Ch.7 exam II MGMT 641

  1. Fiedler’s Contingency Theory
    • •If the members like the leader, trust the
    • leader, have confidence in the leader, and generally have positive feelings
    • about the leader, then leader-member relations
    • are good; otherwise, they are poor.

    • •task-structure:
    • when tasks are clearly defined and the work procedures are clearly understood
    • by the group members, then the task is structured; when the tasks are ambiguous
    • and there are multiple ways the group members might seek to achieve the goals,
    • then task is unstructured.

    • •position power:
    • the leader’s position power is strong if the leader has the authority to hire
    • and fire group members, make pay raises, give bonuses or other financial
    • rewards, and distribute various perks, status symbols, and desirable work
    • assignments; otherwise, it is weak.

    -Doesn't allow leaders to rated on both, lab studies differed in two quadrants & field studies only differed in 1
  2. Relationship leaders, Task leaders
    Relatnshp ldrs dislike disloyalty and untrustworthiness

    Taks leaders dislike incompetence
  3. The
    Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership® Model (Hersey & Blanchard 1969)
    • •S1 (high task, low relationship): the
    • telling
    • style
    • consists of highly directive, low supportive leadership in which leaders give
    • detailed instructions and use close monitoring with relatively little emotional
    • support.

    • •S2 (high task, high relationship): the selling
    • style
    • consists of highly directive, highly supportive leadership in which the leader
    • focuses on setting goals and giving instructions while also giving
    • encouragement.

    • •S3 (high relationship, low task): the participating
    • style
    • has leaders encourage participation from subordinates in determining how the
    • job is done and the leaders focus on listening to subordinates, giving praise
    • and recognition, facilitating problem-solving and obtaining resources.

    • •S4 (low relationship, low task): when
    • using the delegating
    • style
    • leaders set the overall goals but turn day-to-day decision-making over to the
    • employees.

    • •The
    • right leadership style depends on follower readiness: the (1) ability (job skills) and (2)
    • willingness (psychological state) of employees to direct their own work

    • •Vecchio, Bullis, and
    • Brazil (2006) tested the model using 860 participants from 86 squads in the
    • U.S. Military Academy

    • •Fernandez
    • and Vecchio
    • (1997) surveyed 332 university employees and their 32 supervisors: only 16.9%
    • of the cases would be correctly matched according to the four quadrants

    • •Goodman,
    • McGee, and Cashman
    • (1986) surveyed 85 store managers, 56 assistant managers, and 318 sales clerks
    • working for a national retail chain.

    • They found virtually no support for the
    • pattern recommended by Hersey and Blanchard. Instead, they found support for the
    • simpler model advocated by the High-High model.
  4. Path-Goal
    • •Leaders
    • should act to increase their subordinates’ perceptions of payoffs. This is based on expectancy theory.

    • •Leaders engage in
    • path-clarification to let followers know what behaviors
    • will be rewarded, to teach them how to achieve the task, and to remove other
    • obstacles in the way of achievement.
  5. House (1971) and House & Mitchell (1974), takes on path goal
    • •Directive Leadership:
    • an initiating structure style of leadership in which leaders give clear
    • instructions about how to do the job, make rules, and set performance standards.

    • •Supportive Leadership:
    • similar to consideration leadership, leaders use this type of leadership to
    • boost the confidence of their employees and to reduce boredom and increase job
    • satisfaction.

    • •Participative Leadership:
    • leaders draw upon the expertise of their followers by inviting them to share
    • their knowledge and opinions with the leader and to participate in
    • decision-making.

    • •Achievement Leadership:
    • here the leaders set challenging goals for their followers while expressing
    • confidence in their abilities.

    -Overall leaders that use this will be effective to the extent that they help subordinates cope with enviromental uncertainty

    -But Wofford and Liska Busted this up.
  6. Wofford and Liska's meta analysis on House and Mitchell
    • They examined 16 pssble moderators in a meta analysis and only six were significant in House and Mitchell's Hypothesis; when
    • employees had low abilities initaitng structure had greater postiv
    • effect on job satisfaction than when employees had high abilities.

    • .Job
    • scope moderated the relationship between consideration and performance: when
    • employees performed a wide variety of tasks consideration leadership had less
    • effect on performance

    • •Opposite direction: . The
    • effects of consideration on performance were stronger for unstructured task
    • conditions than for structured ones.

    • Task
    • structure moderated the relationship between consideration and satisfaction
    • with the leader:
    • consideration
    • was more important when tasks were structured. This suggests that during highly
    • structured, potentially boring jobs that consideration type leadership boost
    • satisfaction with the leader
  7. Do people who are bored with their work die soon?
    according to a survey of London civil servants, yes
  8. Team Players Need Structure
    • •task interdependence:
    • the degree to which people must interact in a coordinated way to achieve goals

    • •Winning
    • coaches in high interdependence sports were higher on initiating structure than
    • were the winning coaches in low interdependence sports

    • •Winning
    • coaches in low interdependence sports were considerably more likely to use
    • consideration leadership than were the winning coaches in high interdependence
    • sports
  9. The Importance of Relative Task
    • •Study
    • 1: Higher rates of order-giving increased perceptions of leadership ability
    • when the managers performed either relatively more complex work, or relatively
    • less complex work. Order-giving had no effect under equal complexity
    • conditions.

    • •Study
    • 2: Subjects listed more directive traits when leaders performed relatively more
    • complex work than their subordinates, but listed few directive traits in the
    • equal complexity conditions.

    • •When
    • managers performed less complex work, subjects listed participatory as well as
    • directive traits.
  10. Your Turn to Reflect
    • •Does
    • a willingness to give orders show someone has leadership ability?

    • •How
    • should leaders make requests, issue orders, direct others, etc.? Do you have to
    • act tough to give orders, or can you give orders in a more polite way?

    • •Are
    • the people who rise to the top in organizations those who respect authority
    • figures and accept their requests as just and fair?
  11. Jack Welch
    • •Applications:
    • Which do you think best characterizes your opinion of Welch: Neutron Jack, or
    • Manager of the Century? Why?

    • •Many
    • other business leaders assumed that GE’s success was due to Jack’s tough
    • leadership style and they tried to imitate him without much success.

    • However,
    • Jack’s downsizing of GE occurred mostly during the first quarter of his reign
    • as CEO, and he had to abandon his policy of firing the bottom 10%. In contrast,
    • his policies of generous bonuses and stock options continued throughout his
    • career, as did his emphasis on best practices and on making GE a learning
    • organization.
Card Set
Ch.7 exam II MGMT 641
ch.7 exam3