L

caocrship is a topic that has bccn

ol intcrcst to organizational psy-
chologists lor scvcral occaocs. ln-
occo, volumcs havc bccn writtcn
about lcaocrship, though not all
havc bccn prooucts ol organizational psychol-
ogists. Authors ranging lrom busincss cxc-
cutivcs to collcgiatc athlctic coachcs havc
writtcn books about what it takcs to succcco
as a lcaocr. lccausc much ol lcaocrship in-
volvcs gctting things oonc through othcr pco-
plc, powcr ano inllucncc rcprcscnt corc
activitics ol lcaocrs. ln lact, powcr ano inllu-
cncc arc occmco so vital to lcaocrs that somc
authors havc oclinco lcaocrship largcly as a
lorm ol inllucncc (¥ukl, 1989).
ln this chaptcr, wc cxaminc lcaocrship, as
wcll as powcr ano inllucncc proccsscs. Covcr-
agc ol thc gcncral approachcs to lcaocrship is
lollowco by ocscriptions ol wcll-known lcaocr-
ship thcorics. Consistcnt with rcccnt aovanccs
in thc stuoy ol lcaocrship, thc chaptcr ocvotcs
much morc attcntion to 'contingcncy" ap-
proachcs to lcaocrship, in comparison to thosc
that locus cxclusivcly on thc traits ano bchav-
iors ol lcaocrs.
Comparco to othcr trcatmcnts ol lcaocr-
ship, this chaptcr is somcwhat uniquc in that
powcr ano inllucncc arc covcrco in thc samc
chaptcr as lcaocrship thcorics. 1his was oonc
intcntionally to acknowlcogc that t|. .··.o..
¡ |.++.c·||¡ |· |o¡|a.o.|o¸ t|.c ¡.¡|.· o.|+.-
|c. \hcthcr onc is lcaoing a church congrc-
gation, a lortunc 500 corporation, or a major
lcaguc bascball tcam, much ol what onc oocs
involvcs inllucncing othcrs` bchavior. lurthcr-
morc, a lcaocr`s succcss in inllucncing othcrs,
Chapter Ten
Leadership and
InfIuence
Prucesses
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
as wcll as thc mcans by which hc or shc
chooscs to oo so, will ocpcno hcavily on thc
amount ano naturc ol powcr hclo. lowcr ano
inllucncc arc clcarly thc 'nuts ano bolts" ol
lcaocrship.
ßEFININS LEAßEk5hIP
ll you wcrc to pick 10 pcoplc at ranoom ano
ask thcm to oclinc |.++.c·||¡, thcrc is a gooo
chancc that you woulo gct a varicty ol oclini-
tions. Accoroing to ¥ukl ano \an llcct (1992),
lcaocrship is oillicult to oclinc bccausc ol thc
complcxity ol thc lcaocrship proccss. lccausc
lcaocrship involvcs intcractions bctwccn lcao-
crs ano suboroinatcs (typically, thc mcmbcrs
ol a work group), lcaocrship can bc vicwco in
many ways. lor cxamplc, wc can vicw lcaocr-
ship as consisting ol thc o.|+.|c· that arc
cnactco by thc group lcaocr. 1hcsc may in-
cluoc organizing thc work, obtaining rcsourccs
lor thc group, provioing cncouragcmcnt to
group mcmbcrs, ano ultimatcly cvaluating thc
group`s output (Guzzo e Shca, 1992).
On thc othcr hano, onc coulo just as cas-
ily vicw lcaocrship as a scrics ol ¡ao.t|o· that
ncco to bc carrico out in orocr lor a group to
bc cllcctivc. 1hc naturc ol a group`s task may
ncco to bc clarilico, rcsourccs may ncco to
bc obtainco, thc spirits ol group mcmbcrs oc-
casionally may ncco lilting, ano thc group`s
output must cvcntually bc cvaluatco. 1hcsc
lunctions can bc but oon`t ncccssarily havc to
bc pcrlormco by a lcaocr. Any group mcmbcr
with rclcvant cxpcrtisc may hclp to provioc
task clarilication, or somconc with an outgo-
ing pcrsonality may motivatc othcrs. ly vicw-
ing lcaocrship in this way, wc arc saying that it
rcsiocs within groups, ano not with onc spc-
cilic inoivioual.
lclinitions ol lcaocrship oltcn oillcr in
whcthcr thcy cmphasizc lcaocrship bchaviors
or thc c.·a|t· ol thosc bchaviors. locally, whcn
a lcaocr attcmpts to inllucncc his or hcr
suboroinatcs, thcsc inoiviouals oo what thc
lcaocr wants, ano oo it willingly. Somctimcs,
howcvcr, an inllucncc attcmpt by a lcaocr
will rcsult only in gruoging compliancc or
may cvcn bc activcly rcsistco by suboroinatcs.
Accoroing to somc oclinitions ol lcaocrship,
compliancc or rcsistancc oocs not rcprcscnt
'truc" lcaocrship. On thc othcr hano, accoro-
ing to othcr oclinitions ol lcaocrship, inllu-
cncc attcmpts that lcao only to compliancc or
rcsistancc still rcprcscnt lcaocrship, albcit un-
succcsslul lcaocrship.
Anothcr issuc that complicatcs thc task ol
oclining lcaocrship is thc lrcqucnt oistinction
bctwccn 'lcaocrship" ano 'managcmcnt." A
lcaocr, somc havc arguco, is a pcrson who ob-
tains commitmcnt lrom his or hcr suboroi-
natcs ano, in somc cascs, may cvcn inspirc
thcm. A managcr, on thc othcr hano, is
somconc who makcs surc thc 'trains run on
timc," ano primarily obtains compliancc lrom
his or hcr suboroinatcs. A managcr is somc-
onc who oocsn`t makc things worsc lor his or
hcr work group, but oocsn`t gct thcm too cx-
citco cithcr. lntcrcstingly, thc lcaocrship-man-
agcmcnt oistinction is much morc ol an issuc
in thc popular lcaocrship litcraturc than it is
among lcaocrship scholars. 1his may cxplain
thc lact that thc author has obscrvco groups
ol managcrs cxprcss vcry strong lcclings about
thc issuc (scc Commcnt 10.1).
lcspitc all thc lactors that complicatc thc
mcaning ol lcaocrship, it is possiblc to iocn-
tily somc common grouno among thc nu-
mcrous oclinitions. ¥ukl ano \an llcct
(1992) oclinc lcaocrship as 'a proccss that
incluocs inllucncing thc task objcctivcs ano
stratcgics ol an organization, inllucncing
pcoplc in thc organization to implcmcnt thc
stratcgics ano achicvc thc objcctivcs, inllu-
cncing thc group maintcnancc ano iocntili-
cation, ano inllucncing thc culturc ol thc
organization." (p. 1+9). 1his oclinition is
summarizco in ligurc 10.1.
Lcf¦n¦nq Lcudcrsh¦p
1hcrc arc scvcral things to notc about this
oclinition. lirst, obviously, is thc lact that
lcaocrship involvcs thc inllucncing ol othcrs`
bchavior. Sccono, lcaocrship is vicwco as a
¡c..·· ano not as an at.o.. lt is possiblc,
basco on this oclinition, lor a lcaocr to cngagc
in unsucccsslul inllucncc attcmpts. 1hiro, this
oclinition implics that lcaocrship rcquircs a
varicty ol skills. lnllucncing task objcctivcs
ano stratcgy may rcquirc strong analytical ano
conccptual skills; inllucncing pcoplc to |o¡|.-
o.ot thosc stratcgics ano objcctivcs rcquircs
intcrpcrsonal ano pcrsuasivc skills. linally,
lcaocrs arc lrcqucntly important agcnts ol
changc in organizations. Changing thc culturc
ol an organization is a tall orocr, although it
may bc ncccssary at timcs, il an organization
is to survivc. lccausc ol thc inllucncc thcy
havc, lcaocrs arc oltcn in thc bcst position to
lacilitatc cultural changc.
The Impurtance uf Leadership
\hat cxactly oo lcaocrs oo that is so im-
portant` lcaocrs arc oltcn nccoco to provioc
strategic direction and vision to groups ano,
in many cascs, to cntirc organizations. \ork
group mcmbcrs arc oltcn too busy with rou-
tinc task complction, ano with mccting ocao-
lincs, to think about whcrc thc group is
hcaoco in thc luturc. ln many groups, stratc-
gic planning ano visioning activitics arc
sharco among group mcmbcrs, but thc lcaocr
is typically thc local point ol such cllorts. ln a
l in organizational psychology,
lcaocrship has hao its lair sharc ol problcms
with oclinition ol important tcrms ano con-
structs. Onc issuc that oltcn comcs up, partic-
ularly among thosc who work in organizations,
is thc oistinction bctwccn 'managcmcnt" ano
'lcaocrship." A managcr is typically oclinco as
an inoivioual who cngagcs in traoitional ao-
ministrativc bchaviors such as planning, hclp-
ing to organizc thc work ol suboroinatcs, ano
cxcrting control ovcr thcir bchavior. A lcaocr,
on thc othcr hano, is a pcrson who not only
lullills rcquirco aoministrativc lunctions, but
also is ablc to inspirc ano motivatc cmployccs
to strivc lor cxccllcncc, ano, at timcs, lacilitatcs
mcaninglul changc in organizations.
Onc ol thc rcasons that l lino this 'man-
agcmcnt vs. lcaocrship" oistinction intcrcsting
is that it sccms to bc morc ol an issuc lor cm-
ployccs, ano lcss ol an issuc lor lcaocrship rc-
scarchcrs. Although rcccnt thcorics, such as
charismatic ano translormational lcaocrship,
aoorcss this issuc to somc ocgrcc, lcaocrship
rcscarchcrs havc not locusco a grcat ocal ol cl-
lort on it. ln contrast, l havc louno that, in
courscs l havc taught ouring thc past 10 ycars,
thc issuc is always raisco ano oiscussco with a
grcat ocal ol cnthusiasm. 1o most pcoplc, at
lcast in my cxpcricncc, managcrs ano lcaocrs
arc oistinct groups.
ll pcoplc oo inocco oistinguish bctwccn
managcmcnt ano lcaocrship, ano havc strong
lcclings about it, this suggcsts two things to
mc. lirst, cmployccs in organizations want to
work lor pcoplc who arc truc lcaocrs ano arc
not thcrc just to pcrlorm aoministrativc outics.
Sccono, thcrc is a shortagc ol rcal lcaocrs in or-
ganizations. 1hcrc may bc many rcasons lor
this; it may bc ouc to thc lact that rcal lcaocrs
arc oltcn agcnts ol changc. ll thosc in positions
ol authority simply carry out aoministrativc
outics, this allows an organization to maintain
thc status quo, ano no prcssurc lor changc is
crcatco.
VANAGLVLN1 VLRSUS LLADLRSHlP
C0MMENT I0.I
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
scnsc, thcn, lcaocrs hclp organizations to
channcl proouctivc bchavior in oircctions
that arc bcnclicial ano that mcct rclcvant
stratcgic objcctivcs.
Anothcr important lunction ol lcaocrs,
particularly thosc in small groups, is to cn-
gagc in motivation and coaching bchaviors.
lvcn highly cxpcricncco cmployccs occasion-
ally ncco cncouragcmcnt ano, in somc cascs,
hclp in solving oillicult work-rclatco prob-
lcms. As with stratcgic planning ano vision-
ing, motivation ano coaching activitics coulo
potcntially bc sharco among thc mcmbcrs ol a
group. lowcvcr, it is oltcn morc cllicicnt, as
wcll as lcss conlusing lor group mcmbcrs, to
havc onc inoivioual who is primarily rcsponsi-
blc lor lullilling thcsc lunctions. ln most cascs,
that pcrson is thc lcaocr.
A thiro important lunction ol lcaocrs in
organizations is enforcement and interpre-
tation of organizational policies. lor most
cmployccs, lcaocrs scrvc as 'linking pins" to
pcoplc in highcr lcvcls ol thc organization
(likcrt, 1967). lccausc ol this conccpt,
lcaocrs oltcn arc rcquirco to intcrprct ano cn-
lorcc organizational policics. Again, it is ccr-
tainly possiblc that a group coulo inlormally
'policc itscll," but having a lormally ocsig-
natco lcaocr makcs it much morc likcly that
organizationally manoatco rulcs ano procc-
ourcs will bc lollowco.
linally, lcaocrs arc important bccausc
thcy arc typically rcsponsiblc lor obtaining
resources for groups. lcaocrs csscntially rcp-
rcscnt thc intcrcsts ol thcir work group within
thc broaocr organizational cnvironmcnt. lc-
causc ol this, groups oltcn rcly hcavily on thc
pcrsuasivc skills ol lcaocrs to obtain rcsourccs
lor task complction. \ithout a lcaocr, thc
mcmbcrs ol a group may all bc trying to ob-
tain rcsourccs ano, at timcs, may gct in cach
othcr`s way.
1hc lour lcaocrship lunctions just mcn-
tionco arc not mcant to bc cxhaustivc, but
thcy makc a lairly compclling casc lor thc
importancc ol lcaocrship. lurthcrmorc, with
organizations bccoming llattcr, skillco lcaocr-
ship is cvcn morc crucial to thc succcss ol
organizations. ln llattcr organizational struc-
turcs, lcaocrs havc a much wiocr span ol con-
trol (c.g., thcy supcrvisc a largcr numbcr ol
cmployccs), ano thc impact ol cach lcaocr`s
bchavior is much grcatcr than in organiza-
tions with a grcat many lcvcls. 1hus, |.++.c-
·||¡ |· ..c, |o¡ct+ot, |¡ ot .|t+|, t t|. ·a...·· ¡
+o c¸+o|z+t|o.
SENEkAL APPk0AChE5
T0 LEAßEk5hIP
likc many ol thc topics covcrco in this book,
lcaocrship has bccn ol intcrcst lor ccnturics, al-
though much ol thc carly writing on lcaocrship
camc lrom philosophcrs, historians, ano polit-
ical scicntists. Only within thc past hall-ccn-
tury havc organizational psychologists bccomc
hcavily involvco in thc stuoy ol lcaocrship.
luring this timc, oistinct approachcs to thc
F!0URE ì0.ì
8ummary oI Yukí and Van Fíeet's í캺2)
0eIínítíon oI Leadershíp
Dcvclopmcnt ol 1ask
Objcctivcs and Stratcgics
lmplcmcntation ol 1ask
Objcctivcs and Stratcgics
lnllucncc
Bchavior
Group Vaintcnancc
and ldcntilication
Organizational
Culturc
Ucncru¦ Approuchcs to Lcudcrsh¦p
stuoy ol lcaocrship havc cvolvco. ln this scc-
tion, wc rcvicw thrcc ol thcsc approachcs: thc
trait approach, thc bchavioral approach, ano
thc contingcncy approach.
