626 Chapter 18 eadership

Engaging with others was one of three dimensions of leadership identified in this study.
The second was visionary leadership, which involves having clear goals, being sensitive to
stakeholder interests, and inspiring them with determination. The third, leadership capabilities,
involves understanding strategy, ensuring goal clarity, setting success criteria, commitment to
high standards, and designing supportive systems and procedures. Of these three dimensions,
engagement had the greatest impact on attitudes and performance, while leadership vision
and capabilities had only limited impact. This study concludes that the development of
leadership competencies should focus on encouraging a culture of engagement, at all levels
of the organization.

Why do some leaders act like jerks?

3. You are very competitive, and feel threatened by smart
subordinates
4. You work longer hours than anyone else and want to
make sure that they know this
5. You don’t get enough sleep
6. You have a high workload, too many things to think
about, and never have enough time
7. You can’t resist checking your smartphone even when
you know you should exercise self-control.

The key to your self-awareness as a leader, Sutton

argues, lies with how other people see you. He gives
this example:

‘The clueless (though well-meaning) CEO of one com-

Source: © Joseph Mirachi, reproduced with permission
Robert Sutton (2017a and b) argues that bullying and
rudeness are widespread in our organizations. Bullying
bosses – ‘jerks’ – are a problem, creating anxiety and
distress with their intimidating behaviour. Jerks are
expensive. Their rudeness and insults undermine the
performance and productivity of others, weaken their
decision-making capabilities, and reduce their willingness
to put in extra effort and cooperate with others.
Sutton argues that the risks of turning into a jerk
increase with seniority. In other words, this kind of behav-
iour is driven by the organizational context, and not just
by individual personalities. He identifies seven factors that
encourage leaders to act like jerks:
1. There are many other jerks around you
2. You wield power over others, but you once had little
power yourself
pany I know was horrified when two female executive
vice presidents pulled him aside and admonished him
after a meeting. The women, who kept careful tallies,
informed the CEO that he had interrupted each of
them at least six times, but never interrupted the four
male executive vice presidents. Stunned and embar-
rassed, the CEO begged for forgiveness and asked
them to keep tracking his interruptions, vowing to
halt his sexist ways. He didn’t want to feel that self-
loathing again’ (Sutton, 2017b, p.106).
Sutton offers the following advice to avoid becoming a
jerk. Don’t catch the disease from others, use your power
and influence with care, give credit to those who are less
powerful, understand the risks of work overload and
multitasking, and apologize when you get it wrong and
offend someone. Finally, do some time travelling and ask
how you want to feel about yourself when you look back
from the future: ‘When they are on their deathbed, no
one ever says, I wish I had been meaner’.
 Context-fitting 627

Context-fitting
The Michigan and Ohio perspectives offer leaders ‘one best way’ to handle followers, by
adopting the ‘high consideration, high structure’ ideal. This advice is supported by the
fact that most people like their leaders to be considerate, even when they are performance
orientated as well. The problem, however, is that one leadership style may not be effective
in all settings. Several commentators have developed frameworks showing how leadership
effectiveness depends on context.

Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt

Departing from ‘one best way’, Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt (1958) considered
the autocratic-democratic choice of style as a continuum, from boss-oriented leadership at
one extreme to follower-oriented leadership at the other. This is illustrated in Figure 18.2.
Tannenbaum and Schmidt gave their article a subtitle: ‘Should a manager be democratic
or autocratic – or something in between?’. The answer, they suggest, depends on three sets
of forces:

Forces in the leader Personality, values, preferences, beliefs about employee

Forces in the followers
Forces in the situation
participation, confidence in subordinates
Need for independence, tolerance of ambiguity, knowledge of
the problem, expectations of involvement
Organizational norms, size and location of work groups,
effectiveness of teamworking, nature of the problem

Contingency theory Having concentrated on ‘forces in the leader’, and challenged the notion of ‘one best way’
of leadership a to lead, research now turned to consider the properties of the context in which the leader
perspective which argues was operating. These properties included the people being led, the nature of the work they
that leaders must adjust were doing, and the wider organizational setting. This perspective implies that leaders must
their style to take into be able to ‘diagnose’ the context, and then decide what behaviour will ‘fit’ best. As the best
account the properties of style is contingent (i.e. depends) on the situation, this approach is known as the contingency
the context. theory of leadership.

eadership theory seems to be consistent in arguing that a considerate, employee-

CRITICAL
centred, participative and democratic style is more effective.
THINKING
In what context would an inconsiderate, goal-centred, impersonal and autocratic
leadership style be effective? (See OB cinema, this chapter, for possible answers.)

