LPC contingency Model - srsiwok | Passionate about · PPT file · Web view · 2012-06-10There are several theories include in this presentation which are LPC Contingency...

Presented by:Siow Li LingZatil Aqmar Mohd HalimiWoon Pei JoonNoor Nadiatul Akma Hamidon

Early Contingency Theories of Effective Leadership

LPC Contingency Model Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Situational Leadership Theory Leadership Substitutes Theory

Outline of the Presentation

This presentation is discussing about the different contingency theories of leadership. There are several theories include in this presentation which are LPC Contingency Model, Path-Goal Theory of Leadership, Situational Leadership Theory and Leadership Substitutes Theory. Actually there are advantages and disadvantages of these several theories and may not apply in all situations. The main key here is all the leadership theories are a guideline for the leaders but it depends much on the situations.

Abstract

LPC Contingency

model

LPC contingency Model•This model describes how the situation moderates the relationship between leadership effectiveness•Trait measure – least preferred coworker (LPC) score

Rate the coworker who has worked least well by using a set of bipolar adjective scales

examples: Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly

Uncooperative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cooperative Sum of the rating - critical = low

- lenient = high

Leader LPC Score

Fiedler’s (1978) most recent interpretation, the LPC score indicates a leader’s motive hierarchy.

Rice (1978) concluded that the data support a value-attitude interpretation- low LPC leaders value task success- high LPC leaders value interpersonal success

Favorability is determined by weighting and combining these three aspects of the situation.

Situational Variables• Three aspects of the situation are considered:

1) Leader- member relations2) Position power3) Task structure

Octant

L-M Relation

s

Task Structur

e

Position

Power

Effective

Leader1 Good Structured Strong Low LPC

2 Good Structured Weak Low LPC

3 Good Unstructured

Strong Low LPC

4 Good Unstructured

Weak Low LPC

5 Poor Structured Strong High LPC

6 Poor Structured Weak High LPC

7 Poor Unstructured

Strong High LPC

8 Poor Unstructured

Weak High LPC

LPC score may not be stable over time and may be more complex than assumed.

The model is not really a theory, it does not explain how a leader’s LPC score affect group performance.

The model neglects medium LPC leaders who probably outnumber the high and low LPC leader.

Conceptual Weaknesses

Path-goal theory of leadership

Developed by a) Evans (1970)- earlier version b) House (1971)- next version. More elaboration which

include situational variables in it Explaining how the behavior of the leader influences

the satisfaction and performance of the subordinate This theory based on the expectancy theory in

explaining it (work motivation). ET: A person decides how much effort to devote to a

job at a given time.

PATH-GOAL THEORY

Subordinates perceptions: If the subordinate believes that the serious effort given from him will lead to the result in completing the task then, he will make the effort.(Leader’s behavior will modify these perceptions)

Depending on the situation, effect of leaders’ behavior on the subordinates’ satisfaction & performance may the same way, both differently or only one of them.

Expectancy: perceived probability of an outcomeValences: desirability of an outcome

“ how many expectancies & valences for different outcomes and level of effort combine to determine motivation is still a controversy”

1) supportive: concerning about the need of the subordinates, welfare and try making friend with them

2) directive: giving instructions to subordinates to make sure what they should do in achieving current goals. Coordinating the works for them to follow

3) participative: involve them in discussions and listen to their opinions as well

4) achievement-oriented: set the challenge goal, seeking better performance from them shows them confidence in attaining the high standards

LEADER BEHAVIORS

Effect of the leader’s behavior on the satisfaction & performance of the subordinates is depending on the situation

Involve - task characteristics - subordinates characteristics

SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

Causal variable (leader behavio

r)

Intervening

variables

(subordi

nates expectancies &

valences)

Result variable

s (subordinates

effort &

satisfaction)

Situational variables ( task characteristics, subordinates characteristics)

It is for supportive leadership Only suitable when the task is stressful, boring, tedious/

dangerous If task is interesting, enjoyable, subordinates already confident

supportive leadership only has little effect/ not at all

SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP

Reduce boredom & make job more

tolerable

Increase self-confidence & lower anxiety

Increase effort-performance expectancy

Increase the intrinsic valence

of work

Increase effort

• If task is unstructured, complex, subordinates inexperienced & little formalization of rules, procedures

DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP

Strengthen reward

contingencies

Increase size of

incentives

Reduce role ambiguity

Increase performance-

reward expectancies

Increase outcome

valence for task success

Increase effort-

performance expectancy

Increase subordinat

e effort

1. Rely on expectancy theory as the primary basis in explaining leader influence

(not account the emotional relations to decision dilemmas-denial/ distortion of relevant info about expectancies & valences, & sometimes, subordinates have differ perceptions of outcomes by using different actions)

2. Role ambiguity will cause a person to have low expectancy & leader behavior will increase it(sometimes, attainment of specific goals are difficult than what subordinates think, & it is determined that role ambiguity is based on task structure rather than employee itself (ability/ experience)

3. Each type of leader behavior is considered separately(there might be interactions among the behaviors/ more than 1 situational variables)eg: directive leadership suits when there is unstructured task but it might be suitable if the subordinates have high level of training & experiences.

