 12:637–647; Howell & Frost, 1989. At its extreme, leader-follower relationships are characterized by followers’ unquestioning acceptance; trust in the leader’s beliefs; affection; willing obedience to, emulation of, and identification with the leader; emotional involvement with his mission; and feelings of self-efficacy directed toward the leader’s mission. R.J. House & M.L. Baetz. 1979. Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. Research in Organizational Behavior 1:341–423; Conger and Kanungo, 1987. This can work to better the welfare of individuals, such as when Lee Iacocca saved thousands of jobs through his dramatic turnaround of a failing corporate giant, the Chrysler Corporation. It also can be disastrous, as when David Koresh led dozens and dozens of men, women, and children to their fiery death in Waco, Texas. Individuals working for charismatic leaders often have higher task performance, greater task satisfaction, and lower levels of role conflict than those working for leaders with considerate or structuring behaviors. Howell & Frost, 1989. What are the characteristics of these people who can exert such a strong influence over their followers? Charismatic leaders have a strong need for power and the tendency to rely heavily on referent power as their primary power base. R. J. House. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (eds.). Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Charismatic leaders also are extremely self-confident and convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs and ideals. This self-confidence and strength of conviction make people trust the charismatic leader’s judgment, unconditionally following the leader’s mission and directives for action. A. R. Willner. 1984. The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. The result is a strong bond between leader and followers, a bond built primarily around the leader’s personality. Although there have been many effective charismatic leaders, those who succeed the most have coupled their charismatic capabilities with behaviors consistent with the same leadership principles followed by other effective leaders. Those who do not add these other dimensions still attract followers but do not meet organizational goals as effectively as they could. They are (at least for a time) the pied pipers of the business world, with lots of followers but no constructive direction. Uber’s Need for an Ethical Leader Almost since its initial founding in 2009 as a luxury car service for the San Francisco area, controversy has followed Uber. Many complaints are against the tactics employed by the company’s founder and former CEO, Travis Kalanick, but the effects are found throughout the business and its operations. In 2009, UberBlack was a “black car” service, a high-end driving service that cost more than a taxi but less than hiring a private driver for the night. It wasn’t until 2012 that the company launched UberX, the taxi-esque service most people think of today when they say “Uber.” The UberX service contracted with private drivers who provided rides in their personal vehicles. A customer would use Uber's smartphone app to request the ride, and a private driver would show up. Originally launched in San Francisco, the service spread quickly, and by 2017, Uber was in 633 cities. The service was hailed by many as innovative and the free market's answer to high-priced and sometimes unreliable taxi services. But Uber has not been without its critics, both inside and outside of the company. In 2013, as the UberX service spread, some UberBlack drivers protested at the company’s headquarters complaining about poor company benefits and pay. They also claimed that competition from the newly launched UberX service was cutting into their sales and undermining job security. Kalanick rebuffed the protests, basically calling the complaints sour grapes: most of the protestors had been laid off earlier for poor service (Lawler 2013). Controversy also arose over the use of contract drivers rather than full-time employees. Contractors complained about a lack of benefits and low wages. Competitors, especially taxi services, complained that they were being unfairly undercut because Uber didn’t have to abide by the same screening process and costs that traditional yellow taxi companies did. Some municipalities agreed, arguing further than Uber’s lack of or insufficient screening of drivers put passengers at risk. Uber quickly generated a reputation