Leader-oriented leader makes decisions and tells followers

leader makes decisions that are open to review

Follower-oriented leader allows followers to make decisions

on their own

Figure 18.2: The Tannenbaum-Schmidt model of leadership behaviour

Source: Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958)
628 Chapter 18 eadership

Structured task a task Fred Fiedler

with clear goals, few
correct or satisfactory Fred Fiedler developed one of the first contingency theories of leadership (1967; Fiedler and
solutions and outcomes, Chemers, 1974, 1984). From studies of basketball teams and bomber crews, he found that
few ways of performing leadership effectiveness is influenced by three sets of factors:
it, and clear criteria of 1. The extent to which the task in hand is structured
success.
2. The leader’s position power, or formal authority
Unstructured task 3. The nature of the relationships between the leader and followers.
a task with ambiguous
goals, many good This argument distinguishes between a structured task and an unstructured task.
solutions, many ways
of achieving acceptable
outcomes, and vague
criteria of success.

Would you describe the task of writing an essay for your organizational behaviour
CRITICAL
instructor as a structured or as an unstructured task? Would you prefer this task to be
THINKING
more or less structured, and how would you advise your instructor to achieve this?

Fiedler identified three typical sets of conditions in which a leader might have to work:

Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3

Highly structured task Unstructured task Unstructured task

High position power Low position power Low position power

Good relationships Moderately good relationships Poor relationships

In Condition 1, task-orientated leaders get better results, because they set targets and
monitor progress. Relationships-orientated leaders get poor results because they want to
maintain their relationships.
In Condition 2, relationships-orientated leaders get better results, as relationships are key
to exerting influence. In this case, the task-orientated leader who lacks position power gets
poor results.
In Condition 3, which is highly unfavourable, task-orientated leaders once again get
better results, by structuring the situation, reducing uncertainty, and ignoring resistance. The
relationships-orientated leader is reluctant to pressure subordinates, avoids confrontations,
and pays less attention to the task.
Fiedler’s theory confirms the importance of context in determining leader effectiveness,
and supports the argument that there is no one best set of leadership traits or behaviours. But
can leaders change style to fit the context? Fiedler felt that most managers and supervisors
have problems in changing their styles. To be effective, he argued, leaders have to change
their context (move to another organization), to find conditions in which their preferred style
would be effective.

Leaders under pressure: Cynthia Carroll

As CEO of Anglo American, Cynthia Carroll led an effort to revamp safety standards and
change the culture at the male-dominated multinational mining company. Andrew Hill
asks her how she dealt with the backlash in this challenging context (8.12 minutes)
 Context-fitting 629

Situational Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard

leadership an
approach to determining Another influential contingency theory was developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard
the most effective (1988). Like Fiedler, they argue that the effective leader ‘must be a good diagnostician’.
style of influencing, Unlike Fiedler, however, they believe that leaders can adapt their style to meet the demands
considering the direction of the situation in which they operate. Hersey and Blanchard call their approach situational
and support a leader leadership.
gives, and the readiness Their theory describes leadership behaviour on two dimensions. The first concerns ‘task
of followers to perform a behaviour’, or the amount of direction a leader gives to subordinates. This can vary from
particular task. specific instructions, at one extreme, to delegation, at the other. Hersey and Blanchard identify
two intermediate positions, where leaders either facilitate subordinates’ decisions, or take care to
explain their own. The second dimension concerns ‘supportive behaviour’, or the social backup
a leader gives to subordinates. This can vary from limited communication, to considerable
listening, facilitating and supporting. The model thus described four basic leadership styles:

S1 Telling: High amounts of task behaviour, telling subordinates what to do, when to
do it and how to do it, but with little relationship behaviour.
S2 Selling: High amounts of both task behaviour and relationship behaviour.
S3 Participating: Lots of relationship behaviour and support, but little task behaviour.
S4 Delegating: Not much task behaviour or relationship behaviour.

Hersey and Blanchard argue that the willingness of followers to perform a task is also a key
factor. At one extreme, we have insecure subordinates, reluctant to act. At the other, we have
confident and able followers. Take into account subordinate readiness and you have
a basis for selecting an effective leadership style. The view that insecure subordinates
need telling, while willing groups can be left to do the job, is consistent with other
theories. The strengths of this perspective thus lie with its emphasis on contextual
factors, and on the need for flexibility in leadership behaviour.