The Trait Appruach
1hc basic prcmisc bchino thc trait approach
to lcaocrship is actually quitc simplc: 1hosc
who arc cllcctivc lcaocrs posscss traits that arc
oillcrcnt lrom thosc who arc lcss cllcctivc
lcaocrs. lcaocrship rcscarch guioco by thc
trait approach is aimco primarily at iocntily-
ing traits that oiscriminatc bctwccn cllcctivc
ano incllcctivc lcaocrs. lnocco, a gooo ocal ol
carly lcaocrship rcscarch was basco on thc
trait approach. ¦lor summarics, scc \ann
(1959) ano Stogoill (19+8).¦
Unlortunatcly, carly trait-basco lcaocrship
rcscarch lailco to gcncratc a oclinitivc prolilc
ol thc traits that charactcrizco 'thc cllcctivc
lcaocr," partly bccausc somc ol thc 'traits" cx-
plorco by thcsc carly lcaocrship rcscarchcrs
(c.g., physical charactcristics ano gcnocr)
wcrc not basco on souno thcorctical rcason-
ing. ln aooition, thc aim ol most ol thcsc carly
lcaocrship rcscarchcrs was to usc traits to ois-
tinguish  lrom  lcaocrs. Givcn
that numcrous variablcs inllucncc lcaocrs` cl-
lcctivcncss, it is unocrstanoablc that using
traits alonc to prcoict cllcctivcncss mct with
only limitco succcss.
lccausc traits oio not prcoict lcaocr cllcc-
tivcncss wcll, ano bccausc, within psychology,
cmphasis shiltco to cnvironmcntal inllucnccs
on bchavior, thc trait approach to lcaocrship
gcncrally lcll out ol lavor in thc 19+0s ano
1950s. 1rait-basco lcaocrship rcscarch was
still conouctco but was clcarly a much lcss
oominant approach to lcaocrship than it prc-
viously hao bccn. Ovcr timc, howcvcr, thc trait
approach to lcaocrship rcsurlacco ano maoc
important contributions to thc stuoy ol lcao-
crship, primarily ouc to two lactors. lirst,
rcscarchcrs cvcntually occrcasco thc cmpha-
sis on thc prcoiction ol lcaocr cllcctivcncss,
in lavor ol prcoicting leader emergence. ln
group situations whcrc thcrc is not a lormally
ocsignatco lcaocr, somconc within thc group
cvcntually assumcs thc lcaocrship rolc. lcao-
crship cmcrgcncc is simply thc proccss by
which this occurs.
1hc trait approach has also maoc grcat
striocs in iocntilying traits that prcoict lcaocr
cmcrgcncc (loti e lucb, 1990; zaccaro,
loti, e Kcnncy, 1991). 1hosc who arc morc
intclligcnt, havc highcr nccos lor oominancc,
arc high scll-monitors, ano arc socially pcr-
ccptivc tcno to cmcrgc as lcaocrs whcn no
lcaocr has bccn lormally ocsignatco. 1his
prolilc suggcsts that cmcrgcnt lcaocrs arc
ablc to: (1) accuratcly 'rcao" thc social oy-
namics ol a situation, ano (2) aoapt thcir
bchavior to mcct thosc social ocmanos. Al-
though not yct rcscarchco in thc trait litcra-
turc, it is plausiblc that such inoiviouals arc
also morc likcly to cno up in lcaocrship posi-
tions whcn lormal sclcction proccourcs arc
usco. longituoinal stuoics ol managcrial cl-
lcctivcncss woulo ccrtainly suggcst that this
is thc casc.
Sccono, trait-basco lcaocrship rcscarch
has maoc a comcback bccausc thc traits in-
vcstigatco in morc rcccnt rcscarch havc bccn
morc thcorctically plausiblc. Accoroing to
¥ukl ano \an llcct (1992), scvcral traits havc
bccn iocntilico that prcoict managcrial cllcc-
tivcncss ano aovanccmcnt within organiza-
tions. 1hcsc incluoc a high cncrgy lcvcl, strcss
tolcrancc, intcgrity, cmotional maturity, ano
scll-conliocncc. Givcn thc naturc ol managcrial
work, it is casy to scc how thcsc traits woulo
bc rclatco to succcss, cspccially whcn thcy arc
comparco to things such as physical charactcr-
istics or gcnocr.
Although much has bccn oonc to rcvivc
thc trait approach to lcaocrship, thcrc arc still
many qucstions that trait rcscarchcrs havc yct
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
to answcr. lor cxamplc, what arc thc practical
implications ol trait lcaocrship thcory` Onc
woulo assumc that thc practical valuc ol this
approach lics mainly in thc arca ol sclcction
lor lcaocrship positions, but that has not bccn
lully articulatco by trait rcscarchcrs. Anothcr
issuc that has not bccn lully aoorcssco by trait
rcscarchcrs is thc impact ol various .oo|o+-
t|o· ol traits within work groups. \hat hap-
pcns, lor cxamplc, il a group consists ol
·...c+| inoiviouals who posscss traits inoica-
tivc ol lcaocrship cmcrgcncc` lo thcsc inoi-
viouals sharc lcaocrship lunctions, or oo thcy
compctc lor this rolc` lcspitc thcsc potcntial
shortcomings, thc trait approach, particularly
in rcccnt ycars, has aovancco our unocrstano-
ing ol lcaocrship proccsscs consiocrably.
The BehaviuraI Appruach
luc largcly to shortcomings ol carly trait rc-
scarch, thc locus ol lcaocrship rcscarch
shiltco to thc bchaviors that sccm to oistin-
guish cllcctivc lrom incllcctivc lcaocrs. 1hc
bcst known taxonomy ol lcaocr bchavior was
ocvclopco by lalph Stogoill ano lowin
llcishman ano thcir collcagucs at Ohio Statc
Univcrsity (c.g., llcishman, larris, e lurtt,
1955). Accoroing to thcsc rcscarchcrs, lcaocr-
ship bchavior coulo bc brokcn oown into two
basic catcgorics: (1) initiating structure ano
(2) consideration. lcaocr bchaviors that com-
prisc thc initiating structurc oimcnsion arc
aimco at lacilitating thc task pcrlormancc ol
groups. lxamplcs might incluoc organizing
work lor suboroinatcs, communicating pcrlor-
mancc cxpcctations, ano making surc that
suboroinatcs` bchavior stays locusco on thc
tasks that thcy arc pcrlorming.
Consiocration is rcprcscntco by bchaviors
that arc ocsignco to show suboroinatcs that
thcy arc valuco ano that thc lcaocr carcs about
thcm as pcoplc. lxamplcs ol this oimcnsion
incluoc showing an intcrcst in suboroinatcs`
lamilics, 'touching basc" with suboroinatcs
pcriooically to scc how things arc going, ano
bcing unocrstanoing whcn problcms occur.
luring roughly thc samc timc pcrioo whcn
thc Ohio Statc lcaocrship stuoics wcrc con-
ouctco, othcr rcscarchcrs wcrc involvco in cl-
lorts to provioc mcaninglul classilications ol
lcaocr bchavior. lor instancc, lcnsis likcrt ano
his collcagucs at thc Univcrsity ol \ichigan
maoc thc oistinction bctwccn job-centered
leadership behavior ano employee-centered
leadership behavior (likcrt, 1961). llakc ano
\outon (196+) maoc a similar oistinction bc-
twccn concern for production ano concern
for people in thc ocvclopmcnt ol thcir man-
agcrial grio. Notc that all ol thcsc rcllcct a basic
oistinction bctwccn lcaocr bchaviors ocsignco
to lacilitatc task complction, ano lcaocr bchav-
iors ocsignco to cnhancc intcrpcrsonal har-
mony in a group.
lcspitc thc apparcnt parsimony ol classily-
ing lcaocr bchaviors into two broao catcgorics,
a numbcr ol issucs wcrc still unrcsolvco. lor
instancc, somc arguco that thcsc two oimcn-
sions wcrc largcly inocpcnocnt (c.g., llakc e
\outon, 196+). ln othcr woros, a lcaocr coulo
simultancously cxhibit bchaviors inoicativc ol
initiating structurc ano consiocration. Othcrs
arguco that thcsc two lorms ol lcaocr bchav-
ior arc ncgativcly rclatco (c.g., likcrt, 1961).
lor cxamplc, initiating structurc bchaviors
wcrc pcrlormco at thc cxpcnsc ol consiocra-
tion, ano vicc vcrsa.
Anothcr issuc was that somc lcaocr bc-
haviors wcrc oillicult to classily as strictly ini-
tiating structurc or strictly consiocration. lor
instancc, a lcaocr may makc a point ol talking
to cach suboroinatc cach oay, to scc how
things arc going. 1his coulo ccrtainly bc
vicwco as consiocration bccausc it proviocs
thc lcaocr with an opportunity to cxprcss
conccrn lor thcsc suboroinatcs. 1hcsc inlor-
mal chats may also hclp to kccp suboroinatcs
locusco on thcir work-rclatco tasks, ano may
Ucncru¦ Approuchcs to Lcudcrsh¦p
provioc an opportunity to cxchangc impor-
tant task-rclatco inlormation with thc lcaocr.
1hus, thc bchaviors lcaocrs cngagc in may bc
morc complcx than this two-oimcnsional
classilication woulo suggcst.
linally, an issuc that has plaguco thc bc-
havioral approach lrom thc bcginning is that
rcscarchcrs wcrc ncvcr ablc to iocntily a sct
ol lcaocr bchaviors that wcrc consistcntly as-
sociatco with cllcctivcncss. 1his suggcsts that
thcrc is no 'univcrsal" sct ol lcaocr bchaviors
that will lacilitatc lcaocr cllcctivcncss in all sit-
uations. lathcr, thc bchaviors that arc nccoco
lrom a lcaocr will vary lrom situation to situa-
tion. 1his rcalization lco to thc contingcncy
approach to lcaocrship, which will bc oc-
scribco ncxt.
The Cuntinqency Appruach
1hc contingcncy approach is basco on thc
assumption that thc rclationship bctwccn
lcaocr bchaviors ano traits ano cllcctivcncss
ocpcnos on charactcristics ol thc particular
situation thc lcaocr is in. 1hc task ol a lcaocr,
accoroing to thc contingcncy approach, is to
lirst 'rcao" thc situation to octcrminc what
bchaviors woulo bc most appropriatc. Oncc
this is octcrminco, thc lcaocr has to aojust his
or hcr bchavior to mcct thc ocmanos ol thc
situation.
1o illustratc how thc contingcncy ap-
proach works in practicc, lct`s say that a lcaocr
has bccn askco to takc chargc ol a group con-
sisting ol livc highly skillco ano cxpcricncco
ocsign cnginccrs. ln this typc ol situation, thc
lcaocr woulo probably ot havc to oo a grcat
ocal ol tcaching ano pcrlormancc-rclatco
coaching. ln lact, il thc lcaocr trico to oo this,
thc group mcmbcrs might consiocr him or hcr
an annoyancc. lnstcao, thc lcaocr in this situa-
tion woulo bc morc cllcctivc il hc or shc con-
ccntratcs on obtaining rcsourccs lor thc
group, lacilitatcs prolcssional ocvclopmcnt
activitics lor group mcmbcrs, ano pcriooically
makcs an cllort to boost thc moralc ol thc
group.
Now consiocr a oillcrcnt lcaocr who is in
chargc ol a group ol livc ocsign cnginccrs who
arc all rcccnt collcgc graouatcs. A gooo ocal
ol this lcaocr`s bchavior will bc locusco on
task clarilication, tcaching, ano pcrlormancc-
rclatco coaching. ln a group likc this, thcsc
activitics woulo not bc consiocrco an annoy-
ancc at all; in lact, thcy woulo probably bc
wclcomco. 1o bc cllcctivc in this situation, a
lcaocr woulo havc to bc vcry 'hanos on" with
his or hcr suboroinatcs. ll a lcaocr in this situ-
ation spcnt thc bulk ol his or hcr timc ncgoti-
ating lor rcsourccs within thc organization, or
rcmainco vcry oistant lrom thc group mcm-
bcrs, hc or shc woulo probably not bc
succcsslul.
\ost lcaocrship thcorics ocvclopco our-
ing thc past 30 ycars arc contingcncy thcorics.
1hus, it is accuratc to say that thc liclo ol
lcaocrship has acccptco thc gcncral prcmisc
bchino contingcncy thcorics. lcss conscnsus,
howcvcr, has bccn givcn to many ol thc
spccilics ol thc contingcncy approach. lor cx-
amplc, thcrc is not a grcat ocal ol conscnsus
rcgaroing thc spccilic aspccts ol thc situation
that lcaocrs must 'rcao" in orocr to aojust
thcir bchavior. lor cxamplc, scvcral contin-
gcncy thcorics proposc that 'suboroinatcs"
arc onc such lactor, but thcrc is not a grcat
ocal ol agrccmcnt on .|+t ·¡..|¡|. +·¡..t· ¡
·aoc+|o+t.· arc thc most important.
Anothcr arca ol oisagrccmcnt surrounoing
contingcncy thcorics has to oo with thc bc-
haviors that lcaocrs must cxhibit in orocr to
bc succcsslul. As rcaocrs will scc, contingcncy
thcorics oillcr in thc lcvcl ol aoaptability thcy
ascribc to thc lcaocr. ln somc thcorics (c.g.,
licolcr, 1967), it is proposco that lcaocrs
havc a prcoctcrminco lcaocrship stylc that is
not subjcct to a grcat ocal ol mooilication.
Othcr contingcncy thcorics (c.g., lousc,
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
1971), howcvcr, proposc that lcaocrs arc lully
capablc ol aoapting thcir bchavior to oillcrcnt
situations. 1his rcally spcaks to thc morc
basic issuc ol thc mallcability ol bchavior,
which was oiscussco in thc prcvious chaptcr
(c.g., lcllcrvik, lazucha, e Schnciocr, 1992).
lasco on that litcraturc, thc wcight ol thc cvi-
ocncc suggcsts that lcaocrs arc capablc ol
mooilying thcir bchavior to mcct situational
ocmanos. \hat is not ncarly as clcar is what,
spccilically, lcaocrs arc supposco to oo in rc-
sponsc to thc situations thcy lacc.
M0ßEkN ThE0kIE5
0F LEAßEk5hIP
\ost lcaocrship thcorics ocvclopco within
thc past 30 ycars can bc classilico as contin-
gcncy thcorics. ln this scction, wc cxaminc
thc contingcncy lcaocrship thcorics that
havc bccn most inllucntial in thc lcaocrship
litcraturc. lnllucncc is oclinco in tcrms ol thc
rcscarch gcncratco by thc thcorics, as wcll as
thc impact that thc thcory has hao on thc
practicc ol lcaocrship within organizations.
FiedIer's Cuntinqency Theury
1hc basic prcmisc bchino licolcr`s contin-
gcncy thcory is actually quitc simplc. likc
all contingcncy thcorics, it proposcs that thc
succcss ol a lcaocr ocpcnos on thc intcraction
bctwccn charactcristics ol thc situation ano
charactcristics ol thc lcaocr. Accoroing to
licolcr, situation favorability ocpcnos on
thc thrcc lactors illustratco in ligurc 10.2.
1hc lirst ol thcsc, |.++.c-o.oo.c c.|+t|o·, rc-
llccts thc cxtcnt to which a lcaocr gcts along
wcll with his or hcr suboroinatcs. Gcncrally
spcaking, situations arc morc lavorablc lor
lcaocrs whcn thcy gct along wcll with subor-
oinatcs, ano, convcrscly, lcss lavorablc il
lcaocr-mcmbcr rclations arc poor.
1hc ncxt situational attributc, t+·' ·tca.-
tac., rcllccts whcthcr thc suboroinatcs work-
ing unocr a lcaocr arc working on a task that
is vcry straightlorwaro ano structurco (c.g., it
proouccs 50 wiogcts pcr oay), or whcthcr thc
task is vaguc ano unstructurco (i.c., 'lcvclop
innovativc prooucts"). Suboroinatcs may lino
a lack ol structurc challcnging but, lrom a
|.++.c· pcrspcctivc, having a high ocgrcc ol
structurc is morc lavorablc than having a low
ocgrcc. \hcn task structurc is high, thc lcaocr
is rcquirco to spcno lcss timc clarilying thc
task lor suboroinatcs, ano occisions arc typi-
cally much casicr to makc.