as a bully and Kalanick as an unethical leader (Ann 2016). The company has been accused of covering up cases of sexual assault, and Kalanick himself has been quoted as calling the service “Boob-er,” a reference to using the service to pick up women (Ann 2016). Uber has been criticized for its recruiting practices; in particular, it has been accused of bribing drivers working for competitors to switch over and drive for Uber (Ann 2016).The company was also caught making false driver requests for competing companies and then canceling the order. The effect was to waste the other driver’s time and make it more difficult for customers to secure rides on the competing service (D’Orazio 2014). Susan J. Fowler, former site reliability engineer at Uber, went public with cases of outright sexual harassment within Uber (Fowler 2017). Former employees described Uber’s corporate culture as an "a**hole culture" and a “‘Hobbesian jungle’ where you can never get ahead unless someone else dies.” (Wong 2017) One employee described a leadership that encouraged a company practice of developing incomplete solutions for the purpose of beating the competitor to market. Fowler went so far as to compare the experience to Game of Thrones, and other former employees even consider "making it" at Uber a black mark on a resume (Wong 2017). In terms of social acrimony and PR disasters, arguably caused or even encouraged by leadership, Uber’s rise to notoriety has arguably been more bad than good. In June 2017, Kalanick made one too many headlines and agreed to step down as the company’s CEO. Sources Ann, Carrie. 2016. “Uber Is In Dire Need of Ethical Leadership.” Industry Leaders. https://www.industryleadersmagazine.com/uber-dire-need-ethical-leadership/ D’Orazio, Dante. 2014. “Uber employees spammed competing car service with fake orders.” The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2014/1/24/5342582/uber-employees-spammed-competing-car-service-with-fake-orders Fowler, Susan J. 2017. “Reflecting on One Very, Very Strange Year at Uber.” https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber Lawler, Ryan. 2013. “See, Uber — This Is What Happens When You Cannibalize Yourself.” TechCruch.com. https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/15/see-uber-this-is-what-happens-when-you-cannibalize-yourself/ Wong, Julia. 2017. “Uber's 'hustle-oriented' culture becomes a black mark on employees' résumés” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/07/uber-work-culture-travis-kalanick-susan-fowler-controversy Questions In the summer of 2017, Transport of London (TfL) began proceedings to revoke Uber’s permit to operate in London. How do think Uber’s poor corporate reputation may have been a factor in TfL's thinking? What steps do you think Uber’s new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, needs to take to repair Uber’s reputation? Despite Uber’s apparent success in launching in multiple markets, it continues to post quarterly losses in the millions and shareholders effectively subsidize 59 percent of every ride (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-profitability/true-price-of-an-uber-ride-in-question-as-investors-assess-firms-value-idUSKCN1B3103). How is this an outworking of Uber’s overall corporate culture? What are the defining characteristics of transformational and charismatic leaders? What are the characteristics of transactional, transformational, and charismatic leadership? In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in key leader traits and behaviors. As organizations face increasing amounts of chaos in their external environments, searches for “the right leader” who can bring about major organizational transformations has intensified. This search once again focuses our attention on a set of “key” motives, knowledge, skills, and personality attributes. Emerging from this search has been the identification of the charismatic and transformational leader. charisma A special personal magnetic charm or appeal that arouses loyalty and enthusiasm in a leader-follower relationship. charismatic leader A person who possesses legitimate power that arises from “exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character.” transformational leader A leader who moves and changes things “in a big way” by inspiring others to perform the extraordinary. visionary leader A leader who influences others through an emotional and/or intellectual attraction to the leader’s dreams of what “can be.”

