Download document

© 2010 Cengage Learning
Understanding and Applying
Leadership Skills
1
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Thinking about Leadership
Exercise 12.1
2
© 2010 Cengage Learning
How are leaders, managers,
administrators, and supervisors different?
3
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Leadership Characteristics
Leader Emergence
• Traits
–
–
–
–
–
–
Intelligence
Openness to experience
Extraversion
Conscientiousness
Emotional stability
High self-monitoring
• Leadership emergence seems to
be stable across the life-span
4
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Leadership Characteristics
Leader Emergence
• Motivation to Lead
– Affective identity motivation
– Noncalculative motivation
– Social normative motivation
5
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Leadership Characteristics
Leader Performance
• Traits
• Needs
• Task- versus personorientation
• Unsuccessful leaders
6
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Traits
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intelligence
Charisma
Dominance
Energy
Extraversion
Openness to experience
Agreeableness
Emotional stability
Self-monitoring
7
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Individual Differences and Leader Emergence
and Performance
Corrected Correlations
Trait
Emergence
Performance Meta-analysis
Personality
Neuroticism
- .24
-.22
Judge et al. (2002)
Extraversion
.33
.24
Judge et al. (2002)
Openness
.24
.24
Judge et al. (2002)
Agreeableness
.05
.21
Judge et al. (2002)
Conscientiousness
.33
.16
Judge et al. (2002)
Self-monitoring
.21
Intelligence
Need for Ach
.25
Day et al. (2002)
.27
Judge et al. (2004)
.23
Argus & Zajack (2008)
8
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Your Self-Monitoring Score
Exercise 12.2 (Section A)
9
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Needs
• Types of Needs
– Power
– Achievement
– Affiliation
• Leadership Motive Pattern
– High need for power
– Low need for affiliation
10
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Your Leadership Needs
Exercise 12.2 (Section D)
11
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Task Versus Person Orientation
• Person-Oriented Leaders
– act in a warm, supportive manner and show concern
for the employees
– believe employees are intrinsically motivated
• Task-Oriented Leaders
– set goals and give orders
– believe employees are lazy and extrinsically
motivated
12
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Relationship Among Theories
Person
Orientation
High
Country club (MG)
Consideration (OS)
Theory Y
Team (MG)
Middle-of-the-Road
(MG)
Low
Task-centered (MG)
Initiating structure (OS)
Theory X
Impoverished (MG)
Low
High
Task Orientation
13
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Consequences of Leader
Orientation
High Person Low performance High performance
Orientation Low turnover
Low turnover
Few grievances
Few grievances
Low Person
Orientation
Low performance High performance
High turnover
High turnover
Many grievances Many grievances
Low Task
Orientation
High Task
Orientation
14
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Your Task and Person Orientation
Exercise 12.2 (Section C)
15
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Unsuccessful Leaders
(Hogan, 1989)
• Lack of training
• Cognitive deficiencies
• Personality problems
– paranoid/passive-aggressive
– high likeability floater
– narcissist
16
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Unsuccessful Leader Behavior
Shen et al. (2008)
• Engaging in illegal and unethical behavior
• Avoiding conflict and people problems
• Demonstrating poor emotional control (e.g., yelling and
screaming)
• Over-controlling (e.g., micromanaging)
• Demonstrating poor task performance
• Poor planning, organization, and communication
• Starting or passing on rumors or sharing confidential
information
• Procrastinating and not meeting time commitments
• Failing to accommodate the personal needs of subordinates
• Failing to nurture and manage talent
17
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Interaction Between the Leader
and the Situation
•
•
•
•
Situational Favorability
Organizational Climate
Subordinate Ability
Relationships with
Subordinates
18
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Situational Favorability
Fiedler’s Contingency Model
• Least-Preferred Coworker Scale
• Situation Favorability
– high task structure
– high position power
– good leader-member relations
• High LPC leaders best with moderate
favorability and Low LPC leaders best with low
or high favorability
19
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Relationship Between LPC Scores and
Group Success
High LPC
Score
Low
Performance
High
Performance
Low Performance
Low LPC
Score
High
Performance
Low
Performance
High
Performance
Low
Moderate
High
Situation Favorability
20
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Your LPC Score
Exercise 12.2 (Section B)
21
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Organizational Climate
IMPACT Theory
• Leadership Style
–
–
–
–
–
–
Information
Magnetic
Position
Affiliation
Coercive
Tactical
• Ideal Climate
–
–
–
–
–
–
Ignorance
Despair
Instability
Anxiety
Crisis
Disorganization
22
© 2010 Cengage Learning
IMPACT Leadership Strategies
• Find a climate consistent with your
leadership style
• Change your leadership style to better fit the
existing climate
• Change your followers’ perception of the
climate
• Change the actual climate
23
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Your IMPACT Style
Exercise 12.2 (Section E)
24
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Exercise 12.2: Your Leadership Profile
(pages 142-143 of the workbook)
25
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Subordinate Ability
Path-Goal Theory
• Instrumental style
– plans, organizes, controls
• Supportive style
– shows concern for employees
• Participative style
– shares information and lets
employees participate
• Achievement-oriented style
– sets challenging goals and rewards
increases in performance
26
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Subordinate Ability
Situational Leadership Theory
Employee is Unable Employee is Able
Employee is
Unwilling
Employee is
Willing
Directing (R1)
Supporting (R3)
Coaching (R2)
Delegating (R4)
27
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Relationships with Subordinates
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
• Concentrates on the interactions between
leaders and subordinates
• Subordinates fall into either the:
– in-group
– out-group
• In-group employees
– More satisfied
– Higher performance
– Less likely to leave
28
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Leadership Through Decision
Making
• Vroom-Yetton Model
29
© 2010 Cengage Learning
30
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Leadership Through Contact
• Management by
walking around
31
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Leadership Through Power
•
•
•
•
•
Expert Power
Legitimate Power
Reward Power
Coercive Power
Referent Power
32
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Leadership Through Vision
Transformational Leadership
•
•
•
•
•
Visionary
Charismatic
Inspirational
Challenge the status-quo
Carefully analyze
problems
• Confident and optimistic
33
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Applied Case Study: Developing leaders at
Claim Jumper Restaurants
34
© 2010 Cengage Learning
Focus on Ethics
Ethical Leadership
35
© 2010 Cengage Learning
What Do You Think?
• In the first situation, do you think it is unethical for the
professor to bend the rules under those circumstances?
– If you were one of the students failed because of high absenteeism
and you found out that the professor didn’t fail another student for
his high absenteeism, would you think you were being treated
unfairly?
– What would you do?
• Do you think what the leaders did in the other examples
was ethical? Why or why not?
• In the example with the brother, is it okay to lie in this
situation?
– Do you consider lying as unethical?
– Are there ever times when lying is better than telling the truth?
• What are some situations in which bending the rules might
be more ethical than following policy?
36