Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Ideas on How to Apply Fielder’s Contingency Model in the Workplace

by

Fiedler’s contingency model states that leaders are consistent in their behaviors, such that situations should be matched with a leader (Hamel, 2021). This is opposite to the situational leadership theory, which says that leaders should match their style to the situation (Hamel, 2021). This however, has a unique application when it comes to the workplace. It indicates that leaders should not hold just one single position, but rather should be moved around the organization to where their style matches a situation. This is hard however, as organizations today have managers in charge of certain departments or individuals and leads them across a wide range of situations. There could be a way to apply this to organizations though.

When managers are first brought on to an organization, they should be asked to take the least-preferred-coworker scale (LPC). This scale will help determine what the manager’s general style is (Hamel, 2021). Those that score high on the scale are motivated by relationships, those that score low are motivated by the task. Managers can be categorized by what situations they best work with. Depending on how large the company is, and what types of tasks are most prevalent, is how many managers should be hired with each style. There are two categories of styles, those are score high or low (Hamel, 2021).

Ways for organizations to determine the more prevalent type of tasks, are to look at the situational favorability of common tasks that take place in the organization. There are three factors that go into situational favorability: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Hamel, 2021). Leader-member relations has to do with the overall group atmosphere and the feelings followers have towards their leader (Hamel, 2021). Task structure has to do with how prescriptive or vague the task instructions are (Hamel, 2021). Position power is the amount of authority the leader has over their followers, and the ability to give out rewards or punishments (Hamel, 2021). Those tasks that are high in all three factors are more favorable than those without (Hamel, 2021). Organizations that have a lot of moderately favorable tasks should have more leaders with high LPC. Those organizations with either very favorable or very unfavorable tasks should have more leaders with low LPC (Hamel, 2021).

An example that this can be applied to is an ice cream business. In this environment, there will most likely be a lot of highly favorable tasks. This is because ice cream shops tend to be easy going and operate in the warmer months, creating a good atmosphere. In addition, the tasks are very straightforward with employees simply having to operate the cash register and scoop ice cream. Managers also have the ability to fire, give raises, and even give out rewards such as free ice cream. There would be very few tasks on a regular business that are moderately favorable. Therefore, the shop should hire a lot of managers that are low in LPC, and maybe only one that is high in LPC. The ice cream shop will therefore have all of the low LPC managers be their day-to-day manager, and their one manager with high LPC used for tasks that are more ambiguous in nature, such as securing advertisements and spots at carnivals.

Overall, since contingency model holds the assumption that leader’s behaviors are static, the company should hire managers whose style matches the tasks they will most often encounter.

References:

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories

The Stages of a Follower’s Development: Target

by

I had worked at Target all throughout high school and during college. While working at this part-time job, I have gone back and forth through all of the development stages multiple times throughout my time there. The development stages are a part of the situational approach to leadership, which states that leaders should match their leadership style to the situation and their followers (Northouse, 2019).

When I first started, I remember not knowing how to do anything, and was very timid due to this. I asked a lot of questions, and was very unsure of myself. I would have been classified as D1, being low in competence but high in commitment (Northouse, 2019). My supervisors and peers all treated me with the directing style (high directive, low supportive) as they explained to me what to do and how to use the different software (Northouse, 2019). I stayed in this stage for a few months as I was learning how to do everything.

After the first holiday season, I had been at Target for a few months and I was finally comfortable working without asking constant questions to my coworkers. However, my initial excitement for the job had died down and I entered into a stage of showing up to work, doing my job, and then going home. I had entered developmental level 2, some competence but low commitment (Northouse, 2019). My supervisors responded with a coaching leadership style (high directive, high supportive), as they still had to tell me what to do for each shift, but they would talk to me a little more and were starting to learn things about my life outside of Target (Northouse, 2019). I remember staying in this phase for at least a year.

At some point in my time at Target I had started becoming a little more ambitious, and was taking it upon myself to start cross-training in different apartments. I would ask questions on how to get items from the back, and how to backstock. I did this so I wasn’t always having to rely on the backroom workers. I was starting to be able to work more independently, and this freedom was increasing my enjoyment. I had entered developmental level 3 with moderate competence and variable commitment (Northouse, 2019). My supervisors responded by changing their leadership style more into a supporting role (high supportive, low directive), they no longer had to go over what I needed to do at each shift because I was able to figure it out myself (Northouse, 2019). When we did interact, it was more for casual conversation, than it was about work, and we would joke around.

I stayed in developmental level 3 for a while, but then I had switched departments to early mornings. With this I had a completely new set of responsibilities and so for a while I went back to developmental level 1 with a directing leadership style. However, due to my previous knowledge, once I learned all my new responsibilities I immediately switched to developmental level 3 with a supporting leadership style.

Eventually, I remember this one summer in particular, I had reached developmental level 4, with high competence and high commitment (Northouse, 2019). My supervisor would use a delegating style towards me (low supportive, low directive), I would go in everyday and do my job, and even acted as a trainer to the new employees and then leave (Northouse, 2019). I knew pretty much all there was to know about target, and my supervisors responded by giving me my own responsibilities and letting me do my job the way I saw fit.

Overall, my time with Target had not been stagnant. I went through all of the developmental levels and receives all of the different leadership styles. I had even gone back down to a lower developmental level at one point. This shows that the developmental levels are on a continuum that is fluid and leaders should be aware of this.