Business


Leadership Needs in the 21st Century How do different approaches and styles of leadership impact what is needed now? Frequent headlines in popular business magazines like Fortune and Business Week call our attention to a major movement going on in the world of business. Organizations are being reengineered and restructured, and network, virtual, and modular corporations are emerging. People talk about the transnational organization, the boundaryless company, the post-hierarchical organization. By the end of the decade, the organizations that we will be living in, working with, and competing against are likely to be vastly different from what we know today. The transition will not be easy; uncertainty tends to breed resistance. We are driven by linear and rational thinking, which leads us to believe that “we can get there from here” by making some incremental changes in who we are and what we are currently doing. Existing paradigms frame our perceptions and guide our thinking. Throwing away paradigms that have served us well in the past does not come easily. A look back tells most observers that the past decade has been characterized by rapid change, intense competition, an explosion of new technologies, chaos, turbulence, and high levels of uncertainty. A quick scan of today’s business landscape suggests that this trend is not going away anytime soon. According to Professor Jay A. Conger from Canada’s McGill University, “In times of great transition, leadership becomes critically important. Leaders, in essence, offer us a pathway of confidence and direction as we move through seeming chaos. The magnitude of today’s changes will demand not only more leadership, but newer forms of leadership.” Conger, 1993. According to Conger, two major forces are defining for us the genius of the next generation of leaders. The first force is the organization’s external environment. Global competitiveness is creating some unique leadership demands. The second force is the growing diversity in organizations’ internal environments. Diversity will significantly change the relationship between organizational members, work, and the organization in challenging, difficult, and also very positive ways. What will the leaders of tomorrow be like? Professor Conger suggests that the effective leaders of the 21st century will have to be many things. Ibid. They will have to be strategic opportunists; only organizational visionaries will find strategic opportunities before competitors. They will have to be globally aware ; with 80 percent of today’s organizations facing significant foreign competition, knowledge of foreign markets, global economics, and geopolitics is crucial. They will have to be capable of managing a highly decentralized organization ; movement toward the high-involvement organization will accelerate as the environmental demands for organizational speed, flexibility, learning, and leanness increase. They will have be sensitive to diversity ; during the first few years of the 21st century, fewer than 10 percent of those entering the workforce in North America will be White, Anglo-Saxon males, and the incoming women, minorities, and immigrants will bring with them a very different set of needs and concerns. They will have to be interpersonally competent ; a highly diverse workforce will necessitate a leader who is extremely aware of and sensitive to multicultural expectations and needs. They will have to be builders of an organizational community ; work and organizations will serve as a major source of need fulfillment, and in the process leaders will be called on to help build this community in such a way that organizational members develop a sense of ownership for the organization and its mission. Finally, it is important to note that leadership theory construction and empirical inquiry are an ongoing endeavor. While the study of traits, behavior, and contingency models of leadership provide us with a great deal of insight into leadership, the mosaic is far from complete. During the past 15 years, several new theories of leadership have emerged; among them are leader-member exchange theory, implicit leadership theory, neocharismatic theory, value-based theory of leadership, and visionary leadership, House & Aditya, 1997. each of which over time will add to our bank of knowledge about leaders and the leadership process. Leaders of the 21st-century organization have a monumental challenge awaiting them and a wealth of self-enriching and fulfilling opportunities. The challenge and rewards awaiting effective leaders are awesome! What is the role of leadership in the 21st century? How do different approaches and styles of leadership impact what is needed now? Leadership in the high-involvement organization differs dramatically from that in the traditional and control-oriented organization. Leaders external to the team have as one of their primary roles empowering group members and the teams themselves to self-lead and self-manage. Leaders internal to the team are peers; they work alongside and simultaneously facilitate planning, organizing, directing, controlling, and the execution of the team’s work. Although we know a great deal about the determinants of effective leadership, we have much to learn. Each theory presented in this chapter is put into practice by managers every day. None provides the complete answer to what makes leaders effective, but each has something important to offer. Finally, our understanding of leadership has many shortcomings and limitations. The existing literature is largely based on observations from a Western industrialized context. The extent to which our theories of leadership are bound by our culture, limiting generalization to other cultures, is largely