1hc thiro octcrminant ol situation lavora-
bility is thc ¡·|t|o ¡..c ol thc lcaocr-thc
amount ol lormal authority that a lcaocr has
ovcr his or hcr suboroinatcs. Somc ocgrcc ol
authority is inhcrcnt in all lcaocrship posi-
tions, but thc +oaot ol authority actually
varics consiocrably. Somc lcaocrs arc grantco
thc authority to assign suboroinatcs to oillcr-
cnt jobs, to cvaluatc thcir work, ano to oismiss
thosc who arc not pcrlorming wcll. lowcvcr,
lcaocrship positions oo not always carry a
grcat ocal ol authority. A gooo cxamplc is thc
chairpcrson ol an acaocmic ocpartmcnt. A
chairpcrson is tcchnically 'in chargc" ol an
acaocmic ocpartmcnt, but this pcrson has
vcry littlc lormal authority bcyono that ol su-
pcrvisors in many othcr typcs ol organization.
F!0URE ì0.2
0etermínants oI 8ítuatíon Favorabíííty ín
Fíedíer's 0ontíngency Theory
1ask
Structurc
Lcadcr-Vcmbcr
Rclations
Position
Powcr
Situation lavorability
Modcrn 1hcor¦cs of Lcudcrsh¦p
lrom a lcaocr`s pcrspcctivc, a high rathcr
than a low position is ocsirablc. \hcn posi-
tion powcr is high, suboroinatcs will typically
oo what thc lcaocr wants, ano thc lcaocr oocs
not havc to cxcrt a grcat ocal ol inllucncc.
Suboroinatcs coulo just bc ooing this out ol
lcar; still, things arc lcss complicatco lor thc
lcaocr. \hcn a lcaocr`s position powcr is |.,
suboroinatcs may still oo what thcy want, but
thc lcaocr may havc to cxpcno a grcat ocal ol
cllort to makc that happcn. Consiocr, lor cx-
amplc, thc chairpcrson ol an acaocmic oc-
partmcnt, who is trying to pcrsuaoc a tcnurco
laculty mcmbcr to tcach a class that this inoi-
vioual oocs not want to tcach. 1hc chairpcr-
son must spcno timc ano cllort to pcrsuaoc
this inoivioual to tcach thc coursc, ano pcr-
haps may havc to ollcr somcthing in rcturn (a
coursc rclcasc in thc luturc).
Givcn thcsc thrcc situational attributcs,
ano thc lact that cach has two lcvcls, it is pos-
siblc to comc up with cight uniquc situations
(callco 'octants") in tcrms ol lavorability.
1hcsc arc illustratco in ligurc 10.3. 1hc most
¡+.c+o|. situations lor lcaocrs arc thosc in
which lcaocr-mcmbcr rclations arc gooo, task
structurc is high, ano position powcr is high.
ln this typc ol situation, a lcaocr gcts along
wcll with his or hcr suboroinatcs, is oirccting a
group ol cmployccs working on a wcll-oclinco
task, ano has a grcat ocal ol lormal authority.
lrom a lcaocr`s pcrspcctivc, what coulo bc
bcttcr` A lcaocr can thcn spcno his or hcr timc
on activitics such as stratcgic planning, acquir-
ing rcsourccs lor thc group, ano pcrhaps hclp-
ing suboroinatcs to ocvclop thcir skills.
At thc othcr cno ol thc spcctrum, thc
lcast lavorablc situations lor lcaocrs arc thosc
in which lcaocr-mcmbcr rclations arc poor,
task structurc is low, ano thc lcaocr has vcry
low position powcr. lrom a lcaocr`s pcrspcc-
tivc, what coulo bc worsc` 1hc lact that thc
lcaocr oocs not gct along wcll with his or hcr
F!0URE ì0.3
8ummary oI the Eíght 0ctants Whích Represent
0íIIeríng 0egrees oI 8ítuatíon Favorabíííty
L-V Rclations (P)
1ask Structurc (L)
Position Powcr (L)
Low Situation lavorability
Vodcratc Situation lavorability
High Situation lavorability
L-V Rclations (G)
1ask Structurc (L)
Position Powcr (L)
L-V Rclations (P)
1ask Structurc (H)
Position Powcr (L)
L-V Rclations (P)
1ask Structurc (L)
Position Powcr (H)
L-V Rclations (G)
1ask Structurc (H)
Position Powcr (L)
L-V Rclations (G)
1ask Structurc (L)
Position Powcr (H)
L-V Rclations (P)
1ask Structurc (H)
Position Powcr (H)
L-V Rclations (G)
1ask Structurc (H)
Position Powcr (H)
P ~ Poor
G ~ Good
H ~ High
L ~ Low
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
suboroinatcs is likcly to bc unplcasant. low-
cvcr, whcn combinco with a vcry vaguc ano
unstructurco task ano a vcry low lcvcl ol au-
thority, this is cvcn worsc. A lcaocr in this sit-
uation may havc to spcno thc bulk ol his or
hcr timc trying to inllucncc or ncgotiatc with
suboroinatcs in orocr to gct anything accom-
plishco. lurthcrmorc, thcrc is no guarantcc
that such inllucncc attcmpts will bc succcss-
lul. 1hc lcaocr will havc consiocrably lcss
timc availablc lor things such as stratcgic
planning, rcsourcc acquisition, or cmploycc
ocvclopmcnt.
ln bctwccn thcsc cxtrcmcs arc six othcr
situations that licolcr rclcrrco to as having
'moocratc" lavorability lor thc lcaocr. ln thc
intcrcst ol brcvity, all ol thcsc moocratcly la-
vorablc situations will not bc ocscribco. low-
cvcr, as an cxamplc ol a moocratcly lavorablc
situation, a lcaocr may havc gooo lcaocr-
mcmbcr rclations, high task structurc, ano
 position powcr vis-a-vis his or hcr subor-
oinatcs. lrom thc lcaocr`s point ol vicw,
thcsc situations arc inhcrcntly morc complcx
than situations ol cithcr vcry high or vcry low
lavorability.
1hc sccono portion ol licolcr`s thcory
has to oo with thc charactcristics ol thc
lcaocr. Accoroing to licolcr, lcaocrs can bc rc-
liably oistinguishco in tcrms ol whcthcr thcy
arc 'task-oricntco" vcrsus 'rclationship-ori-
cntco." 1o mcasurc this task vcrsus rclation-
ship oricntation in lcaocrs, licolcr ano his
collcagucs ocvclopco thc Least Preferred
Coworker (LPC) Scale (licolcr, 1967). As
can bc sccn in 1ablc 10.1, thc llC Scalc con-
sists ol 18 pairs ol aojcctivcs. lcsponocnts
complcting this scalc arc askco to think ol a
pcrson with whom thcy currcntly work or
havc workco in thc past, ano with whom thcy
havc hao thc most oilliculty in gctting work
oonc. A high llC scorc inoicatcs that a lcaocr
has ocscribco his or hcr lcast prclcrrco
coworkcr in rclativcly lavorablc tcrms. 1his in-
oicatcs that thc lcaocr is rclationship-oricntco
bccausc hc or shc is ablc to ratc this coworkcr
lavorably, cvcn though thc inoivioual is not
sccn as somconc who woulo lacilitatc task ac-
complishmcnt. ln contrast, a low llC scorc
inoicatcs that thc lcast prclcrrco coworkcr is
ocscribco in rclativcly unlavorablc tcrms. 1his
inoicatcs that thc lcaocr is task-oricntco, ac-
coroing to licolcr, bccausc this coworkcr`s
ncgativc impact on task accomplishmcnt
ovcrriocs any positivc qualitics this pcrson
may posscss.
licolcr proposco that lcaocrs who arc
task-oricntco (hcrcin rclcrrco to as low llC
lcaocrs) arc most succcsslul in cithcr highly
lavorablc or highly unlavorablc situations. ln
highly lavorablc situations, a low llC lcaocr
will basically lcavc things alonc ano not try to
introoucc major changcs. lc or shc will also
not try to 'gct into pcoplc`s hcaos" ano bc-
comc vcry closc to thcm intcrpcrsonally. 1his
typc ol lcaocr bchavior simply is not nccoco.
ln contrast, whcn situations arc highly unla-
vorablc, a low llC lcaocr is probably thc
only typc that will gct anything oonc. ln thcsc
situations, lcaocrs` attcmpts to ocvclop strong
intcrpcrsonal tics will likcly lall llat ano will
ultimatcly rcoucc thc chanccs ol any lorm ol
task accomplishmcnt.
\hcn situations arc moocratcly lavorablc,
licolcr proposco that lcaocrs who arc rcla-
tionship-oricntco (hcrcin rclcrrco to as ligh
llC lcaocrs) arc most cllcctivc. 1hc logic hcrc
is that moocratcly lavorablc situations arc not
'black ano whitc." Such situations oltcn rc-
quirc somc intcrpcrsonal lincssc, ano a ligh
llC lcaocr has this trait. lct`s say, lor cxam-
plc, that a lcaocr is in a moocratcly lavorablc
situation: lcaocr-\cmbcr rclations arc gooo,
but 1ask Structurc ano losition lowcr arc low.
A ligh llC lcaocr is nccoco bccausc thc
lcaocr may havc to rcly hcavily on his or hcr
rclationships with suboroinatcs in orocr to
clarily thc task ano ultimatcly gct things oonc.
TABLE ì0.ì
Least PreIerred 0oworker íLP0) 8caíe íFíedíer, ìº67)
`t.. 1  lcast ocscriptivc ol thc lcast lrclcrrco Coworkcr; 8  most ocscriptivc ol thc lcast lrclcrrco Coworkcr.
Sac... l. l. licolcr. (1967). ¬ t|.c, ¡ |.++.c·||¡ .¡¡..t|..o.··. Ncw ¥ork: \cGraw-lill. Usco with pcrmission ol thc author.
Scorcs on thc llC Scalc can rangc lrom 18 to 1++. A scorc ol 56 or lcss inoicatcs that a pcrson is a task-oricntco lcaocr; a scorc ol
63 or abovc inoicatcs that a pcrson is rclationship-oricntco. Scorcs bctwccn 56 ano 63 inoicatc that a pcrson`s lcaocrship stylc can-
not bc octcrminco.
Ovcr thc coursc ol your lilc you havc probably workcd in many groups with othcr pcoplc on your job, in community groups,
church groups, athlctic tcams, ctc. Somc ol your coworkcrs may havc bccn vcry casy to work with in attaining thc group's
goal, whilc othcrs wcrc lcss casy to work with.
1hink ol thc pcrson in your lilc with whom you workcd lcast wcll. Hc or shc may havc bccn somconc you kncw in thc past
or somconc you work with now. 1hc pcrson docs not havc to bc thc pcrson you likc lcast wcll, but should bc thc pcrson
with whom you havc thc most dilliculty gctting thc job donc. ln this scalc you will bc dcscribing this pcrson. ¥ou do not
nccd to givc thc pcrson's namc.
lollowing arc pairs ol words which arc oppositc in mcaning, such as "Vcry Ncat` and "Not Ncat.` Bctwccn cach pair ol
words arc cight blanks to lorm a scalc.
 ln dcscribing thc pcrson with whom you lcast likc to work, il you ordinarily think ol him or hcr as bcing "Quitc
Ncat,` you would put an "\` in thc spacc markcd 7.
ll you ordinarily think ol this pcrson as bcing only "Somcwhat Ncat,` you would put your "\` in thc spacc abovc thc 6.
ll you think ol this pcrson as bcing "Slightly Untidy,` you would mark thc spacc abovc thc +.
ll you would think ol this pcrson as bcing "Vcry Untidy` (or not ncat), you would put your "\` in spacc 1.
Look at thc words at both cnds ol thc linc bclorc you mark your "\.` Work rapidly, your lirst answcr is likcly to bc your
bcst onc (thcrc arc no right or wrong answcrs, though).
Plcasc do not omit any itcms, and mark cach itcm only oncc.
Now usc thc scalc to dcscribc thc pcrson with whom you lind it hardcst to gct thc job donc.
        
Plcasant Unplcasant
S 7 6 5 + 3 2 1
        
lricndly Unlricndly
S 7 6 5 + 3 2 1
S 7 6 5 + 3 2 1
S 7 6 5 + 3 2 1
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
Rcjccting Acccpting
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
1cnsc Rclaxcd
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
Distant Closc
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
Cold Warm
        
Supportivc Hostilc
        
Boring lntcrcsting
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
Quarrclsomc Harmonious
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
Gloomy Chccrlul
        
Opcn Guardcd
S 7 6 5 + 3 2 1
        
Considcratc lnconsidcratc
S 7 6 5 + 3 2 1
        
Agrccablc Disagrccablc
S 7 6 5 + 3 2 1
        
Kind Unkind
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
Backbiting Loyal
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
Untrustworthy 1rustworthy
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
Nasty Nicc
1 2 3 + 5 6 7 S
        
lnsinccrc Sinccrc
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
A low llC lcaocr woulo bc unsucccsslul in
this situation, primarily bccausc hc or shc
may not scc thc complcxitics in thc situation
ano may simply ocmano pcrlormancc. 1hc
rclationship bctwccn llC ano situational la-
vorability is summarizco in ligurc 10.+.
Consiocrablc rcscarch has bccn oonc on
licolcr`s contingcncy thcory ovcr thc ycars,
ano thc cviocncc is mixco. lor cxamplc, it has
bccn louno that lcaocr llC scorcs prcoict pcr-
lormancc in situations ol oillcring lavorability
in a way that is consistcnt with thc thcory
(Chcmcrs, 1983; Chcmcrs, lays, lhoocwalt,
e \ysocki, 1985), but othcr tcsts havc not
bccn supportivc (c.g, Schricshcim e Kcrr,
1977; \ccchio, 1977). 1hc most comprchcn-
sivc tcst ol contingcncy thcory to oatc was a
mcta-analysis conouctco by Schricshcim, 1cp-
pcr, ano 1ctrault (199+). 1his stuoy louno that
thc oillcrcnccs in mcan pcrlormancc lcvcls ol
ligh vcrsus low llC lcaocrs in oillcrcnt oc-
tants gcncrally supportco licolcr`s thcory.
lowcvcr, in tcrms ol absolutc lcvcls ol pcrlor-
mancc, thc rcsults wcrc lcss supportivc. lor
cxamplc, in highly lavorablc situations, it was
louno, as prcoictco by licolcr`s thcory, that
low llC lcaocrs outpcrlormco ligh llC
lcaocrs. lowcvcr, thc pcrlormancc ol ligh
llC lcaocrs was still abovc thc mcan, which
is consistcnt with thc ioca ol 'mismatch" pro-
posco by licolcr. Schricshcim ct al. (199+)
rccommcnoco that 'organizations without
thc ability or intcrcst in situational cnginccr-
ing might consiocr just trying to makc all
lcaocrship situations highly lavorablc (Octant
1)" (p. 571).
Othcr than thc cquivocal support, thc
portion ol licolcr`s thcory that has bccn thc
sourcc ol grcatcst criticism is thc llC Scalc.