Daniel Goleman
Daniel Goleman (2000) reported research by the management consulting firm
Hay McBer involving 4,000 executives from around the world. This identified six
leadership styles which affect ‘working atmosphere’ and financial performance.
The findings suggest that effective leaders use all of these styles, like an ‘array of
clubs in a golf pro’s bag’. Each style relies on an aspect of emotional intelligence
(see Chapter 6) which concerns skill in managing your emotions, and the emotions
of others. Goleman’s six styles are summarized in Table 18.1.

Table 18.1: Goleman’s six leadership styles

Style In practice In a phrase Competencies When to use

Coercive Demands compliance ‘Do what I tell you’ Drive to achieve, self-control In a crisis, with problem people

Authoritative Mobilizes people ‘Come with me’ Self-confidence, change When new vision and direction
catalyst is needed

Affiliative Creates harmony ‘People come first’ Empathy, communication To heal wounds, to motivate
people under stress

Democratic Forges consensus ‘What do you think?’ Collaboration, teambuilding To build consensus, to get
contributions

Pacesetting Sets high standards ‘Do as I do, now’ Initiative, drive to achieve To get fast results from a
motivated team

Coaching Develops people ‘Try this’ Empathy, self-awareness To improve performance, to

develop strengths
630 Chapter 18 eadership

While coercion and pacesetting have their uses, the research showed that these styles can
damage ‘working atmosphere’, reducing flexibility and employee commitment. The other four
styles have a consistently positive impact on climate and performance. The most effective
leaders, Goleman concludes, are those who have mastered four or more styles, particularly the
positive styles, and who are able to switch styles to fit the situation. This is not a ‘mechanical’
matching of behaviour to context, as other contingency theories imply, but a flexible, sensitive
and seamless adjustment.

Assessing contingency theories

Contingency theories argue that the most effective leadership style depends on the context.
Organization structures, management skills, employee characteristics, and the nature of their
tasks, are unique. No one style of leadership is universally best. There is, however, a large body
of research which suggests that a considerate, participative or democratic style of leadership is
generally more effective than a directive, autocratic style. There are two main reasons for this.
First, participative management is part of a long-term social and political trend in Western
economies, which has raised expectations about personal freedom and quality of working
life. These social and political values encourage resistance to manipulation by impersonal
bureaucracies, and challenge the legitimacy of management decisions. Participation thus
reflects democratic social and political values. Many commentators would note, however,
that individual freedom, quality of working life, and genuine participation are still lacking in
many organizations in different parts of the world.
Second, participative management has been encouraged by studies which have shown that
this style is generally more effective, although an autocratic style can be effective in some
contexts. A participative style can improve organizational effectiveness by tapping the ideas of
those who have ‘front line’ knowledge and experience, and by involving them in a decision-
making process to which they then become committed. This approach is encouraged by
growing numbers of knowledge workers who expect to be involved in decisions affecting their
work, and whose knowledge makes them potentially valuable contributors in this respect.

Leadership in unusual situations: Dr Haze, Circus of Horrors

‘A lot of circuses these days don’t have ringmasters.
I’m proud to be keeping the tradition alive – it’s a bit
of a dying trade. The job of ringmaster is what the
name says: you’re in charge of that ring. I sing the
songs and do all the compering, all the patter, as it
was in Victorian times and before. And I make sure
all the acts are in the right place at the right time
and perform as well as they can. A lot of the acts are
doing quite dangerous stuff and all sorts of things can
go wrong. You always try and make sure the next act
is ready in the ring doors. What you don’t want is to
announce the next act and they’re not there. All the
way through the show, I’m looking very closely at the
acts as we go and taking mental notes, and the next
day I’ll come with a whole list of stuff. If something’s
gone wrong you say ‘this wasn’t right, we need to do
this to rectify it’ – the same way a football manager
would. Some of the people I perform with have been
in the show for years and years, so you’ve got to
make sure they don’t become complacent. They say a
leopard never changes its spots – you’ve got to make
sure it does change its spots. They say you can’t teach
an old dog new tricks – you’ve got to help them learn
those tricks. You’ve got to keep people evolving, mov-
ing, changing’ (Bain, 2016).
Which of Daniel Goleman’s leadership styles does Dr
Haze use?
What advice does Dr Haze offer that you think will be
useful to you in your future career?