WEAKNESSES

Situational Leadership theory

Proposed by Hersey and Blanchard(1977) Specifies the appropriate type of leadership

behavior for different levels of subordinate ’maturity’ n relation to the work.

A high-maturity subordinate has both the ability and confidence to do a task, whereas a low-maturity subordinate lacks ability and self-confidence.

Situational Leadership

According to Hersey and Blanchard, knowing when to use each style is largely dependent on the maturity of the person or group you're leading. They break maturity down into four different levels: M1 – People at this level of maturity are at the bottom level of the

scale. They lack the knowledge, skills, or confidence to work on their own, and they often need to be pushed to take the task on.

M2 – At this level, followers might be willing to work on the task, but they still don't have the skills to do it successfully.

M3 – Here, followers are ready and willing to help with the task. They have more skills than the M2 group, but they're still not confident in their abilities.

M4 – These followers are able to work on their own. They have high confidence and strong skills, and they're committed to the task.

Maturity Levels

M1, the leader should use substantial task-oriented behavior and be directive in defining roles, clarifying standards and procedures, and monitoring progress on attainment of objectives.

M2 & M3, the leader can decrease the amount of task-oriented behavior and provide more relations-oriented behavior.

M4, the leader should use a low level of task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors.

Major Propositions

Maturity Level Most Appropriate Leadership Style

M1: Low maturity S1: Telling/directing

M2: Medium maturity, limited skills

S2: Selling/coaching

M3: Medium maturity, higher skills but lacking confidence

S3: Participating/supporting

M4: High maturity S4: Delegating

Hersey-Blanchard model maps

Studies found support for the proposition that more directive supervision is needed for subordinates who have low ability and confidence.

Using the contingent pattern of task and relations behavior prescribed by the theory will make leaders more effective.

Blake and Mouton, specifies that a relatively high level of both task and relations behavior is optimal as long as the specific types of behavior are appropriate for the situation.

Evaluation of the Theory

Emphasis on flexible, adaptive behavior, which has become a central tenet of some recent theory and research

Essential to treat different subordinates differently Vary behavior as the situation changes Advanced the proposition that leaders should be

aware of opportunity to build the skills and confidence of subordinates

STRENGTHS OF THE SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL

Limit the utility of situational leadership theory and help to explain the lack of support for it in the research.

Leadership behavior is not clearly defined and consistently. The model also lacks a clear explanation about the process by which leader behavior influences subordinate performance.

The maturity is a composite of diverse elements and the procedure used to weight and combine them is highly questionable.

The model only acknowledge the leaders can influences some components of maturity with developmental interventions.

Conceptual weaknesses of situational leadership theory

Leadership substitutes theory

Kerr & Jermier (1978)

Identify aspects of situation that reduce the important of leadership by leaders

Initial version

Mostly concerned with identifying substitutes and neutralizers for

supportive and instrumental leadership

1. Substitutes Makes leader behavior unnecessary & redundant Include characteristic of subordinate, task or

Organization.

2. Neutralizer Prevent leader from acting in specified

way/nullify the effect of leader action. Including characteristic of task or Organization.

2 kind of situational variables

Characteristic that involve in substitute or neutralizers

Supportive leadership

Instrumental leadership

Subordinate characteristics1. Experience, ability, training2. Professional orientation3. Indifference toward reward

SubstituteSubstituteNeutralizer

SubstituteNeutralizer

Task characteristics1. Structured, routine task2. Feedback provided by task3. Intrinsically satisfying task Substitute

SubstituteSubstitute

Organization characteristics1. Cohesive work group2. Low position power3. Formalization (roles,

procedures)4. Inflexibility (rules, policies)5. Dispersed subordinate work

sites

SubstituteNeutralizer

Neutralizer

SubstituteNeutralizerSubstituteNeutralizerNeutralizer

Howell & colleagues (1990)

“If there so many neutralizer, that difficult/impossible for any leader to succeed”

Remove neutralizer by changing the situation.

Implication for improving leadership

Kerr & Jermier (1978)their model was design to deal only with

substitutes for leadership behavior by a formal leaderMerely replaced by similar leadership

behavior carried out by peers or informal leaders (shared among members of group)

Research provide strong evidence that situational variables can directly affect dependent variables such as subordinate motivation

Mc Intosh (1988) Proposed that, evaluation research on

substitute emphasize wrong aspect. Research should pay more attention to the

direct effect of situational variables on substitutes variables & leadership behavior

Research on the theory

It does not provide a detailed rationale for each substitute and neutralizer in term of causal processes involving explicit intervening variables.

Reduce the important of an intervening variable and substitute that involve leadership behavior by people rather than the leader.

Failure to differentiate between direct actions by leader to improve dependent variables and action to improve a substitute that effect the dependent variable.

Take actions to reduce constrains that prevent the use of effective behaviors and block neutralizers that undermine the effects of a potential relevant behavior.

Conceptual weaknesses

Leader substitutes theory emphasized the importance of formal leaders by showing how their influence can be replaced by

1. Work design2. Reward system3. Informal peer leadership4. Self management

Summary

Thank You