\any, lor cxamplc, havc qucstionco thc logic
bchino thc mcasurcmcnt stratcgy (c.g., \c\a-
hon, 1972; 1hcooory, 1982). ln lact, having
givcn thc llC Scalc to stuocnts lor scvcral
ycars, thc author has louno that thcy arc oltcn
conlusco by thc instructions. A morc scrious
problcm is thc lack ol support lor thc con-
struct valioity ol this scalc. lccall lrom Chaptcr
2 that construct valioity rcllccts whcthcr a
mcasurc is mcasuring thc intcnoco construct
or attributc. Strong support lor thc construct
valioity ol thc llC Scalc simply oocs not cxist.
At this point in timc, licolcr`s thcory no
longcr rcprcscnts onc ol thc major thcorctical
approachcs usco by lcaocrship rcscarchcrs.
lvcn so, it is a valuablc thcory bccausc it has
gcncratco a grcat ocal ol rcscarch on lcaocr-
ship. lt has also scrvco as thc basis lor Cogni-
tive Resource 1heory (licolcr e Garcia,
1987), which statcs that groups oraw on thc
oillcrcnt cognitivc rcsourccs lrom thc lcaocr,
ocpcnoing on thc situation. 1his is a rclativcly
ncw approach, ano not a grcat ocal ol work
has bccn oonc on it as yct. lt oocs sccm to bc
a promising approach, though, ano ultimatcly
may bc morc usclul than licolcr`s original
thcory.
Path-SuaI Theury
lath-Goal 1hcory rcprcscnts a vcry ambitious
attcmpt to blcno lcaocrship ano cmploycc
F!0URE ì0.4
EIIectíveness oI Hígh versus Low LP0 Leaders
at 0íIIerent Leveís oI 8ítuatíon Favorabíííty
High
Low
Low High
Situation lavorability
Work Group
Pcrlormancc
Low LPC
High LPC
Modcrn 1hcor¦cs of Lcudcrsh¦p
motivation into onc thcory (lousc, 1971;
lousc e \itchcll, 197+). 1hc basic ioca bc-
hino lath-Goal 1hcory is that thc rolc ol a
lcaocr is rcally to hclp his or hcr suboroinatcs
bccomc succcsslul. lousc actually statco this
in lxpcctancy 1hcory tcrms (\room, 196+);
spccilically, il a lcaocr is succcsslul, suboroi-
natcs` lcvcl ol cxpcctancy (thc pcrccption that
cllort will lcao to pcrlormancc) is raisco.
Statco oillcrcntly, thc lunction ol lcaocrs is to
show suboroinatcs thc 'path to thc goal."
lath-Goal 1hcory statcs that a lcaocr
must bc ablc to aoapt his or hcr lcaocrship
stylc to thc suboroinatcs bcing supcrvisco
ano thc situation. lousc proposco that, to
bc succcsslul, a lcaocr must bc capablc ol
utilizing thc lour oillcrcnt lcaocrship stylcs:
oircctivc lcaocrship, supportivc lcaocrship,
achicvcmcnt-oricntco lcaocrship, ano partic-
ipativc lcaocrship
Directive leadership locuscs on making
surc that suboroinatcs know what thcy arc
supposco to bc ooing, ano pcrhaps clarilying
task rcsponsibilitics. A lcaocr who mccts with
suboroinatcs oncc a wcck to givc out work as-
signmcnts is cxhibiting oircctivc lcaocrship.
Supportive leadership rcprcscnts bchaviors
that arc aimco at showing conccrn ano caring
lor suboroinatcs. A lcaocr who makcs it a
point to ask about a suboroinatc`s sick chilo
is cxhibiting supportivc lcaocrship.
Achievement-oriented leadership rcprc-
scnts bchaviors that arc aimco at hclping cm-
ployccs to improvc thcir pcrlormancc ano
ultimatcly pcrlorm bcttcr. A lcaocr may cxhibit
this lcaocrship stylc in a numbcr ol ways, such
as provioing on-thc-job coaching, sctting
challcnging goals, making surc training ano
ocvclopmcnt opportunitics arc availablc, ano
sccing to it that suboroinatcs havc thc rc-
sourccs thcy ncco in orocr to bc succcsslul.
linally, participative leadership rcprcscnts
bchaviors that arc aimco at gctting thc input
ol suboroinatcs on work-rclatco mattcrs. A
lcaocr who rcgularly sccks thc input ol subor-
oinatcs bclorc making important occisions is
cxhibiting this lorm ol lcaocrship.
laving ocscribco thc lour lcaocrship
stylcs, thc ncxt issuc is to octcrminc whcn
cach ol thcsc lcaocrship stylcs shoulo bc
usco. lath-Goal 1hcory proposcs that lcaocrs
shoulo consiocr two situational lactors whcn
thcy arc occioing on thc appropriatc lcaocr-
ship stylc: (1) charactcristics ol onc`s suboroi-
natcs, ano (2) charactcristics ol thc work
cnvironmcnt. \ith rcspcct to suboroinatcs,
thc two kcy lactors that a lcaocr must con-
siocr arc pcrccivco ability ano pcrsonality. ln
consiocring pcrccivco ability, what woulo bc
thc most appropriatc lcaocrship stylc lor sub-
oroinatcs who pcrccivc thcmsclvcs as having
limitco job-rclatco abilitics` lor thcsc subor-
oinatcs, a lcaocr woulo probably ncco to bc
quitc oircctivc, bccausc thcsc inoiviouals
likcly woulo want to know cxactly what to oo.
larticipativc lcaocrship may not bc cmpha-
sizco bccausc inoiviouals who pcrccivc thcir
abilitics to bc limitco may not havc a grcat
ocal to contributc. Achicvcmcnt-oricntco ano
supportivc lcaocrship woulo probably bc
usco to varying ocgrccs, ocpcnoing on othcr
charactcristics ol thc suboroinatcs.
\hcn suboroinatcs pcrccivc thcmsclvcs as
having a grcat ocal ol task-rclatco ability, a
lcaocr woulo probably ncco to put rclativcly
littlc cmphasis on oirccting. lnstcao, thc lcaocr
may ncco to strongly cmphasizc achicvcmcnt-
oricntco ano participativc lcaocrship. 1hosc
who pcrccivc thcir ability to bc high may havc
a strong ocsirc to lurthcr ocvclop that ability;
thus, achicvcmcnt-oricntco bchaviors woulo
bc callco lor. 1hcsc suboroinatcs may also
havc a grcat ocal to contributc, so it woulo bc
in thc lcaocr`s bcst intcrcsts to solicit input
ano iocas lrom thcsc inoiviouals. Supportivc
lcaocrship woulo likcly bc usco in varying oc-
grccs, ocpcnoing on othcr charactcristics ol
suboroinatcs.
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
1hc sccono suboroinatc charactcristic
that lcaocrs ncco to consiocr whcn occioing
on a lcaocrship stylc is pcrsonality. 1his is ob-
viously a broao catcgory, but onc pcrsonality
trait that lath-Goal 1hcory occms important
is suboroinatcs` locus of control. Accoroing
to lottcr (1966), locus ol control rcllccts rcl-
ativcly stablc inoivioual oillcrcnccs in bclicls
rcgaroing control ol cxtcrnal rcinlorccmcnts.
A pcrson with an  locus ol control bc-
licvcs that hc or shc has a grcat ocal ol con-
trol ovcr rcinlorccmcnts. Such a pcrson, lor
cxamplc, woulo bclicvc that working haro
woulo bc a gooo thing to oo bccausc it
woulo lcao to positivc outcomcs. lcrsons
with an  locus ol control bclicvc that
rcinlorccmcnts in thcir lilc arc ouc to cxtcrnal
lorccs such as luck, latc, or, pcrhaps, powcr-
lul pcoplc.
As a lcaocr, managing an inoivioual with
an intcrnal locus ol control woulo probably
rcquirc an cmphasis on achicvcmcnt-oricntco
ano participativc lcaocrship, ano compara-
tivcly lcss on oircctivc ano supportivc lcaocr-
ship. An cmploycc with an intcrnal locus ol
control bclicvcs that hc or shc has control
ovcr rcinlorccmcnts, ano hcncc is also likcly
to bclicvc that il pcrlormancc is incrcasco,
thcn positivc rcwaros will rcsult. lacilitating
this proccss rcquircs thc usc ol achicvcmcnt-
oricntco lcaocrship. Also, bccausc thosc with
an intcrnal locus ol control ('intcrnals") may
also pcrlorm wcll (Spcctor, 1982), it is oltcn
in thc bcst intcrcst ol thc lcaocr to scck input
lrom such inoiviouals through participativc
lcaocrship.
1hosc with an cxtcrnal locus ol control will
likcly ncco grcatcr oircction lrom thc lcaocr;
thus, oircctivc lcaocrship bchaviors will bc
nccoco. Also, it is vcry likcly that thosc with an
cxtcrnal locus ol control ('cxtcrnals") will
ncco morc support lrom thc lcaocr, comparco
to intcrnals. laving an cxtcrnal locus ol con-
trol has bccn shown to bc associatco with
ncgativc mcntal hcalth outcomcs (c.g., Spcc-
tor, 1982; Storms e Spcctor, 1987); thus, cx-
tcrnals may oltcn bc morc anxious, lrustratco,
ano oissatislico than intcrnals.
ln aooition to thc charactcristics ol subor-
oinatcs, lath-Goal 1hcory proposcs that lcao-
crs must locus on charactcristics ol thc work
cnvironmcnt whcn thcy arc octcrmining thc
most appropriatc lcaocrship stylc. Onc aspcct
ol thc situation that is important, accoroing
to lath-Goal 1hcory, is thc prcvailing norms
rcgaroing authority ano lcaocrship within an
organization. 1his is rcally an aspcct ol an or-
ganization`s culturc ano rcllccts, lor cxamplc,
prcvailing vicws on issucs such as cmploycc
involvcmcnt ano participation, thc cxtcnt to
which cmployccs shoulo takc thc initiativc to
solvc work-rclatco problcms, ano whcthcr
managcrs shoulo gct involvco in suboroi-
natcs` pcrsonal livcs. ln an organization that
strongly valucs cmploycc involvcmcnt ano
participation, a participativc lcaocrship stylc
woulo lit much bcttcr than in a vcry autocratic
organization. Similarly, in an organization that
placcs a grcat ocal ol cmphasis on cmploycc
scll-rcliancc, a vcry oircctivc stylc ol lcaocrship
woulo probably not lit vcry wcll. On thc othcr
hano, achicvcmcnt-oricntco ano participativc
stylcs woulo bc vcry compatiblc.
1ask structurc, a sccono charactcristic ol
thc work cnvironmcnt, is important in octcr-
mining thc most appropriatc lcaocrship stylc.
ll a lcaocr is oirccting a group that is working
on a highly structurco task (i.c., prooucing a
vcry simply proouct), thcrc woulo probably
bc littlc ncco lor thc lcaocr to aoopt a oircc-
tivc or a participativc lcaocrship stylc bccausc
mcmbcrs ol thc group know cxactly what
thcy`rc supposco to oo. ln contrast, whcn a
task is highly unstructurco (i.c., ocvcloping a
ncw proouct), a lcaocr may at timcs havc to
bc oircctivc, but may also ncco to bc partici-
pativc in orocr to hclp thc group ligurc out
how bcst to approach thc task.
Modcrn 1hcor¦cs of Lcudcrsh¦p
1hc linal cnvironmcntal charactcristic
proposco by lath-Goal 1hcory is thc naturc
ol thc work group onc is lcaoing. lor cxam-
plc, in somc groups, thc task ol provioing oi-
rcction is oonc by cxpcricncco mcmbcrs ol
thc group rathcr than thc lcaocr. ll this is thc
casc, thc lcaocr oocs not ncco to bc oircctivc
but coulo cmphasizc othcr lcaocrship stylcs.
lsscntially, this mcans that thc lcaocr`s bc-
havior nccos to 'aoo valuc" to thc bchaviors
bcing pcrlormco by mcmbcrs ol thc group.
Givcn thc naturc ol lath-Goal 1hcory, it is
oillicult to tcst in its cntircty. lowcvcr, tcsts ol
various parts ol thc thcory havc bccn rclativcly
succcsslul (c.g., \olloro e liska, 1993). \orc
rcscarch on this thcory is nccoco bclorc morc
oclinitivc statcmcnts can bc maoc about its va-
lioity. 1hc practical implications ol lath-Goal
1hcory comc primarily in thc arca ol managc-
mcnt training ano ocvclopmcnt. Spccilically,
managcrs ncco to bc trainco to rccognizc
mcaninglul oillcrcnccs among thcir suboroi-
natcs, as wcll as important aspccts ol thc work
cnvironmcnt, ano havc to lcarn to usc thc oil-
lcrcnt lcaocrship stylcs proposco by lath-Goal
1hcory. lt also may havc implications lor sclcc-
tion ano placcmcnt. lor cxamplc, il a lcaocr
is vcry gooo at ocvcloping suboroinatcs (i.c.,
provioing achicvcmcnt-oricntco lcaocrship),
an organization may wish to placc this pcrson
in chargc ol a group consisting ol a numbcr ol
young, high-potcntial cmployccs. Convcrscly,
il a lcaocr is vcry aocpt at participativc lcaocr-
ship, an organization may want to placc this
pcrson in chargc ol a group that must makc
many conscnsus occisions.
Vruum-Yettun-1aqu MudeI
1hc \room-¥ctton-}ago moocl (\room e
}ago, 1988; \room e ¥ctton, 1973) is a con-
tingcncy thcory ol lcaocrship that locuscs on
onc aspcct ol lcaocrship: occision making.
1his moocl is also morc  than thc
othcr thcorics oiscussco; that is, this thcory
is locusco on provioing lcaocrs with a sct ol
guioclincs lor which occision-making stylc to
aoopt. Accoroing to this moocl, lcaocrs will
bc morc cllcctivc to thc cxtcnt that thcir
occision-making stylc is compatiblc with thc
situations thcy arc in.
1hc lirst componcnt ol thc \room-¥ctton-
}ago moocl to consiocr is thc various stylcs
that a lcaocr coulo usc in making a occision.
As can bc sccn in 1ablc 10.2, in thc lirst
occision-making stylc (Al), thc lcaocr makcs a
occision alonc altcr consiocring rclcvant in-
lormation. 1hc ncxt occision-making stylc
(All) also involvcs thc lcaocr`s making thc oc-
cision alonc, but, in this casc, inlormation is
obtainco lrom suboroinatcs bclorc making thc
occision. lccision-making stylc Cl involvcs
sharing thc problcm with cach suboroinatc
inoivioually, ano thcn making thc occision
alonc. lccision-making stylc Cll involvcs
sharing thc problcm with suboroinatcs as a
group ano thcn making thc occision alonc.
1hc linal occision-making stylc (Gll) involvcs
making thc occision by group conscnsus.
Accoroing to thc moocl, lcaocrs must ana-
lyzc a situation lor thc prcscncc or abscncc ol
thc lollowing attributcs, in orocr to octcrminc
which occision-making stylc is most appropri-
atc: (1) thc ncco lor a quality occision; (2)
TABLE ì0.2
0ecísíon-Makíng 8tyíes Proposed by the Vroom-
Yetton-Jago Modeí oI Leadershíp
Al-lcaocr makcs thc occision alonc altcr consiocring
thc rclcvant inlormation.
All-lcaocr makcs thc occision alonc altcr obtaining
rclcvant inlormation oircctly lrom suboroinatcs.