unknown. Cross-cultural leadership research will no doubt intensify as the global economy becomes an ever more dominant force in the world. Chapter Review Questions Define leadership and distinguish between leadership and management. Discuss the processes associated with people coming to positions of leadership. Discuss the different forms of power available to leaders and the effects associated with each. It has been observed that effective leaders have the “right stuff.” What traits are commonly associated with leader emergence and effective leaders? Both the Ohio State University and University of Michigan leadership studies identified central leader behaviors. What are these behaviors, and how are they different from one another? Blake and Mouton’s work with the Leadership Grid® identified several leadership types. What are they, and how does this leadership model look from the perspective of situation theories of leadership? Identify and describe the three situational variables presented in Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership. What are the four leadership behaviors in the path-goal theory of leadership? Discuss the differences between the internal and external leadership roles surrounding self-managed work teams. What are substitutes for leadership? What are neutralizers? Give an example of each. What are the distinguishing features of the transformational and the charismatic leader? Management Skills Application Exercises Identify a charismatic leader and a leader with little charisma. What are the traits and skills that allow them to succeed in their roles? How can you incorporate the traits that allow them to be successful in their roles into the skills you will need to have in a leadership position? You have just taken a leadership position where 40 percent of the workforce telecommutes. You want to encourage teamwork and want to ensure that telecommuting is not hurting teamwork. What is your plan to discover how things are working and how to communicate your desire to have effective teamwork? You are at a meeting, and during the meeting someone on the team addresses their manager and points out a crucial mistake that could doom the project. The person says that their manager should have caught it and because of that should resign. As a leader of the group, how would you deal with the subordinate, the manager, and communication with the entire team? Managerial Decision Exercises You are the newly appointed commissioner of a major sports league that is currently in a very public game three of a best-of-seven-game playoff. After an emotional opening ceremony that recognizes a tragic event in the community that is widely praised, you settle in to enjoy the game. Early in the game, a player on one team is seen celebrating a scoring play by acting out a racially insensitive behavior after the play. How would you act in a leadership position? Read the ESPN article [ http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21199462/rob-manfred-leadership-was-tested-yuli-gurriel-racially-insensitive-behavior-passed ] and comment on how this commissioner acted in this instance. One of the challenges for a new manager in a leadership position is managing stress. Reflect on a time in your life where you have taken a leadership role in a summer job, as a member of a team, or in a study group for this or another course. Develop a stress management plan that includes how you can recognize stress, how you will notice the stress, how you will manage changes to address stress, and how you will seek outside counsel and help, including a mentor to help you manage stress. Few people would want to hire a skilled manager with no leadership skills, and you would not want to hire an inspirational leader who can't manage planning, delegating, or keeping things organized. Draw two "T accounts" with positive attributes on the left and negative attributes on the right for managerial skills and leadership skills that you would look for as a hiring manager for a crucial managerial and leadership position in your organization. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC-BY 4.0 license) Critical Thinking Case The Leadership Challenge at United Anyone who has traveled even a little has at least one airline horror story: being stranded at an airport, obnoxious passengers, missed connections, flight delays, or just bad in-flight food. Even the most seasoned travelers would be hard-pressed to match Dr. David Dao’s experience of being forcibly removed, kicking and screaming, from a United Airlines flight. Most airline horror stories don’t end in a concussion, missing teeth, and a broken nose. United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz’s strangely detached response only made things worse. The incident was caught on video, and that video went viral almost immediately. Munoz issued a response that mischaracterized what plainly happened in the video and termed the violent assault as a passenger "re-accommodation" (Taylor 2017). Social media erupted with condemnation, which was echoed by late-night monologues. United was left with a damaged reputation, and its management was left wondering why their processes failed, what to do to mitigate the damage, and how to both restore their reputation and ensure that company values are followed in the future. William Taylor (2017), in a commentary in Fortune , attributes United’s “re-accommodation” disaster as the product of company policy, airport security procedures, pilot protocols, and the “wisdom of crowds.” At each step, the gate agent, pilot, airport security, and the passengers themselves could have intervened but didn’t. Brian Fielkow, business leader, author, and keynote speaker, writing at Entrepreneur.com, outlined some points that