There are different leadership theories developed throughout the history. Most popular ones are trait theories, behavioral theories, contingency theories, and leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. The author of the post will briefly discuss two theories, Fiedler contingency theory and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), and compare and contrast their strengths and weakness.
Fiedler’ model is considered the first highly visible theory to present the contingency approach. It stated that effective groups depend on a proper match between a leader’s style of interacting with subordinates and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader (Fiedler, 1967). Fiedler argued that the leadership style could be indentified by taking a Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) questionnaire he designed. When evaluating a least enjoyed co-worker, a relationship oriented leader scores high in LPC, while a task oriented leader scores low. Fiedler identified three contingency or situational dimensions: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. A leader will have more control if he has better leader-member relations, high structured job, and stronger position power. The task-oriented leaders perform best in situations of high and low control, while relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situations. Feedler views an individual’s leadership style as fixed. To assure leader effectiveness, either situation needs to change to fit the leader or the leader needs to be replaced to fit the situation. But in reality, a leader can not use a homogeneous style to treat all their followers in a similar fashion in their work unit (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p. 382).
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, on t...
... middle of paper ...
... over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective, Leadership Quarterly, 6(2):219-247.
Gils, S. v., Quaquebeke, N. v., & Knippenberg, D. v. (2009). The X-Factor: On the Relevance of Implicit Leadership and Followership Theories for Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Agreement European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM).
MindTools (n.d.) Fiedler's Contingency Model. Retrieved November 16, 2010 from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/fiedler.htm
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (14 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Mao Zedong (n.d.). in Wikipedia. Retrieved November 16, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
Zhou Enlai (n.d.) in Wikipedia. Retrieved November 16, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Enlai
The basic premise behind trait theory was that are leaders born or made. Leaders trait research examined the physical, social as well as mental aspect of a individual. In general these studies simply look for significant associations between individual traits and measure of leadership effectiveness. The initial result was that leader trait was that there were no universal traits that consistently separate effective leaders from other individual but in final result explain that that early research considered the impact of situation variables that might moderate the relationship between leader trait and measure of leader effectiveness. Therefore due to lack of consistent findings l individual traits to leadership effectiveness, studies of leader traits were largely abandoned in 1950. Contingency approach is also an important approach in leader subject, this approach was first to specify how situational factor interact with leader traits and behavioral which influence leadership quality and its effectiveness of a person. According to theory leader should make contact with subordinates goal attainment, strengthen subordinates ' expectancies that improved performance will lead to valued rewards, and provide coaching to make the path to payoffs easier for subordinates. Path-goal theory suggests that the leader behavior that will accomplish these tasks depends upon the subordinate and environmental contingency factors. But this approach has not been successful as it has been criticize on both theatrically and method approach However, it remains one of the better-known theories of leadership and offers important in stories of the interaction between subordinate and
Directive leadership is characterized as leaders taking the decision into their own hands and expecting the followers to just follow the instructions. We all have been in one of those groups where someone wants to become Adolf and control everything, am I right? Last but not least, Participative Leadership, which is my favorite, in which the leader involves the group in a goal setting to give input and share feedback with one another. This next theory completely opened my eyes. The dependencies for effective leadership is defined as situations where a mix of factors the control and influence productivity. The contingency theory used LPC to measure a leader’s motivation, and task motivation vs relationship motivation. People who are relationship motivated have an inclination to describe their least favored associates in a more optimistic, pleasant and efficient, and they also received higher LPC scores. Task motivated people have a tendency to rate their least favored associates in a more negative manner. Thus, they receive lower LPC scores. Therefore, the LPC scale is actually not about the least desired coworker. In fact, it is actually about the person who takes the test, and this person 's motivation type. This got me thinking - what kind of LPC am I? Apparently my leader member relationship is good, my task structure was unstructured, and my leader position power is strong. Also , my LPC was Low. I don’t think of myself as the all-out leader, but I have some great followership in my opinion. I feel that leaders can lead more effectively when there is a match between your motivation type and the situation. These matches exist between a task and relationship motivated leader. When a leader and the situation does not match, many things have to be altered. Since
Effectiveness of organizations depends on various factors. Nonetheless, it is firmly believed, by most practitioners and behavioural scientists, that leadership is a phenomenon which is crucial in achieving this goal (Yukl, 2013). As leadership is contextually bound, it cannot be completely understood from a single perspective. There are other elements that must be considered in order to do so, such as: the leader, the follower, the context and the interactions among them (Rumsey, 2013). The topic is even more fascinating in regards to the fact that most individuals are in some way a leader, a follower, or both. Despite the fact that most of these relationships go without particular notice, others have tremendous influence on the today’s world.
Robbins , Stephen P. and Judge, Timothy, A. Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. Pearson Custom Publishing. 2008 Print
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational Behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States of America: Pearson Prentise Hall.
Robbins, S.P. & Judge, T.A. (2009). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
The Leader-Member Exchange Theory, or LMX, is a two-way relationship between management/supervisors and their employees/subordinates. The theory assumes that leaders use different management styles, leadership styles, and behaviors with each individual subordinate or group of subordinates. The exchange between supervisors and subordinates will be inconsistent between each individual member of the group. A supervisor may be very kind and supportive to one employee/group and be very critical and unresponsive to another employee/group. Due to this type of interaction, the LMX theory suggests that leaders classify subordinates into two groups, the in-group members and the out-group members (Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Konopaske, 2012, p. 334).
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A., (2004). Organizational Behavior (6th ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill/Irwin. pp. 406- 441.
Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2009). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (customized 4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
McShane, Steven L.; Von-Glinow, Mary Ann: Organizational Behavior 6th Ed. Copyright 2013. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY.
After the servant leadership theory, there is what is known as leader-member exchange (LMX). The leader-member exchange theory “suggests leaders have limited time and resources and share both their personal and positional resources differently with their employees” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2015, p.153). Additionally, the LMX theory focuses on the leader and the subordinates independently and typically the interaction differs with each person.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (14 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
We can divide the theories that deal with leadership in 3 chronological groups. First were the trait theories. Until the 1940's, research in the field of leadership was dominated by these theories. Second came the behavioral theories which were very influent until the late 1960's. Finally, contingency theories are the most modern theories about leadership.
Contingency theory though developed by some researchers in Ohios University in 1940s but, it was popularized by Fiedler in 1967. The theory according to Fiedler (F1967) saw leadership behavior as a functions of three situational factors: leader–member relations which is the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members have in their leader; task structure which is the degree to which the job assignments are procedurized (that is, structured or unstructured); and position power which is the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases.
Fiedler’s Theory is stated in the power point presentation as the association between leadership orientation and group effectiveness is contingent on how favorable the situation is for exerting influence. If there is some catastrophe which will befall a group or set of individuals if a task is not complete, then that group will be more effective as they are motivated to complete that task to avert that particular catastrophe.