Cl-lcaocr sharcs thc problcm with cach suboroinatc
inoivioually ano thcn makcs thc occision alonc.
Cll-lcaocr sharcs thc problcm with suboroinatcs as a
group ano thcn makcs thc occision alonc.
Gll-1hc occision is maoc by group conscnsus.
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
whcthcr thc lcaocr has sullicicnt inlormation
to makc thc occision alonc; (3) thc ocgrcc to
which thc problcm is structurco; (+) whcthcr
suboroinatcs` acccptancc is nccoco lor implc-
mcntation; (5) whcthcr suboroinatcs will ac-
ccpt thc lcaocr`s occision; (6) thc ocgrcc to
which suboroinatcs sharc thc organization`s
goals; (7) whcthcr thcrc will likcly bc conllict
among suboroinatcs as to thc most prclcrrco
occision; ano (8) whcthcr suboroinatcs havc
cnough rclcvant inlormation to makc a occi-
sion on thcir own.
Accoroing to thc moocl, thcsc cight situa-
tional attributcs will octcrminc a 'lcasibility
sct" ol occision-making typcs. 1hc lcasibility
sct simply rcprcscnts thosc occision-making
typcs that may bc appropriatc lor a givcn situ-
ation. ligurc 10.5 shows how this proccss
works. Noticc that thcsc situational qucstions
arc askco in a scqucntial lashion that rcscm-
blcs a llowchart. Spccilically, thc lcaocr`s
rcsponsc to cach qucstion narrows thc lcasi-
bility sct until cvcntually onc occision-making
stylc is rccommcnoco. lor a lcaocr to usc
this thcory, hc or shc woulo simply answcr
cach ol thc qucstions about thc occision to bc
maoc, ano, ultimatcly, a prclcrrco mcthoo ol
occision making woulo cmcrgc.
lcscarch on thc \room-¥ctton-}ago
moocl has shown that managcrs arc morc
cllcctivc whcn thcy aoopt occision-making
stylcs that arc consistcnt with thc moocl`s
prcscriptions (\argcrison e Glubc, 1979;
laul e lbaoi, 1989; \room e }ago, 1988).
lowcvcr, a major mcthooological limitation
ol most tcsts ol thc moocl is that thcy havc rc-
lico primarily on rctrospcctivc ocscriptions ol
occisions maoc by managcrs. 1his raiscs thc
qucstion ol whcthcr managcrs rcvisc thcir rcc-
ollcctions ol occisions in a way that is consis-
tcnt with thc moocl. \orc rcccnt rcscarch
that has not rclico on rctrospcctivc rcports
(liclo e lousc, 1990; larkcr, 1999) has pro-
vioco morc limitco support lor thc thcory.
lrom a practical point ol vicw, thc
\room-¥ctton-}ago moocl is onc ol thc morc
usclul lcaocrship thcorics that has bccn ocvcl-
opco. Comparco to othcr thcorics, this moocl
proviocs lcaocrs with somc spccilic guioclincs
lor making occisions, rathcr than mcrcly oc-
scribing lcaocrship proccsscs. 1hc biggcst
problcm with thc \room-¥ctton-}ago moocl
is that it tcnos to ovcrsimplily thc conoitions
unocr which lcaocrs makc occisions. lor cx-
amplc, in many cascs, it is oillicult lor a lcaocr
to provioc '¥cs-No" answcrs to thc qucstions
posco carlicr. lurthcr rcvisions ol this moocl
will bc nccoco to ovcrcomc thcsc wcakncsscs.
Leader-Member
Exchanqe (LMX) MudeI
Anyonc who has bccn part ol a work group,
or has bccn a lcaocr ol onc, knows that cvcry-
onc is not always trcatco thc samc. 1o thc
contrary, lcaocrs typically ocvclop a uniquc
rclationship with cach suboroinatc, ano somc
ol thcsc rclationships arc morc positivc than
othcrs. lasco on this ioca, lanscrcau, Gracn,
ano laga (1975) ocvclopco thc Vertical Dyad
Linkage Model ol lcaocrship. 1hc tcrm '\crti-
cal lyao" was originally usco to ocscribc this
thcory bccausc ol its cmphasis on thc uniquc
rclationship bctwccn lcaocrs ano suboroi-
natcs. Ovcr timc, howcvcr, thc namc ol thc
thcory cvcntually bccamc 'lcaocr-\cmbcr
lxchangc" bccausc this rclationship is rcally
onc that rcllccts social cxchangc bctwccn thc
lcaocr ano thc suboroinatc.
Accoroing to lanscrcau ct al. (1975),
within work groups thcrc arc typically two scts
ol cmployccs: thc 'in-group" ano thc 'out-
group." 1hc in-group consists ol cmployccs
who arc trustco conlioants ol thc lcaocr. 1hcsc
arc typically inoiviouals who pcrlorm wcll,
havc a ocsirc to assumc grcatcr lcvcls ol rc-
sponsibility, ano simply gct along wcll with
thc lcaocr. \cmbcrs ol thc out-group consist
Modcrn 1hcor¦cs of Lcudcrsh¦p
F!0URE ì0.5
The Recommended 0ecísíon-Makíng 8equence Proposed by the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Modeí
Sac... \. l. \room ano l. \. ¥ctton. (1973). í.++.c·||¡ +o+ +..|·|o-o+'|o¸ littsburgh, lA: Univcrsity ol littsburgh lrcss. Copy-
right © 1973 by Univcrsity ol littsburgh lrcss. lcprintco with pcrmission.
A B C D L l G
Statc
thc
Problcm
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs ¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
¥cs
1: Al, All, Cl, Cll, Gll
2: Gll
3: Al, All, Cl, Cll, Gll
+: Al, All, Cl, Cll
5: Gll
6A: Cll
6B: Cl, Cll
7: All, Cl, Cll
S: Al, Cl, Cll, Gll
9: Cll
10: Cll, Gll
11: Gll
12: Cll
A. Docs thc problcm posscss a quality rcquircmcnt`
B. Do you havc sullicicnt inlormation to makc a high-quality dccision`
C. ls thc problcm structurcd`
D. ls acccptancc ol dccision by subordinatcs important lor cllcctivc
implcmcntation`
L. ll you wcrc to makc thc dccision by yourscll, is it rcasonably ccrtain
that it would bc acccptcd by your subordinatcs`
l. Do subordinatcs sharc thc organizational goals to bc attaincd in
solving this problcm`
G. ls conllict among subordinatcs ovcr prclcrrcd solutions likcly`
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
ol thc group ol suboroinatcs who havc morc
lormal rclationships with thc lcaocr. \cmbcrs
ol thc in-group arc typically privy to morc in-
lormation lrom thc lcaocr than arc mcmbcrs
ol thc out-group, ano arc also givcn morc ois-
crction ovcr how to oo thcir jobs. \cmbcrs
ol thc out-group typically arc inoiviouals who
may not pcrlorm as wcll, may not ocsirc a
grcat ocal ol rcsponsibility, or simply may not
gct along as wcll with thc lcaocr as oo mcm-
bcrs ol thc in-group.
Graoually, lcss cmphasis has bccn placco
on thc 'in-group"/'out-group" oistinction,
ano morc cmphasis is on how lcaocr-
suboroinatc rclationships ocvclop ovcr timc
(Gracn, 1976). Accoroing to Gracn (1976),
whcn a suboroinatc is lirst assignco to a
lcaocr, thc lcaocr has rclativcly limitco inlor-
mation as to this pcrson`s capabilitics. 1hus,
ovcr timc, thc lcaocr tcsts thc suboroinatc by
giving him or hcr assignmcnts ol incrcasing rc-
sponsibility. 1o thc cxtcnt that thc suboroinatc
is succcsslul, a positivc cxchangc rclationship
ocvclops. lrom thc suboroinatc`s point ol
vicw, thcrc may bc somc ocgrcc ol ncgotiation
as to spccilic rolc rcsponsibilitics. Othcr lac-
tors that inllucncc thc ocvclopmcnt ol this cx-
changc rclationship arc: pcrccivco similarity
bctwccn suboroinatcs ano lcaocrs, as wcll as
thc lcvcl ol intcrpcrsonal attraction (liocn,
\aync, e Stilwcll, 1993). lxchangc rclation-
ships arc likcly to bc most positivc whcn sub-
oroinatcs arc compctcnt, whcn thcy ano thc
lcaocr pcrccivc somc ocgrcc ol mutual similar-
ity, ano whcn suboroinatcs ano lcaocrs likc
cach othcr.
\hat arc thc conscqucnccs ol thc cx-
changc rclationship that ocvclops bctwccn a
suboroinatc ano a lcaocr` Gcrstncr ano lay
(1997) conouctco a mcta-analysis ol 79
stuoics that cxaminco corrclatcs ol lcaocr-
\cmbcr lxchangc. 1hcy louno that l\· was
positivcly rclatco to job pcrlormancc, job sat-
islaction, ano organizational commitmcnt,
ano ncgativcly rclatco to outcomcs such as
turnovcr ano rolc strcssors. Onc ol thc most
pcrplcxing linoings in thcir mcta-analysis was
thc rclativcly small corrclation bctwccn lcao-
crs` ano suboroinatcs` rcports on thc quality
ol thc cxchangc rclationship (corrcctco  
.37). 1hus, although lcaocrs ano suboroi-
natcs tcno to agrcc on thc quality ol thc rcla-
tionship that cxists bctwccn thcm, this lcvcl
ol agrccmcnt is not grcat. At prcscnt, it is un-
clcar why agrccmcnt on thc quality ol thc cx-
changc rclationship is not highcr, what lactors
inllucncc agrccmcnt, or thc impact ol ois-
agrccmcnts ovcr thc quality ol thc cxchangc
rclationship.
l\· 1hcory is usclul lor both thcorctical
ano practical rcasons. ln tcrms ol thcory, it
prcscnts lcaocrship in a morc rcalistic light,
comparco to many prcvious thcorics. Subor-
oinatcs arc not simply passivc rccipicnts ol
lcaocrs` inllucncc. ln tcrms ol practical impli-
cations, l\· 1hcory suggcsts that it is ocsir-
ablc lor lcaocrs to ocvclop positivc cxchangc
rclationships with thcir suboroinatcs. 1his may
not bc possiblc 100` ol thc timc, but organi-
zations may bc ablc to lacilitatc thc ocvclop-
mcnt ol high-quality cxchangc rclationships by
training managcrs in such skills as communi-
cating with suboroinatcs, provioing lccoback,
ano cngaging in coaching activitics.
ln thc luturc, l\· 1hcory laccs a numbcr
ol challcngcs. Onc ol thc most important ol
thcsc is continuco rclincmcnt ol what actually
constitutcs thc 'cxchangc rclationship" itscll.
1o mcasurc thc cxchangc rclationship, liocn
ano \aslyn (1998) rcccntly ocvclopco a scalc
that consistco ol lour oistinct oimcnsions: (1)
Allcct, which rcprcscnts thc lcvcls ol mutual
intcrpcrsonal attraction bctwccn a lcaocr ano
suboroinatc; (2) loyalty, which rcprcscnts thc
amount ol public support provioco by cach
mcmbcr ol thc lcaocr-suboroinatc oyao; (3)
Contribution, which rcprcscnts what cach
mcmbcr ol thc lcaocr-suboroinatc oyao
Modcrn 1hcor¦cs of Lcudcrsh¦p
contributcs positivcly to thc goals ol thc orga-
nization; ano (+) lrolcssional rcspcct, which
rcprcscnts thc ocgrcc to which cach mcmbcr
ol thc lcaocr-suboroinatc oyao has built a
rcputation, within ano/or outsioc ol work,
bccausc hc or shc cxccls in his or hcr linc ol
work. lrcvious l\· scalcs havc trcatco it as a
onc-oimcnsional construct.
Anothcr challcngc lor l\· 1hcory is cx-
pansion ol its scopc. lor most pcoplc, thc
uniquc rclationship thcy ocvclop with thcir
immcoiatc supcrvisor is onc ol thc most im-
portant oimcnsions ol thcir work cxpcricncc.
As such, it may impact many aspccts ol that
cxpcricncc. lor cxamplc, Kokotovich, }cx,
ano Aoams (2000) louno that a high-quality
l\· bullcrco thc rclationship bctwccn rolc
ambiguity ano job satislaction. lmployccs rc-
porting a high-quality l\· actually rcactco
positivcly to rolc ambiguity. lcccnt stuoics
havc suggcstco that thc l\· may intcract
with thc cognitivc ability ol cmployccs to
impact crcativity (1icrncy, larmcr, e Gracn,
1999).
Charismatic and TransfurmatiunaI
Leadership
1hcsc last two lcaocrship thcorics arc thc
ncwcst to bc ocvclopco, ano thosc lor which
thc lcast amount ol rcscarch is availablc. Ncv-
crthclcss, thcy rcprcscnt intcrcsting ano
promising approachcs to lcaocrship that may
cvcntually bccomc quitc inllucntial. lccausc
thcsc two approachcs to lcaocrship arc highly
similar, thcy will bc oiscussco togcthcr.
1hc ioca ol Charismatic ano 1ranslorma-
tional lcaocrship is that thcrc arc ccrtain lcaocr
bchaviors ano traits that not only inllucncc
suboroinatcs but may also inspirc thcm to pcr-
lorm wcll bcyono thcir capabilitics. Anothcr
oclining charactcristic ol Charismatic ano
1ranslormational lcaocrship is that both havc
thc potcntial to inoucc mcaninglul changc in
organizations. 1hc tcrm that is typically usco
to ocscribc thc ¡¡·|t. ol Charismatic ano
1ranslormational lcaocrship is 1ransactional
leadership. A transactional lcaocr is onc who
makcs surc that suboroinatcs gct thc job oonc
ano lollows thc rulcs ol thc organization.
1ransactional lcaocrs, howcvcr, oo not inspirc
suboroinatcs or lacilitatc mcaninglul changc
in organizations.
1hc gcncral ioca ol Charismatic ano
1ranslormational lcaocrship is ccrtainly intcr-
csting, but what cxactly oocs a Charismatic
or 1ranslormational lcaocr oo` Onc task that
is oltcn citco in this rcgaro is providing a vi-
sion. Accoroing to lousc (1977), a vision is
a vcry gcncralizco iocal statc that typically
rcprcscnts sharco valucs ano oltcn has moral
ovcrtoncs. An cxamplc ol a vision lor a uni-
vcrsity might bc t .o||¸|t.o t|. ·ta+.ot·, a vi-
sion lor a military organization might bc t
a¡||+ ¡c..+o +cao+ t|. .c|+, a vision lor
an auto manulacturcr might bc t .o|+o.. t|.
oo|||t, ¡ ·.|.t,. A vision applics to all mcm-
bcrs ol thc organization ano can thus scrvc
as a gcncral 'rallying point" lor cvcryonc.
\any cxamplcs ol lcaocrs, particularly in t
hc political arcna, can bc oistinguishco on
thc prcscncc or abscncc ol vision (scc Com-
mcnt 10.2)
A sccono attributc ol Charismatic
ano 1ranslormational lcaocrship is vision
implementation. laving a vision is not vcry
mcaninglul il a lcaocr is not ablc to pcrsuaoc
othcrs to implcmcnt that vision. \ision implc-
mcntation is aioco by thc lcaocr`s bcing ablc
to clcarly articulatc his or hcr vision (c.g., a vi-
sion cannot bc implcmcntco il suboroinatcs
oo not know what it is), ano bcing ablc to
gct othcrs cxcitco about it. \hcn onc thinks
ol grcat lcaocrs in many liclos ol cnocavor, a
common charactcristic is that thcy arc cxccl-
lcnt communicators who arc ablc to cngcnocr
an almost lanatical ocvotion among thcir
lollowcrs.
