4What are the factors that determine fit between style & situation? Relationship-orientedTask-orientedTask-oriented
5Since the quality of leader-member relationships is essential to a well-functioning organization, if you had a leader who needed to improve such relations, what would you recommend?
6STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE SITUATION FIEDLER'S LEADERSHIP CONTINGENCY MODEL:STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE SITUATIONTo Improve Leader-Member Relations:Clearly understand group problems and try to alleviate them.Become more available to workers (e.g. consultation, feedback).Provide accurate information on the organization so their confidence and trust is earned.Hold feedback (and gripe) sessions.Hold regular meetings to keep people more informed and involved.Promote brown bag lunches, socials, leisure activities.Provide celebrations for task completion.Accept assignments to work with more difficult individuals ("problem people," motivation, etc.)Organize off-work activities such as picnics, softball, excursions.Request particular individuals to work on projects.Suggest or effect transfers in/out of unit.Raise morale by obtaining positive outcomes for subordinates (e.g. special bonuses, time off, attractive jokes, etc.)
7In other cases, the task is unclear or too rigid and constraints mature workers. What recommendations could you make to increase or decrease structure?
8Changes to Task Structure To Increase Task Structure:Request more structured tasks or more detailed instructions.Request more tasks; learn all you can through training and experience about the task so you can develop more detailed plans.Break a task into smaller subtasks.Volunteer for structured tasks; avoid unstructured ones.Develop procedures, guidelines, SOP, diagrams, outlines, descriptions of previous jobs.Keep records, systematic observations, note patterns, cycles.To Reduce Task Structure:Request new, unusual problems with permission to figure out how to do solve them.Involve the group in problem solving and decision making on the task or problems.Leave the task in vague form.Increase the time horizon (which usually increases ambiguity or complexity).Volunteer for unstructured tasks and avoid structured ones.Involve people with different viewpoints.Work on tasks that have path multiplicity (multiple ways of approaching or solving them).
9Finally, if a new leader had little influence due to low position power, what would you recommend to improve such power:
10Structural changes to position power To Decrease Position Power:Be one of the gang, socialize, joke, self disclosure, play down trappings and rank.Share decision making by involving others in planning.Give others access to your boss.Let information from the organization quickly reach all group members.Delegate and distribute power.Promote team and individual development and expertise.To Increase Position Power:Demonstrate authority by exercising full authorized powers.Quickly become an expert.Evaluate subordinates' performance.No not depend on others to assert yourself in informing, planning, and organizing.Arrange for information to be channeled through you.Use the cultural trappings of power (desk, secretary, wardrobe, etc.)
11Evaluation of Fiedler’s Contingency Model WeaknessesDifficult to understand and use LPC testQuestionable whether LPC measures T/R, motivation, or cognitive complexityLPC measure is unstable, with low validity & reliability coefficientsOther important contingencies are left outFiedler believed you had to change the situation and not style because style was not changeable– he has moderated– all factors can changeNone of correlations between LPC and group performance were statistically significant, although 34 of 45 groups tested (76%) were in the predicted directionWide variations in the specification of situational favorablenessFiedler proposed that L-MR, TS, & PP should be on 4:2:1 ratio, but no experimental evidence to support this
12StrengthsConsiders interaction of different styles and different contingenciesEmphasizes change or “engineering” the situation and suggests specificsRecognizes changing/dynamic nature of situationsRecognizes leader success is a function of style-situation matchUnique idea on combination of factors producing favorabilityConclusionOK for simple situations (clear extreme & middle)Important starting point for learning about and experimenting with contingencies, but should consider other variables presentDon’t use LPC scaleEmphasize leader change as much as situational change
13Robert House & Martin Evans Path-Goal Theory ofRobert House & Martin EvansKey question: How to choose the best path to reach the goal (based on expectancy theory of motivation)Follower characteristics: locus of control & self efficacyEnvironmental characteristics: situational demands such as task structure, level of authority, & work groupVary leadership style depending on contingenciesEnsure subordinate goals are consistent with organizational goalsEnhance work satisfaction & productivityHow would you create a model out of these building blocks?
14Path-Goal TheoryIn the early 1970’s House & Evans proposed path-goal theorySpecifies what a leader should do to achieve high productivity & satisfactionThis is done by clarifying the path to the work/performance goalThe leadership style should consider needs of the worker and task demands, and match efforts accordinglyIt identifies four worker needs and corresponding leader styles
19Study showing variance accounted for (R2) by self-efficacy in remote workers in virtual organizationsStaples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1998). A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(4),
21Team TaskIdentify a leadership situation that was working well or poorly. Use Path-Goal Theory to:Describe it using terms of that theoryExplain why the leadership did or did not work wellMake recommendations for changes in the leader and/or situation according to the theory