apply to Munoz’s response and the first reactions by United. Citing United’s core values, Fielkow points to Munoz’s failure to address the incident in light of the company’s values, take the blame, or even accurately describe what happened on the plane. Any one of these lapses in leadership would have caused confusion or stymied the recovery process. As a leader, Munoz was setting the tone for thousands of people. Seemingly abandoning United’s core values likely caused a rift in trust or just simple confusion company-wide. Miscasting the situation in a world of smartphones and social media reach only multiplied the effect. As a leader, Munoz was duty-bound to take responsibility for what literally the entire world saw—a breach of social ethics, let alone United’s core values. Failing to do this immediately created a problem larger than poorly planned company policy or just a perfect storm of contributing outside factors. Fielkow is keen to point out another crucial part of a company response— “You can’t walk it back” (2017 n.p.). Before responding, leadership should take time to gather the facts and thoroughly consider the possibilities of how the message will be received. Again, Munoz’s response failed at several key points, leading to the perception that Munoz’s second statement was “an attempt at damage control” (Fielkow 2017 n.p.). Al Bolea, a leadership trainer, also attributes the incident to leadership failure. In a piece written for Applied Leadership , Bolea writes, “It’s about front line employees getting the wrong messages from the most senior levels of the company.” He contends that the mindset within United put procedures above context in the minds of the employees. What the gate agents should have considered was the company’s reputation, which should have prevented them from doing something most airline customers see as “profoundly immoral” (Bolea 2017 n.p.) William C. Taylor, cofounder of Fast Company, also criticized the lack of leadership across United. As the presumptive leader of the flight, shouldn’t the pilot have done something? Why didn’t the gate agent think outside the box to solve the problem of getting the crew members from Chicago to Louisville, Kentucky? Why didn’t—or couldn’t—the gate agent use what Taylor refers to as a “common sense and a little bit of creativity” and prevent a highly embarrassing (and ultimately expensive) fiasco? Taylor muses that he would like to think he would have done more than shoot video, but the passengers on the flight remained quiet and submissive, expressing no group outrage. Finally, Taylor questions the weak initial response from United’s CEO, Oscar Munoz, writing, “If CEO Oscar Munoz’s goal was to make a disastrous situation even worse, well, he gets credit as a leader for succeeding at that” (2017 n.p.). And of the board, he questions their response, and says that response will be a “make or break test” of the company’s character (Taylor 2017). So what will it take to lead United out of such a public mistake? According to Brian Fielkow, the incident flew in the face of United’s core values, values which should never be sacrificed. United should have acknowledged this and addressed that failure. United should have held itself accountable for the incident rather than try to deflect blame. Fielkow contends that Munoz’s first response was to blame the passenger when Munoz should have accepted responsibility instead. Further, Fielkow writes that companies should anticipate what “can” go wrong, something the gate agents at United failed to do. Increasing passenger compensation to even three times the normal ticket price would have been cheaper than the PR nightmare (and stock price drop) that followed. After Munoz’s tepid response failed to quell general complaints about United’s handling of the passenger, he tried to issue a second “more appropriate” statement, but by then the damage had been done. Fielkow recommends waiting before issuing a response if need be. It’s better to prepared and issue a suitable response than to try to walk back a bad response. Above all, Fielkow recommends leaders “be human.” The first response Munoz gave had little empathy and made him, and United, appear insensitive and callous. A company’s first response should be to empathize with the customer, even if the customer is wrong. He writes, “When triaging a difficult problem, above all recognize the human factor” (Fielkow 2017 n.p.). Writing in Forbes , Glenn Llopis emphasizes that how managers react to failure shapes their futures as leaders. Not only how leaders respond, but what is learned from a failure, will affect how future decisions are approached. Remember, you have to be doing something to fail, and if you never fail, then you aren’t stretching yourself. Venturing into the unknown and unfamiliar always risks failure (Llopis 2012). Critical Thinking Questions How have other airlines handled similar situations? How much was in United Airlines’s control, and how much was actually outside their control? What social or company factors caused a seemingly common practice to escalate to this level? How did the other airlines or the industry respond to the United Airlines incident? Sources: Fielkow, Brian. 2017. “5 Leadership Failures that Contributed to the United Fiasco.” Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/292820 Bolea, Al. 2017. “United Airlines: A System Failure?” Applied Leadership. http://appliedleadership.co/leadership/united-airlines-system-failure/ Taylor, William C. 2017. “Where was the Pilot on That United Airlines Flight?” Fortune. http://fortune.com/2017/04/11/united-airlines-video/ Llopis, Glenn. 2012. “5 Things Failure Teaches You About Leadership.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2012/08/20/5-things-failure-teaches-you-about-leadership/2/#2f44c3873e70