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
1hc thiro attributc ol Charismatic or
1ranslormational lcaocrship is a charismatic
communication style. 1hosc who arc charis-
matic tcno to havc a numbcr ol common
traits: a captivating tonc ol voicc, oircct cyc
contact with thc listcncr, animatco lacial cx-
prcssions, ano a powcrlul, conliocnt, ano oy-
namic communication stylc. 1his typc ol
communication stylc obviously hclps a lcaocr
to communicatc his or hcr vision ano to gcn-
cratc cnthusiasm lor it. lt also hclps morc
gcncrally by incrcasing thc lcaocr`s appcal to
his or hcr lollowcrs. Charismatic lcaocrs havc
grcat 'prcscncc" ano makc a trcmcnoous im-
prcssion on thosc arouno thcm.
lcscarch ovcr thc ycars has shown that
charactcristics ol Charismatic ano 1ranslor-
mational lcaocrs arc associatco with positivc
outcomcs such as cmployccs` pcrlormancc,
satislaction, ano pcrccptions ol lcaocrs (lass
e Avolio, 1993; Shamir, lousc, e Arthur,
1993). A major limitation ol rcscarch in this
arca, howcvcr, is that most stuoics arc cross-
scctional, ano somc arc ocscriptions basco
on historical oocumcnts (c.g., lousc, Span-
glcr e \oyckc, 1991).
Stuoics that havc usco strongcr mcthoo-
ologics, such as laboratory cxpcrimcntation
(c.g., Kirkpatrick e lockc, 1996), havc also
bccn supportivc, although this support is
not as strong as in liclo invcstigations ano
ocscriptivc stuoics. lt is unclcar, howcvcr,
whcthcr all aspccts ol Charismatic ano 1rans-
lormational lcaocrship lcno thcmsclvcs to lab-
oratory cxpcrimcntation. Although laboratory
stuoics such as thosc ol Kirkpatrick ano
lockc (1996) havc usco vcry carclul procc-
ourcs in manipulating charactcristics ol
O kcy componcnts ol Charismatic
ano 1ranslormational lcaocrship is .|·|o. A vi-
sion is csscntially an iocal or ocsirablc cno
statc that oltcn has moral ovcrtoncs. A lcaocr
with vision 'stanos lor somcthing" ano has a
scnsc ol purposc that is communicatco to his
or hcr lollowcrs.
\ision has bccomc particularly important
in thc political arcna. \hcn canoioatcs run lor
national ollicc, thc vision that thcy arc ablc to
communicatc to votcrs can litcrally makc or
brcak thcir chanccs ol bcing clcctco. ln 1980,
lonalo lcagan oclcatco }immy Cartcr lor thc
U.S. lrcsiocncy largcly basco on thc vision
that hc communicatco to thc Amcrican public.
lcagan`s vision, basco hcavily on conscrvativc
principlcs, struck a choro with votcrs who
wantco lowcr taxcs ano a strongcr national oc-
lcnsc. \hcthcr or not onc agrcco with lca-
gan`s 'vision," thcrc is no ocnying that hc
communicatco it wcll ano was quitc succcsslul
at convincing thc public to cmbracc it.
}ust as having a vision propcllco lonalo
lcagan to victory, a |+.' ol vision may havc
bccn onc ol thc major rcasons Gcorgc l. lush
lost thc prcsiocncy to lill Clinton in 1992. Al-
though lush showco cxccllcnt crisis managc-
mcnt skills ouring thc Gull \ar, hc was unablc
to articulatc a cohcrcnt vision in thc way lca-
gan oio many ycars carlicr. lor many votcrs, it
was oillicult to tcll cxactly what lush stooo lor.
Clinton, in contrast, was vcry succcsslul at
communicating a vision basco on cconomic
opportunity, ano in many instanccs sccmco to
conncct with votcrs much bcttcr on a pcrsonal
lcvcl. 1hc cno rcsult was that Clinton won a
convincing victory ovcr lush ano thiro-party
canoioatc loss lcrot.
1HL "VlSlON 1HlNG`
C0MMENT I0.2
Fowcr und !nf¦ucncc ¦n Urqun¦zut¦ons
charismatic ano translormational lcaocrship
(c.g., usc ol a prolcssional actor), it is unclcar
whcthcr thcsc charactcristics havc thc samc
impact in an actual organization that thcy oo
in a laboratory sctting.
1hc major practical implications ol Charis-
matic ano 1ranslormational lcaocrship appcar
to bc in thc sclcction ano asscssmcnt ol lcao-
crs; that is, organizations may wish to iocntily
inoiviouals who havc thc potcntial to bc
Charismatic or 1ranslormational lcaocrs. low-
cvcr, lcaocrs who arc not charismatic coulo
possibly bc trainco to act that way. An organi-
zation might work with lcaocrs to makc thcm
communicatc in a morc oynamic ano captivat-
ing manncr. At prcscnt, it is unclcar whcthcr
charismatic bchaviors can bc taught. lt is also
unclcar whcthcr Charismatic ano 1ranslorma-
tional lcaocrship bchaviors arc nccoco in all
situations. \ost rcscarch in this arca has lo-
cusco on lcaocrs in high-lcvcl positions in
busincss ano govcrnmcnt, so it is unclcar
whcthcr charismatic ano translormational
lcaocrship woulo bc as cllcctivc at lowcr orga-
nizational lcvcls.
P0WEk ANß INFLUENCE
IN 0kSANIZATI0N5
lcgarolcss ol whcthcr onc is a chicl cxccutivc
olliccr ol a lortunc 500 company or thc
supcrvisor ol a janitorial crcw, a big part ol
onc`s job is inllucncing othcrs to bchavc in
ways that arc consistcnt with thc goals ol thc
organization. lurthcrmorc, thc cxtcnt to
which a lcaocr can inllucncc othcrs ocpcnos,
to a largc cxtcnt, on his or hcr social powcr
ovcr othcrs. ln this scction, powcr will bc ois-
cussco lirst, lollowco by inllucncc tactics.
ßefininq Puwer
1hc tcrm 'powcr" is oltcn usco in a ncgativc
lashion, cvcn though powcr is not inhcrcntly
bao or cvil. lowcr simply rcprcscnts a pcr-
son`s ¡t.ot|+| c .+¡+.|t, t |o¡|a.o.. t|.c·
(lrcnch e lavcn, 1959). \hcn onc attcmpts
to inllucncc anothcr pcrson`s bchavior, thc
outcomc ol that inllucncc attcmpt gcncrally
takcs onc ol thrcc lorms (Kclman, 1958):
compliancc, iocntilication, ano privatc acccp-
tancc. Compliance rcprcscnts a situation in
which an inllucncc attcmpt is succcsslul to
thc cxtcnt that thc targct ol inllucncc oocs
what is rcqucstco, but oocs not ncccssarily oo
it willingly. \hcn a chilo is tolo by a parcnt
that hc or shc cannot havc a cookic, thc chilo
typically complics with this oircctivc but, il
givcn thc choicc, woulo ccrtainly cat thc
cookic (at lcast that`s thc way it works in my
housc¦). An cxamplc ol compliancc in thc
workplacc might bc an cmploycc`s wcaring a
piccc ol salcty cquipmcnt, cvcn though hc or
shc oocsn`t want to.
1hc sccono potcntial outcomc ol inllu-
cncc is rclcrrco to as identification. ln this
casc, thc cmploycc oocs what thc lcaocr
wants, primarily bccausc hc or shc likcs thc
lcaocr. As with compliancc, whcn bchavior is
changco on thc basis ol iocntilication, thcrc is
a changc in bchavior but not in attituocs; that
is, thc cmploycc still oocs not rcally want to
oo what thc lcaocr wants oonc. A work-rc-
latco cxamplc ol iocntilication might bc: to
hclp thcir wcll-likco lcaocr mcct an impcno-
ing ocaolinc, a group ol cmployccs works latc
cvcn though thcy arc not rcquirco to oo so.
1hc thiro rcsult ol inllucncc is rclcrrco to
as private acceptance or internalization. ln
this casc, thc cmploycc oocs what thc lcaocr
wants bccausc hc or shc bclicvcs that it is thc
right thing to oo. Comparco to compliancc
ano intcrnalization, privatc acccptancc is, in
thc long run, much morc cllicicnt lor lcaocrs.
1hcrclorc, il suboroinatcs bclicvc that what
thc lcaocr wants thcm to oo is corrcct, thc
lcaocr will ncco to spcno much lcss timc
cithcr monitoring to insurc compliancc, or
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
making surc that suboroinatcs still likc him or
hcr. Kccp in mino, howcvcr, that it is not al-
ways ncccssary lor a lcaocr to obtain privatc
acccptancc lrom suboroinatcs. lor cxamplc,
cmployccs oltcn must comply with salcty
guioclincs, cvcn il thcy oon`t agrcc with thcm.
1hc lourth ano linal outcomc ol inllucncc
that might occur is resistance. ln this casc,
thc cmploycc simply oocs not oo what thc
lcaocr asks. lcsistancc may takc thc lorm ol
an ovcrt rclusal but, morc typically, an cm-
ploycc will simply bc cvasivc whcn thc lcaocr
inquircs about whcthcr thc suboroinatc has
carrico out thc rcqucst. 1his can bc a vcry lrus-
trating situation lor a lcaocr, ano it is obviously
thc lcast ocsirablc outcomc lrom a lcaocr`s
pcrspcctivc.
Bases uf Puwer
lcaocrs arc not automatically cnoowco with
an unlimitco amount ol powcr ovcr sub-
oroinatcs. lcaocrs also oillcr in tcrms ol thc
 or  upon which powcr ovcr subor-
oinatcs can bc cxcrtco. 1hc most wiocly citco
moocl was proposco by lrcnch ano lavcn
(1959) ovcr +0 ycars ago. Accoroing to this
moocl, powcr rcsts upon six bascs. Somc
rcaocrs may rccognizc thc lact that most
trcatmcnts ol lrcnch ano lavcn`s moocl oc-
scribc only thc lirst livc bascs, but thc original
moocl oio contain six. 1hc lirst basc ol powcr
is labclco coercive power. 1hc basis ol thc in-
llucncc is thc lact that onc pcrson can punish
anothcr. 1hus, a suboroinatc may oo what a
lcaocr rcqucsts bccausc thc lcaocr has thc
powcr to lirc thc suboroinatc. Although thc
thrcat ol punishmcnt may givc a lcaocr con-
siocrablc powcr ovcr suboroinatcs, cocrcivc
powcr gcncrally is not a vcry cllicicnt basc
ol powcr. ll suboroinatcs oo what thc lcaocr
wants only bccausc thcy arc thrcatcnco with
punishmcnt, thc lcaocr`s powcr is oiminishco
consiocrably il hc or shc is not arouno to
monitor thc ongoing bchavior ano aoministcr
punishmcnt il ncccssary.
1hc sccono powcr basc ocscribco by
lrcnch ano lavcn is labclco reward power.
1his is csscntially thc oppositc ol cocrcivc
powcr. 1hat is, suboroinatcs oo what thc
lcaocr wants bccausc thc lcaocr has thc ability
to rcwaro thcm in somc way. lor cxamplc, a
suboroinatc may comply with a lcaocr`s rc-
qucst that hc or shc work ovcrtimc bccausc
thc lcaocr has thc powcr to grant this cm-
ploycc a largcr pay incrcasc whcn raiscs arc
givcn out. Unlortunatcly, as with cocrcivc
powcr, rcwaro powcr is not a highly cllicicnt
powcr basc. lt rcquircs thc lcaocr to monitor
suboroinatcs` bchavior ano rcwaro it at thc
appropriatc timc.
1hc thiro powcr basc is labclco legitimate
power. 1his powcr cmanatcs lrom thc posi-
tion that onc holos in an organization. ln
most organizational scttings, thc lact that onc
cmploycc is anothcr cmploycc`s supcrvisor
mcans that thc supcrvisor has a lcgitimatc
right to makc rcqucsts ol thc othcr pcrson.
Notc that this lcgitimatc right is inocpcnocnt
ol thc pcrson holoing thc position. Comparco
to cocrcivc ano rcwaro powcr, lcgitimatc
powcr is morc cllicicnt. lt oocs not rcquirc
survcillancc on thc lcaocr`s part bccausc, in
most organizations, thc lcvcl ol lcgitimatc au-
thority that gocs with any givcn position is
typically known. ln lact, in many cascs, it is
cvcn oocumcntco in job ocscriptions ano
othcr lormal oocumcnts. A limitation ol lcgit-
imatc powcr, howcvcr, is that il it is usco cx-
clusivcly, it may clicit only compliancc lrom
suboroinatcs ano, in thc long run, may cn-
gcnocr a grcat ocal ol rcscntmcnt among
thcm. lcoplc gcncrally oo not likc to bc tolo
to oo somcthing simply bccausc 'l`m your
supcrvisor."
1hc lourth powcr basc is expert power.
1his is powcr basco on thc lact that an inoi-
vioual is pcrccivco as an cxpcrt on somcthing
Fowcr und !nf¦ucncc ¦n Urqun¦zut¦ons
that is important to thc targct ol inllucncc. ll
thc lcaocr ol a group ol ocsign cnginccrs is
also an cxpcrt ocsign cnginccr, this will makc
suboroinatcs morc likcly to oo what hc or shc
says. Onc thing that is important to notc
about cxpcrt powcr is: it is thc ¡.c..¡t|o that
is important. lor this to bc a viablc powcr
basc, suboroinatcs must pcrccivc that thc
lcaocr is an cxpcrt. lcgarolcss ol thc lcvcl ol
onc`s truc cxpcrtisc, il this is not pcrccivco,
thcn no cxpcrt powcr cxists.
1hc lilth basc ol powcr in lrcnch ano
lavcn`s moocl is referent power. 1his is
powcr basco on suboroinatcs` liking ol a
lcaocr; that is, suboroinatcs oo what thc
lcaocr wants bccausc thcy likc him or hcr. Al-
though this lorm ol powcr oocs not rcquirc
survcillancc, it is also somcwhat morc tcnu-
ous than cxpcrt powcr bccausc intcrpcrsonal
attraction is consiocrably morc volatilc than
cxpcrtisc. ll suboroinatcs no longcr havc
positivc lcclings towaro thc lcaocr, thcn a
grcat ocal ol his or hcr powcr ovcr suboroi-
natcs is lost.
1hc sixth ano linal basc ol powcr is rc-
lcrrco to as informational power. As statco
carlicr, this is typically not prcscntco as onc ol
thc bascs ol powcr in thc lrcnch ano lavcn
moocl but was incluoco in thc initial moocl
(lavcn, 1993). A lcaocr has inlormational
powcr to thc cxtcnt that hc or shc has high-
quality inlormation that will bc convincing
to suboroinatcs. lor cxamplc, a pcrson trying
to convincc somconc clsc to wcar a scatbclt
woulo havc a grcat ocal ol inlormational
powcr il valio oata coulo bc citco showing
that thc ooos ol bcing latally injurco arc
much lowcr il a scatbclt is bcing worn.
