Fluent Essays

Focus on Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model from Avery (2011). Make sure you are familiar with the four leadership styles covered in the situational approach (Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating) and situations where you are supposed to use these four styles. Case Assignment A. You are in charge of a fast-food restaurant. The employees are all teenagers who have not yet graduated from high school, and this is the first job for most of them. write a 3 full-page paper (excluding title and reference pages) to include 3 scholarly sources from the uploaded references: 1. What is the Situational Leadership Model, and how can it be used to improve your selected scenario? 2. The Situational Leadership Model involves both “inputs” and “outputs” by taking employee commitment and competency as inputs and then, based on the employee information, selects one of the four Directing, Coaching, Supporting, or Delegating as an output. Create a table comparing and contrasting the four leadership styles (Directing, Coaching, Supporting, or Delegating) in terms of inputs and outputs, and include a 1 or 2 paragraph discussion of your table. 3. Based on your table and the readings, which of the four leadership styles do you think is most useful to the scenario and why? References: Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2012).  Chapter 12.4: What is the role of the context? Contingency approaches to leadership . In Organizational behavior. Saylor Academy. Evans, M. G. (2002). Chapter 4: Path-Goal theory of leadership. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership. Ayman, R. (2002). Chapter 7: Contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Challenges and achievements. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership.R.J. HOUSE’S “A PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADER EFFECTIVENESS” Martin C. Evans* University of Toronto 1964 was a wonderful year for organizational behavior. Three influential micro organization theory books (Argyris, 1964; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck, & Rosenthal, 1964; Vroom, 1964) were published, as well as one that recast our view of organization structuring (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1964). Vroom’s articulation of expectancy theory as a general model of job choice and motivation inspired a large number of researchers to test the theory (e.g., Hackman & Porter, 1968), to criticize the theory (Mitchell, 1974), and to elaborate on the theory. It is in the elaboration mode that House’s path-goal theory makes its contribution. The path-goal theory of leadership had its genesis, as did one other influential theory of leadership (Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950) in the work of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. In 1957, Georgopoulos, Mahoney, and Jones published their seminal test of the expectancy theory of motivation. By 1964, with the publication of Vroom’s Work and Motivation, the theory had been broadened to encompass a whole series of individual choices (of a job, of an organization, and of how hard to work) in organizational settings. During this period, (Kahn, 1958) argued that the effects of leaders on subordinates’ performance and satisfaction might be mediated through effects upon the subordinate’s motivation. Once Vroom had articulated a viable, testable theory of motivation, it was clear that the next sensible step was to examine whether important organizational factors (leadership, structure, job design) might have an impact on employee behavior through a motivational mediator. Evans (1968, 1970) presented a theoretical exposition of the ways in which this mediation might take place for leadership behavior (consideration and initiating structure) * Direct all correspondence to: Professor M.G. Evans, University of Toronto, Faculty of Management, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS lV4. r-mud: [email protected] Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 305-309. Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048.9843 306 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 3 1996 and provided for a test of the theory (as well as of the underlying expectancy theory of motivation). In 1971, House extended the theory by examining the contingencies under which leader behavior might affect each of the elements of motivation; and this position was elaborated and extended by House and Mitchell (1974) and Evans (1979) {See also Indvick, 1986). Table 1 Predictions From Path-Goal Theory LAW&~ Behcr~ior Viirirrhk ~ Reward variety Diagnose differences in desired rewards Upward influence ‘VI{ E/ Charismatic behavior Articulates goal Competent Supportive Trustworthy Accurate feedback Timely. clear. specific feedbacTHE CONTINGENCY MODEL OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS: ITS LEVELS OF ANALYSIS Roya Ayman* lllinois Institute of Technology Martin M.Chemers Claremont Mdenna College Fred Fiedler University of Washington The contingency model of leadership effectiveness (Fiedler, 1978) has been the basis for an extensive body of research. During the last three decades, numerous studies have supported its propositions (Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985; Strube & Garcia, 1981), but the model has also elicited strong criticisms. This article argues that the contingency model was one of the first models in leadership research that was theoretically multi-level and methodologically multi-source. New evidence and alternative perspectives are offered to address the issues concerning the conceptual definitions of the model’s components, which have often been the subject of debate. The discussion concludes with productive avenues for future research in the paradigm and its potential contributions to leadership training and development within a multi-level framework. INTRODUCTION The contingency model of leadership effectiveness was presented in its most complete form in Fiedler (1967) and Fiedler and Chemers (1974). The evolution of the model and the development of its constructs covers three decades of research. This article examines the model from a theoretical and methodological perspective. It focuses on * Direct all correspondence to: Roya Ayman, Department of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616-3793. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 147-167. Copyright @ 1995 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048-9843 148 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995 the levels of analysis used to determine the various components of the model, to measure effective leadership, and to define the sources of information for its central variables. The model predicts that a leader’s effectiveness is based on two main factors: a leader’s attributes, referred to as task or relationship motivational orientation (formerly referred to as style), and a leader’s situational control (formerly referred to as situational favorability). The model predicts that leaders who have a task motivational orientation compared to those who have a relationship orientation or motivation will be more successful in high- and low-control situations. Relationship oriented leaders compared to task-oriented leaders will be more effective in moderate control situations (Fiedler, 1978). A leader is designated as “in match” in situations where the model predicts high group performance and “out of match”in situations of low group performance (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984). The model is, by design, multi-level and multi-source. That is, measures of the leader’s motivational orientation are based on the leader’s responses (individual level); characteristics of the situation have been measured by the leader’s r4 Micro-level Leadership Theories Key Points Understanding leadership theories and models Traits and behaviours of the individual leader Influencing skills Leader-follower relations Situational influences Linking theories to the paradigms How do the paradigms relate to the many leadership theories and concepts? Over the next three chapters, major leadership theories and ideas are discussed in relation to the paradigms. This chapter describes the evolution of leadership theories and approaches, particularly as they apply to individual leaders and their relationships with their followers. Most formal leadership theories were developed in the twentieth century, although many of the underlying ideas about leadership are much older. These theories tend to deal with specific facets of leadership or leadership at particular levels breaking the concept into simpler components for ease of study or in order to develop particular leadership tools. Few writers address leadership in its complexity or try to link their theories to one another. None addresses the full range of leadership ideas and levels, although Bass and Yukl have made major attempts to do so.1 Most theorists ignore the fact that national and dynamic corporate cultures, different political contexts and multiple stakeholders affect leadership. A comprehensive view of leadership will not just be internally-focused, but will place leadership in an operating context. This will allow for interactions with the external world, including with competitors, governments and politicians, suppliers and alliance partners. Thus, the leadership field consists of the writings of groups of relatively isolated scholars. Adopting a broad approach to leadership as advocated in this book requires integrating many theoretical approaches. Any theory or model that encompassed the full range of internal and external leadership issues would be very broad, and so probably not detailed or predictive enough to be useful for empirical researchers. However, writers and practitioners are calling for a multilevel framework that incorporates leadership effects at individual, group and Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership : Paradigms and cases. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open(http://ebookcentral.proquest.com,_blank) href=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com target=_blank style=cursor: pointer;>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from trident on 2021-03-03 16:48:56. C op yr ig ht © 2 00 4. S A G E P ub lic at io ns . A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . organizational levels.2 The question is, at which organizational levels should leadership be discussed?3 A common recommendation is to use different management levels: higher levels (executive or upper echelon management), middle management and lower levels (front-line or entry-level). One difficulty with this approach is de