Business


Introduction Meeting (Credit: United States Mission Geneva/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)) Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer these questions: How do power bases work in organizational life? How do you recognize and account for the exercise of counterpower and make appropriate use of strategic contingencies in interunit or interorganizational relations? How do managers cope effectively with organizational politics? How do you recognize and limit inappropriate or unethical political behavior where it occurs? Power Play at General Electric For years, General Electric has been the pillar of manufacturing standards and stood as an icon for the American economy. Despite its strong history, CEO woes and a power struggle from within during the past few years have started to unravel the company’s control. Jeff Immelt, long-time CEO, was respected and revered for his discipline. However, this mentality took its toll and led to declines and complacency. The struggling company wanted change and desperately needed growth; it appointed John Flannery. Shortly after the appointment of Flannery, the new CEO pulled a change of his own as well—firing half of the company’s board. This type of move was almost unheard of, and the purge as presented was planning to cut dividends and slash less profitable business lines. The pressure from investors was felt immediately by Flannery, and this move was a desperate attempt to regain some footing and remain atop the industry standard. Fast forward to 2018: after only one year on the job, the board decided it was done waiting for the turnaround and took drastic action, ousting Flannery and absorbing $23 billion in loss from the process. The tumultuous and fast-paced changing tech-dominated economy of the 21st century showcases the harsh realities in this GE change of power. “The market didn’t even give the company the benefit of the doubt that things would work,” said Ivan Feinseth, chief investment officer at Tigress Financial Partners. “Flannery’s plan hasn’t worked.” The market favors tech companies such as Google and Amazon rather than traditional manufacturers. And the new CEO, Lawrence Culp, will have an uphill battle to take over all of the woes of GE. As the first outsider to take over leadership, he has a lot to prove as well. His successes at Danaher preceded him and the company’s stock has soared since the change occurred, already showing a positive impact. Sources: O. Staley, “ GE is firing half its board as a new CEO cleans house,” Quartz at Work , November 20, 2017, https://qz.com/work/1133787/ge-is-firing-half-its-board-as-new-ceo-john-flannery-cleans-house/; T. Heath and J. McGregor, “General Electric, fallen icon of corporate stability, names first outsider as CEO,” Washington Post , October 2, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/01/general-electric-replaces-new-chief-executive-announces-massive-billion-charge-amid-struggles/?utm_term=.0111eb2c36ea; M. Sheetz, “GE shares soar after company suddenly dumps John Flannery as CEO,” CNBC , October 1, 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/ge-removes-flannery-as-ceo-takes-23-billion-non-cash-charge-for-power-business-problems-and-withdraws-guidance.html; T. Rivas, “GE’s New CEO Inherits a Troubled Kingdom. Here’s What He Has to Do Now,” Barons , October 2, 2018, https://www.barrons.com/articles/ges-new-ceo-inherits-a-troubled-kingdom-heres-what-he-has-to-do-now-1538495223. Although the circumstances of the changes in leadership at GE may be unique, the exercise of power and political behavior in organizations is certainly not. Power and politics are the lifeblood of most organizations, and, as a result, informed managers need to understand power dynamics. In fact, organizations are composed of coalitions and alliances of different parties that continually compete for available resources. As such, a major influence on how decisions are made is the distribution of power among the decision makers. Unequal distribution of power in organizations can have a critical impact on many aspects of work life, including employee motivation, job satisfaction, absenteeism and turnover, and stress. Hence, an awareness of the nature and pervasiveness of power and politics is essential for a better understanding of these other behavioral processes. The concept of power is closely related to the concepts of authority and leadership. It is important to understand when one method of influence ceases and another begins. For example, when does a manager stop using legitimate authority in a work situation and start using unauthorized power? Finally, on an individual level, many people attempt to exercise influence in organizations by using power tactics. An awareness of such tactics helps managers to recognize them and to take appropriate actions. Keep in mind that attempts by others to exercise power do not have to be successful. A number of mechanisms are available to countermand or neutralize influence attempts. Knowledge of these strategies gives a manager greater latitude in his response to power plays by others. In short, power and political processes in organizations represent a topic of central importance to students of organizational behavior. Along with other group processes, such as communication and decision-making, power and politics can considerably influence both the behavior and the attitudes of employees at various levels of the organization. In addition, they can further influence the extent to which various units within the organization secure the necessary resources for task accomplishment and ultimate organizational success. In short, General Electric is not alone.

Business