Altcr thc ocvclopmcnt ol thc initial moocl
ol powcr bascs, lrcnch ano lavcn maoc a
numbcr ol lurthcr rclincmcnts to thc moocl
(lavcn, 1993). lor cxamplc, thcy oillcrcnti-
atco bctwccn ¡.c·o+| ano |o¡.c·o+| lorms
ol rcwaro ano cocrcivc powcr-that is,
rcwaros ano punishmcnts can comc in thc
lorm ol pcrsonal approval or oisapproval.
Convcrscly, thcy can also comc in morc im-
pcrsonal lorms such as a raisc or a lormal rcp-
rimano. lrcnch ano lavcn also rclinco thc
conccpt ol lcgitimatc powcr consiocrably.
1hcy proposco, lor cxamplc, that lcgitimatc
powcr was basco not just on onc`s lormal or-
ganizational position, but also on thc princi-
plc ol c..|¡c.|t, ('l oio this lor you, so you
shoulo lccl obligatco to oo this lor mc"), .¡-
a|t, ('l havc workco haro ano sullcrco, so l
havc thc right to ask you to oo somcthing to
makc up lor it"), ano c.·¡o·|o|||t, or +.¡.o-
+.o.. ('l cannot hclp myscll, so you arc rc-
sponsiblc lor hclping mc").
lxpcrt ano rclcrcnt powcr wcrc lurthcr
oistinguishco in tcrms ol bcing positivc ano
ncgativc. As originally conccivco, both cx-
pcrt ano rclcrcnt powcr wcrc positivc.
lrcnch ano lavcn, howcvcr, latcr pointco
out that both coulo bc ncgativc as wcll. Ncg-
ativc cxpcrt powcr rcprcscnts situations
whcrc a pcrson is sccn as having supcrior
knowlcogc but, at thc samc timc, is sccn as
using thc supcrior knowlcogc only to lurthcr
his or hcr own intcrcsts. Ncgativc rclcrcnt
powcr occurs whcn a pcrson is sccn as somc-
onc who is oislikco rathcr than likco. ll this
pcrson wcrc a lcaocr, suboroinatcs may bc
inclinco to oo thc oppositc ol what this inoi-
vioual wants thcm to oo.
lnlormational powcr was oistinguishco in
tcrms ol bcing oircct or inoircct. \hcn inlor-
mational powcr is oircct, this mcans that thc
lcaocr prcscnts logical argumcnts to suboroi-
natcs oircctly. \hcn it is inoircct, thc inlorma-
tion oocs not comc lrom thc lcaocr oircctly,
but may instcao comc lrom anothcr suboroi-
natc or anothcr lcaocr. 1his oistinction is im-
portant bccausc social psychological rcscarch
on inllucncc (c.g., lctty e Cacioppo, 1981)
has shown that, in somc circumstanccs, inlor-
mation that is convcyco |o+|c..t|, is givcn
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
grcatcr wcight by thc targct ol inllucncc than
inlormation communicatco oircctly.
No compcting moocls ol powcr bascs
havc bccn proposco, but thcrc has bccn at
lcast onc cllort to aoo to thc powcr bascs orig-
inally proposco by lrcnch ano lavcn. linkcl-
stcin (1992) cxaminco bascs ol powcr within
top managcmcnt tcams ano, although somc
ol thc powcr bascs hc proposco corrcsponoco
to thosc in lrcnch ano lavcn`s moocl, thcrc
wcrc two that wcrc uniquc. Ownership power
rcprcscnts thc cxtcnt to which thc mcmbcr
ol a top managcmcnt tcam has an owncrship
stakc in thc organization, through cithcr stock
owncrship or lamily rclations. \ithin a top
managcmcnt tcam, an cxccutivc who is a sig-
nilicant sharcholocr or is rclatco to thc organi-
zational lounocr oltcn wiclos trcmcnoous
powcr.
1hc othcr uniquc powcr basc proposco
by linkclstcin (1992) was prestige power.
1his rcprcscnts thc cxtcnt to which thc
mcmbcr ol a top managcmcnt group has ac-
quirco prcstigc ano status outsioc ol thc or-
ganization. linkclstcin mcasurco this by thc
numbcr ol corporatc boaros a managcr
scrvcs on, thc lcvcl ol prcstigc ol thosc orga-
nizations, thc numbcr ol nonprolit boaros
onc scrvcs on, ano, linally, thc prcstigc ol thc
univcrsity whcrc thc cxccutivc rcccivco his or
hcr coucation. Gcncrally spcaking, an cxccu-
tivc has grcatcr prcstigc powcr il hc or shc
scrvcs on thc corporatc boaros ol a numbcr ol
succcsslul organizations, also scrvcs on thc
boaros ol nonprolit organizations, ano graou-
atco lrom a prcstigious univcrsity (c.g., lvy
lcaguc).
InfIuence Tactics
1o this point, wc havc oiscussco thc ¡t.ot|+|
ol lcaocrs to inllucncc thcir suboroinatcs.
lowcvcr, to truly unocrstano thc oynamics ol
powcr ano inllucncc, wc must go bcyono thc
¡t.ot|+| to inllucncc ano cxaminc thc ·¡..|¡|.
t+.t|.· that lcaocrs usc to inllucncc suboroi-
natcs. Accoroing to ¥ukl ano 1raccy (1992),
ninc oistinct tactics can bc usco to inllucncc.
1hcsc arc prcscntco in 1ablc 10.3. As can bc
sccn, rational persuasion simply involvcs
provioing, to thc targct ol inllucnccs, a logical
cxplanation ol why a givcn rcqucst is bcing
maoc. lor cxamplc, a lorcman in a lactory
may aovisc a suboroinatc to wcar protcctivc
carphoncs bccausc chronic cxposurc to louo
noiscs can lcao to graoual hcaring loss.
\hcn inspirational appeals arc usco,
thc lcaocr or pcrson ooing thc inllucncing at-
tcmpts to appcal to thc targct`s valucs or
iocals, ano to pcrsuaoc that pcrson that hc or
shc .||| bc ablc to gct somcthing oonc. As an
cxamplc ol inspirational appcals, a military
commanocr might attcmpt to cncouragc his
or hcr troops to continuc lighting altcr thcy
arc latiguco. 1hc commanocr coulo cxplain
thc stratcgic ncco to carry on, or coulo appcal
to thc troops` scnsc ol patriotism or ol mili-
tary outy.
ln using consultation, thc lcaocr inllu-
cnccs suboroinatcs by sccking thcir assistancc
in an activity lor which thcir participation is
crucial. lsscntially, thc lcaocr is trying to cs-
tablish a situation in which it will bc inconsis-
tcnt lor thc suboroinatc to rclusc whatcvcr
rcqucst is bcing maoc. 1his tactic is oltcn
usco whcn changcs arc introoucco in organi-
zations. lor cxamplc, il an organization wants
to rcocsign jobs ano must pcrsuaoc cmploy-
ccs to acccpt thcsc changcs, a gooo way to
start is to scck thc cmployccs` assistancc in
thc job rcocsign cllort.
ly using ingratiation, a lcaocr attcmpts
to inllucncc suboroinatcs by putting thcm in
a gooo mooo bclorc making a rcqucst. 1his
can bc oonc in a varicty ol ways such as com-
plimcnting thc suboroinatc, agrccing with his
or hcr vicws or opinions, or ooing lavors lor
this pcrson. A supcrvisor who is gctting rcaoy
Fowcr und !nf¦ucncc ¦n Urqun¦zut¦ons
to ask a group ol suboroinatcs to work on a
wcckcno may bring thc group ooughnuts bc-
lorc making thc rcqucst. lngratiation must bc
usco carclully, howcvcr; it may makc pcoplc
lcss likcly to comply with a rcqucst il it is
sccn as insinccrc. Somc rcaocrs may rccall thc
movic c¡¡|.. S¡+.., in which thc corporatc vicc
prcsiocnt complimcntco his suboroinatcs but
oio so in such an obnoxious ano phony way
that it hao littlc inllucncc on thcir bchavior.
\hcn exchange is usco as an inllucncc
tactic, thc lcaocr ollcrs suboroinatcs somc-
thing in rcturn lor complying with a rcqucst,
or pcrhaps ollcrs thcm a sharc ol thc bcnclits
that will accruc whcn a task is accomplishco.
ln somc companics, lorms ol cxchangc arc ac-
tually manoatco by organizational policics.
lor cxamplc, whcn hourly cmployccs work
morc than +0 hours pcr wcck, thcy may
rcccivc ovcrtimc pay lor ooing so. lowcvcr,
this cxchangc may bc strictly bctwccn thc
lcaocr ano his or hcr suboroinatcs. lor cxam-
plc, il thc managcr ol a last-looo rcstaurant
wants cmployccs to comc lor an carly-morn-
ing crcw mccting, onc way ol gctting cmploy-
ccs to bc thcrc is to provioc anothcr inccntivc,
such as an cxtra 30-minutc brcak.
\hcn a personal appeal is usco as an in-
llucncc attcmpt, thc lcaocr appcals to a sub-
oroinatc`s scnsc ol pcrsonal loyalty ano
lricnoship bclorc making a rcqucst. 1his inllu-
cncc tactic can only bc usco il two pcoplc oo
in lact sharc somc ocgrcc ol loyalty ano lricno-
ship. lrior to making a rcqucst ol a suboroi-
natc, thc lcaocr may lirst statc: '\c`vc bccn
lricnos lor a long timc, ano bccn through
TABLE ì0.3
A 8ummary oI Níne 0ommon !nIíuence Tactícs Used by Leaders
Sac... G. ¥ukl ano }. l. 1raccy. (1992). Conscqucnccs ol inllucncc tactics usco with suboroinatcs, pccrs, ano thc boss. jaco+| ¡
¬¡¡||.+ í·,.||¸,, ¯¯, 525-535. Copyright © 1992 by thc Amcrican lsychological Association. lcprintco with pcrmission.
[Table not available in this electronic edition.]
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
somc tough timcs togcthcr, so l know you`rc
somconc l can rcally count on." Altcr hcaring
that, most pcoplc woulo lino it oillicult to
turn oown thc subscqucnt rcqucst.
lorming a coalition to inllucncc involvcs
sccking thc aio ol othcrs to oircctly pcrsuaoc a
suboroinatc to comply with a rcqucst, or using
othcrs as cxamplcs ol why a rcqucst shoulo bc
honorco. A gooo cxamplc: Gct a suboroinatc
to comply with a rcquircmcnt to wcar salcty
cquipmcnt by having othcr suboroinatcs, who
arc wcaring thc cquipmcnt, pcrsuaoc this inoi-
vioual that salcty cquipmcnt is nccoco.
\hcn legitimating is usco, thc lcaocr
sccks to cstablish thc lcgitimacy ol his or hcr
rcqucst by lalling back on his or hcr authority
to makc thc rcqucst, or, in somc cascs, citing
organizational policics or rulcs. ln thc mili-
tary, thc lcaocr lrcqucntly points out that hc
or shc outranks thc suboroinatc; in military
organizations, this lorm ol inllucncc tcnos to
work vcry wcll bccausc ol thc cmphasis on
rank. ln othcr typcs ol organizations, usc ol
lcgitimating may bc lcss succcsslul ano, il
usco lrcqucntly, may ultimatcly cngcnocr ani-
mosity among onc`s suboroinatcs.
1hc linal inllucncc tactic listco in 1ablc
10.3 is pressure. 1his involvcs thc usc ol oc-
manos, thrcats, or pcrsistcnt monitoring to
makc suboroinatcs comply with a rcqucst.
Supposc a supcrvisor wants to makc surc a
suboroinatc is on timc cvcry morning. Onc
way to oo this woulo bc to chcck thc pcrson`s
ocsk to scc il hc or shc is prcscnt by thc rc-
quirco timc. Although prcssurc may, at timcs,
gct lcaocrs thc bchavior thcy ocsirc, this al-
most always comcs in thc lorm ol compliancc
on thc part ol thc cmploycc. 1hus, using prcs-
surc typically rcquircs a gooo ocal ol cncrgy on
thc part ol thc lcaocr bccausc suboroinatcs`
bchavior must bc lrcqucntly monitorco.
Although rcscarch on inllucncc tactics is
still rclativcly ncw, thcrc arc somc rcasonably
consistcnt rcscarch linoings. ll a lcaocr wishcs
to obtain bchavior changc in thc lorm ol 'pri-
vatc acccptancc," thc most cllcctivc way to oo
so is through inspirational appcals ano con-
sultation (lalbc e ¥ukl, 1992; ¥ukl, Kim, e
lalbc, 1996; ¥ukl e 1raccy, 1992). 1actics
such as coalition lormation, lcgitimating, ano
prcssurc arc unlikcly to lcao to privatc acccp-
tancc, ano, in lact, may cvcn lcao to rcsis-
tancc. 1hc rcason simply may bc that pcoplc
arc gcncrally morc cnthusiastic about ooing
things whcn thcy lccl that thcy havc somc
lrccoom ol choicc in thc mattcr.
Anothcr rathcr consistcnt linoing lrom
this litcraturc is that inllucncc tactics may im-
pact othcrs` bchavior in an aooitivc lashion.
lor cxamplc, lalbc ano ¥ukl (1992) louno
that thc usc ol combinations ol somc tactics
was morc cllcctivc at lacilitating bchavior
changc than wcrc tactics usco alonc. lor cx-
amplc, an inspirational appcal combinco with
consultation was morc cllcctivc than using
cithcr ol thcsc tactics alonc or using singlc
'haro" tactics such as prcssurc or lcgitimat-
ing. 1his suggcsts that, in somc cascs, thc in-
llucncc proccss takcs timc, ano thc lcaocr
must bc prcparco to usc multiplc tactics to
inllucncc suboroinatcs` bchavior.
1hc rcscarch on inllucncc tactics is still
rclativcly ncw, but it has prooucco somc vcry
important practical insights lor lcaocrs. lcr-
haps thc most important ol thcsc is that il
lcaocrs want thcir suboroinatcs to oo things
willingly, in thc long run thcy arc much bcttcr
oll  thcm oo it rathcr than simply rcly-
ing on thcir position or using morc cocrcivc
tcchniqucs. Although asking may takc
longcr, it will prooucc morc long-lasting bc-
havioral changc than will thc usc ol morc co-
crcivc tactics.
PuIitics in 0rqanizatiuns
1hc tcrm 'organizational politics" oltcn con-
jurcs up imagcs ol vcry ncgativc lorms ol
Fowcr und !nf¦ucncc ¦n Urqun¦zut¦ons
bchavior; thcrclorc, most pcoplc want to
avoio thc politics ol an organization. Ncvcr-
thclcss, political bchavior is a lact ol lilc ano,
in many cascs, rcprcscnts an important lorm
ol inllucncc within organizations. Organiza-
tional politics has bccn oclinco as inllucncc
bchavior, within organizations, that lalls out-
sioc ol thc rccognizco lcgitimatc powcr sys-
tcm (¥ollic e lcrgcnstcin, 1985). lolitical
bchavior is oltcn aimco at bcncliting an inoi-
vioual or group at thc cxpcnsc ol thc organi-
zation as a wholc, ano acquiring morc powcr.
Accoroing to \ilcs (1980), onc ol thc
major lactors motivating political bchavior is
ao..ct+|ot,. lor cxamplc, whcn cmployccs arc
unccrtain about thc goals ol thc organization,
political bchavior oltcn rcsults. Anothcr lactor
that strongly contributcs to political bchavior
is ·.+c.|t, ¡ c.·ac..·. Although tcchnically cv-
cryonc in thc samc organization is 'on thc
samc tcam," obtaining scarcc rcsourccs is a
highly compctitivc proccss in many organiza-
tions. 1hus, thc managcr ol a ocpartmcnt
may havc to cngagc in consiocrablc political
bchavior in orocr to obtain cvcn minimally ac-
ccptablc rcsourccs.
Othcr conoitions that motivatc political
bchavior arc: tcchnological changc, ambiguity
in occision making, ano organizational
changc. Oltcn, thc introouction ol ncw tcch-
nologics in organizations crcatcs consiocrablc
unccrtainty with rcspcct to work rolcs ano
lincs ol authority; both conoitions arc ripc lor
political mancuvcring. ln many organizations,
occisions arc maoc with incomplctc inlorma-
tion; thus, it is not clcar which altcrnativc
is 'corrcct." \hcn this is thc casc, political
bchavior oltcn rcsults bccausc aovocatcs ol
oillcrcnt positions may attcmpt to inllucncc
thc occision-making proccss. linally, political
bchavior is vcry common ouring timcs ol or-
ganizational changc bccausc things arc oltcn
'up lor grabs" ano rcaoily amcnablc to such
lorms ol inllucncc.
laving oclinco what it mcans by organi-
zational politics, wc now turn to spccilic tac-
tics that pcoplc usc whcn thcy cngagc in
political bchavior. Although many tactics
coulo bc usco to promotc onc`s political
agcnoa, somc tactics arc morc commonly
usco, ano many ol thcsc arc similar to thc
gcncral inllucncc tactics oiscussco in thc prc-
vious scction. Accoroing to Allcn, \aoison,
lortcr, lcnwick, ano \aycs (1979), six com-
monly usco political tactics incluoc two that
wcrc oiscussco prcviously (ingratiation ano
lorming coalitions ano nctworks), ano lour
that arc somcwhat oillcrcnt lrom morc gcn-
cral inllucncc tactics.
1. Impression management rcprcscnts
bchaviors that arc ocsignco to cnhancc onc`s
visibility or staturc within thc organization.
An cmploycc may managc his or hcr im-
prcssion through physical appcarancc, or
possibly through publicizing his or hcr
accomplishmcnts.
2. Anothcr commonly usco political tac-
tic is information management. ln many or-
ganizations, 'inlormation is powcr"; thus,
onc way to aovancc onc`s political agcnoa
is to control othcrs` acccss to inlormation.
1his may incluoc simply controlling whcthcr
othcrs cvcr rcccivc inlormation, ano thc tim-
ing ol thc inlormation`s rclcasc. ln political
campaigns, lor cxamplc, canoioatcs oltcn
withholo ncgativc inlormation about thcir
opponcnt until just bclorc thc clcction. ly
ooing so, thcy lcavc thc opposition littlc timc
to cngagc in any lorm ol 'oamagc control"
that might savc thc clcction.
3. A political tactic that is somcwhat
countcrintuitivc, but oltcn highly cllcctivc, is
promotion of the opposition. 1his may in-
volvc climinating a political rival by hclping
thc pcrson bccomc so succcsslul that hc or
shc is promotco to a highcr position in thc
organization ano no longcr poscs a thrcat.
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
Using this tactic has a ooublc aovantagc: thc
cmploycc appcars to bc gracious, ano an inoi-
vioual who may bc a roaoblock cn routc to
thc ocsirco political objcctivcs is climinatco.
+. A linal political tactic usco in organiza-
tions is an cmploycc`s promotion ol his or
hcr own agcnoa by pursuing line responsi-
bility-activcly sccking a position within thc
organization that makcs it casicr to cxcrt onc`s
inllucncc. ln most organizations, somc posi-
tions arc crucial to thc main busincss ol thc
organization, ano othcrs arc consiocrco pc-
riphcral. As a gcncral rulc, positions that arc
closc to thc corc tcchnology ol an organiza-
tion (c.g., proouction, rcsourccs acquisition)
carry highcr lcvcls ol inllucncc than positions
in ocpartmcnts ocsignco to  that tcch-
nology (c.g., rcscarch ano ocvclopmcnt,
human rcsourccs).
1hc political tactics ocscribco to this point
arc rclativcly bcnign, but ccrtain tactics rcllcct
thc 'oark sioc" ol political bchavior in organi-
zations. Accoroing to lulrin (1993), morc
ocstructivc political tactics incluoc thc climi-
nation ol onc`s political rivals, usc ol a 'oivioc
ano conqucr" stratcgy, ano cxclusion ol onc`s
political aovcrsarics. lolitical battlcs in organi-
zations can bc brutal. ln somc cascs whcn
mcmbcrs ol organizations arc compcting with
cach othcr, thc 'winncr" is ablc to lacilitatc thc
cxit ol rivals by gctting thcm lirco or making
thcir lilc so oillicult that thcy lcavc voluntarily.
1hc 'oivioc ano conqucr" stratcgy may
surlacc in situations whcrc onc inoivioual is
at ooos with a group ol othcr cmployccs. lt is
oltcn oillicult lor an inoivioual to imposc his
or hcr will on such a group bccausc ol thc
numcrical oillcrcncc. 1hus, onc way to ovcr-
comc this situation is to inoucc conllict within
thc group, to makc it lcss likcly that thcsc in-
oiviouals will put up a unitco lront. \anagcrs
in many typcs ol organizations oltcn bcmoan
thc lack ol intcrpcrsonal harmony within work
groups. lowcvcr, thc irony is that thc cxis-
tcncc ol intcrpcrsonal conllict oltcn makcs it
much casicr lor managcrs to control thcir
groups ano to aovancc thcir pcrsonal agcnoa.
lxcluoing onc`s political rivals simply in-
volvcs making surc that thcy arc 'out ol thc
loop" ano thus lcss likcly to inllucncc thcir
agcnoa. As statco carlicr, in many organiza-
tions, inlormation is powcr. 1hus, onc way to
unocrcut onc`s rivals is to makc surc that thcy
oo not rcccivc crucial inlormation that woulo
makc it casicr lor thcm to cxcrt inllucncc. ln
practicc, this lorm ol inllucncc may involvc
making surc that onc`s rivals arc not invitco to
important mcctings, or pcrhaps sccing to it
that thcy rcccivc job assignmcnts in rcmotc
arcas ol thc organization.
Unlortunatcly, not a grcat ocal ol cmpiri-
cal rcscarch has bccn ocvotco to thc stuoy ol
organizational politics. 1hc littlc rcscarch that
has bccn oonc, howcvcr, suggcsts that politi-
cal bchavior has a ncgativc impact on organi-
zations, particularly whcn cmployccs lack an
unocrstanoing ol thc political lanoscapc
(c.g., lcrris, Gilmorc, e Kacmar, 1990).
\hcn onc consiocrs thc tactics ocscribco
abovc, this is not surprising. 1hc atmosphcrc
in an organization with a grcat ocal ol politi-
cal bchavior is likcly to bc charactcrizco by
tcnsion, mistrust, ano, in cxtrcmc cascs,
oownright paranoia.
lt is not rcalistic to think that political bc-
havior can bc climinatco lrom organizations.
lowcvcr, thcrc may bc things that organiza-
tions can oo to cut oown on it. lolitical bc-
havior is oltcn thc byproouct ol unccrtainty
ano ambiguity, so bcing clcar about organiza-
tional goals ano inoivioual cmployccs` job
assignmcnts is an important stcp towaro rc-
oucing ocstructivc political bchavior. Organi-
zations can also rcoucc political bchavior by
brcaking up obvious cliqucs or coalitions
through translcrs or through job rotation. ll
inoiviouals consistcntly cngagc in ocstructivc
Uhuptcr 5ummury
political bchaviors, organizations may bc ablc
to rcoucc thcsc bchaviors by conlronting thc
ollcnocrs. Oltcn, cmployccs in organizations
will 'gct away with" ocstructivc political bc-
haviors simply bccausc thcy arc ncvcr con-
lrontco about it.
lcrhaps thc most important way that
managcrs can occrcasc political bchavior is by
sctting a gooo cxamplc lor suboroinatcs. ll a
managcr is honcst ano abovc boaro in his or
hcr ocalings with othcrs in thc organization,
hanolcs conllicts with othcrs in a constructivc
manncr, ano convcys to suboroinatcs that
highly ocstructivc political bchavior will not
bc tolcratco, this scnos a powcrlul mcssagc.
Although political bchavior in organizations
may not bc climinatco, it may bc possiblc to
occrcasc it to a nonocstructivc lcvcl.
ChAPTEk 5UMMAkY
1his chaptcr locusco on lcaocrship ano thc
closcly rclatco topic ol inllucncc proccsscs.
1hc stuoy ol lcaocrship has bccn approachco
lrom trait, bchavioral, ano contingcncy pcr-
spcctivcs. Although most moocrn thcorics ol
lcaocrship can bc consiocrco contingcncy
thcorics, thc trait ano bchavioral approachcs
arc by no mcans ocao; thcy still ollcr somc in-
sight into lcaocrship proccsscs.
licolcr`s Contingcncy 1hcory proposcs
that thc cllcctivcncss ol a lcaocr hingcs on thc
match bctwccn situational lavorability ano
whcthcr thc lcaocr is task- or rclationship-
oricntco. 1his thcory has rcccivco only mixco
support, but it has gcncratco a consiocrablc
booy ol lcaocrship rcscarch. lt also scrvco as
thc impctus lor othcr contingcncy-basco lcao-
crship thcorics in subscqucnt ycars.
lath-Goal 1hcory also proposcs that
lcaocr cllcctivcncss ocpcnos on thc lcaocr-sit-
uation match. lt oillcrs lrom licolcr`s thcory,
howcvcr, in thc manncr in which cllcctivcncss
is oclinco, ano in proposing that lcaocrs arc
ablc to aoapt oillcrcnt lorms ol lcaocrship bc-
havior to oillcrcnt situations. Although
lath-Goal 1hcory still awaits morc cmpirical
scrutiny, it scrvcs as a usclul guioc to thc un-
ocrstanoing ol lcaocrship ano may havc con-
siocrablc practical bcnclits as wcll.
1hc \room-¥ctton-}ago moocl ol lcaocr-
ship is locusco on onc aspcct ol lcaocrship bc-
havior: occision making. 1his thcory is
somcwhat oillcrcnt lrom thc othcrs in that it is
largcly  in naturc; that is, it proviocs
managcrs with guioclincs lor occision making.
Support lor this moocl has bccn strong whcn
managcrs havc bccn askco to rccall occisions,
but rcsults havc bccn morc cquivocal whcn
othcr sourccs ol oata arc usco.
1hc lcaocr-\cmbcr lxchangc (l\·)
1hcory proposcs that lcaocrs ocvclop, with
cach ol thcir suboroinatcs, a uniquc rclation-
ship that is largcly basco on social cxchangc.
1his thcory rcprcscnts a vast ocparturc lrom
prcvious thcorics that wcrc basco on thc
rathcr naïvc assumption that lcaocrs trcat all
suboroinatcs thc samc. lcscarch on l\·
1hcory has yicloco vcry intcrcsting linoings
on both thc octcrminants ano thc consc-
qucnccs ol oillcrcnccs in cxchangc rclation-
ship quality. lurthcr work, howcvcr, appcars to
bc nccoco to oclinc thc oimcnsions ol thc cx-
changc rclationship ano to broaocn thc scopc
ol l\· rcscarch.
1hc linal lcaocrship thcory ocscribco was
1ranslormational/Charismatic lcaocrship. 1o
somc cxtcnt, this approach rcprcscnts a rcturn
to thc trait approach that oominatco lcaocr-
ship rcscarch in thc carly twcnticth ccntury.
1ranslormational/Charismatic lcaocrs not only
lcao othcrs but inspirc thcm. 1hcsc inoiviou-
als also arc capablc ol lacilitating mcaninglul
changc in organizations. lcscarch in this arca
has bccn largcly ocscriptivc. luturc rcscarch
nccos to octcrminc whcthcr this lorm ol lcao-
crship cmcrgcs largcly lrom traits, bchaviors,
or somc combination ol thc two.
Lcudcrsh¦p und !nf¦ucncc Froccsscs
lowcr ano inllucncc arc at thc corc ol
lcaocrship; thcrclorc, both topics wcrc cov-
crco in conjunction with lcaocrship thcorics.
lcscarch has shown that lcaocrs typically
havc multiplc bascs lrom which to cxcrt
powcr, ano, in somc cascs, thcsc bascs may
bc situationally spccilic. lnllucncc tactics rcp-
rcscnt thc various ways in which lcaocrs cxcrt
thcir powcr in organizations. lcscarch has
shown that thc most cllcctivc tactics arc thosc
that givc suboroinatcs somc lrccoom ol
choicc, ano thc lcast cllcctivc tactics arc thosc
that involvc prcssurc ano appcals to onc`s lor-
mal authority.
Organizational politics rcprcscnts a ois-
tinct lorm ol inllucncc that, in many cascs, can
bc ocstructivc. lolitical bchavior may occur in
any organization, but it is typically morc prcva-
lcnt in organizations that havc a grcat ocal ol
unccrtainty ano scarcc rcsourccs. Spccilic po-
litical tactics may takc a varicty ol lorms-
somc morc ncgativc than othcrs. Although
rclativcly littlc rcscarch on organizational
politics cxists, thcrc is somc cviocncc that thc
impact ol political bchavior is ncgativc. Al-
though political bchavior can ncvcr bc climi-
natco complctcly, organizations can rcoucc it
by improving communication ano, in somc
cascs, incrcasing rcsourccs. Ultimatcly, thc
most cllcctivc way lor managcrs to rcoucc po-
litical bchavior is to sct a positivc cxamplc in
thcir ocalings with suboroinatcs ano othcrs in
thc organization.
5USSE5TEß AßßITI0NAL
kEAßINS5
Gracn, G. l., e Uhl-licn, \. (1995). lcvcl-
opmcnt ol lcaocr-mcmbcr cxchangc (l\·)
thcory ovcr 25 ycars: Applying a multi-lcvcl
multi-oomain pcrspcctivc. í.++.c·||¡ ¸a+c-
t.c|,, o, 219-2+6.
lochwartcr, \. A., \itt, l. A., e Kacmar,
K. \. (2000). lcrccptions ol organizational
politics as a moocrator ol thc rclationship bc-
twccn conscicntiousncss ano job pcrlormancc.
jaco+| ¡ ¬¡¡||.+ í·,.||¸,, S5, +72-+78.
Karakowski, l., e Sicgcl, }. l. (1999). 1hc
cllccts ol proportional rcprcscntation ano
gcnocr oricntation ol thc task on cmcrgcnt
lcaocrship bchavior in mixco-gcnocr work
groups. jaco+| ¡ ¬¡¡||.+ í·,.||¸,, S-,
620-631.
Klcin, l. }., e Kim, }. S. (1998). A liclo stuoy
ol thc inllucncc ol situational constraints,
lcaocr-mcmbcr cxchangc, ano goal commit-
mcnt on pcrlormancc. ¬.++.o, ¡ \+o+¸.-
o.ot jaco+|, -1, 88-95.
\aloman, l. A., e ¥ammarino, l. }. (1999).
ClO charismatic lcaocrship: lcvcls-ol-man-
agcmcnt ano lcvcls-ol-analysis cllccts. ¬.++-
.o, ¡ \+o+¸.o.ot í..|.., 2-, 266-285.