References:

Northouse, P .G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

The Human Side to Leadership

by

When looking at Robert Katz’s Three-Skill Approach to leadership, he states that the three skills necessary are technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills (Northouse, 2019). Technical skills have to deal with an individual’s knowledge with specific activities (Northouse, 2019). Human skills are about your ability to work with people, and conceptual skills are your ability to work with ideas (Northouse, 2019). The approach states that technical and conceptual skills are needed at varying levels depending on your level in the organization, but human skills are needed at high levels all the time (Northouse, 2019). If human skills are so important to leadership it is important to really understand what human skills even are.

Human skills are also referred to as people skills. Most of us probably already have an idea of what this is. Our ability to interact with other people and be effective in group settings. Yet we spend so little time developing them. We go to a vast array of schools to improve upon our technical skills, we even take upper-level courses and have internships and co-ops to help develop our conceptual skills. It would make sense to also have ways to develop our human skills but we do not, especially since they are needed in every level of an organization.

Human skills, as defined by Katz are, “being aware of one’s own perspective on issues and, at the same time, being aware of the perspective of others,” (Northouse, 2019). How does one develop this capacity to understand and react to others’ emotions? The answer could simply be to start engaging in the behaviors that people with high human skills do. Then, it eventually turns into a habit and automated response that you intuitively do without thinking about it. Simply put, you practice in your everyday life and your interactions with friends and family.

You can practice human skills by doing a variety of things. For instance, by focusing on your body language and ensuring that it is open and you smile, is a good place to start (Sharrieff, 2017). In addition, asking open ended questions, and actively listening as people talk, rephasing people’s emotions so they know they are understood, and being empathetic are all things that go into human skills (Sharrieff, 2017).

Overall, human skills are highly important to any leader no matter the context. Therefore, since we are not given a lot of formal training on how to improve our human skills we need to take it upon ourselves to improve them by practicing the behaviors associated with good human skills in our daily lives.

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2019).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Sharrieff, M. (2017, November 21). How do I Improve People Skills at Work? Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/improve-people-skills-work-3191.html

 

We’re All Followers

by

A lot of people want to be a leader. Whether this is in an organizational setting, a sports team, or even a group project. People always talk about how to be the next millionaire, and what their personal philosophies are on how to be an effective leader. With all of this discussion about leadership however, it is forgotten that the majority of us are followers. In addition, even if we are leaders in some aspects of our lives, we are followers in others.

What I found most surprising when reading about followership is how many typologies I fit into depending on the setting. When looking at the Kellerman Typology, follower types fall on a spectrum of their level of engagement (Northouse, 2019). These types, from least engaged to most are: isolates, bystander, participants, activists, and diehards (Northouse, 2019).

I am a part of the Student Programming Association (SPA) Concerts Committee at Penn State. In this club, I can easily be classified as a bystander (Northouse, 2019). I show up to club meetings and I help operate the concerts, but nothing else. I do not really participate and speak my opinion when we discuss which artists to bring, I am only an active listener to the discourse.

This bystander followership is contrasted however when you compare it to my participation in my sorority. I was on the executive board of my sorority and an active member for all of my time. I would be classified as an activist (Northouse, 2019). Depending on the environment I am in, I may change which follower typology I fit into.

This idea that people are different types of followers in different settings can even transfer to organizational settings as well. When looking at the organization chart below you can see two managers. These managers are leaders as they are each in charge of two individuals. However, at the same time they are followers under the CEO. This shows that even within an organization, you are more likely to be a follower than a leader, and you may even be both in different settings.

Going forward, it is necessary to continue to do research and create theories on followership. This is because, more often than not, we will be put in positions of followership than we are leadership. If we are to be good followers, we must understand as much as we can about it.

References:

Benegal, S. (n.d.). Followership. Lecture. Retrieved February 3, 2021, from https://www.slideshare.net/sachidananda_bs/followership-45552463

Nishadha. (2021, January 8). Types of Organizational Charts (Organizational Structure Types) for Different Scenarios. Retrieved from https://creately.com/blog/diagrams/types-of-organizational-charts/

Northouse, P.G. (2019).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

“Great Man” Theories

by

There have been numerous leadership theories over the years. As such, the ones that are dominant during a certain time period also show a glimpse on how the general public viewed leadership at the time and what they wanted out of their leaders.

“Great Man” Theories have been “focused on identifying innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders,” (Northouse, 2019). Great Man theories assume that people are born leaders, and therefore born with specific traits that make them great leaders (Northouse, 2019). These theories were worked on mainly during the 19th century, with much of the work being done by Thomas Carlyle (Juneja). Like other trait theories, this theory states that traits are stable over time (Juneja). However, the criticisms for this theory lay in the fact that the traits are those typically associated with masculinity (Juneja).

In addition, it is very hard to disprove the theory. The theory could better be defined as a maxim. A maxim is “an opinion based on a single case study,” (Hamel, 2021). While the great men that were used to develop the theory were not a single case study, the men looked at were from history (Northouse, 2019). For example, Napoleon Bonaparte, Indira Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Joan of Arc (Northouse, 2019). These individuals were not directly observed during the development of the theory, and therefore it would be impossible to disprove whether or not the traits stated were actually exhibited. In addition, it is impossible to disprove whether it was the traits that led to their historic leadership or if it was other confounding variables.

The theory is also hard to apply to an organizational setting. As the theory says that leaders are born with these traits, it suggests organizations should hire only those that display the great man traits. The implication though, that only some of us are born with these traits, it that not everyone can be a leader. This causes serious implications when we try to apply the theory to an organizational setting, which needs numerous leaders throughout the hierarchy.

One example is the military. The theory would suggest to find a way to assess whether or not a person has the great man traits, if they do, they would be officers, if not they would be enlisted personnel. However, General Krulak in 1999 brought out the idea of The Strategic Corporal (Krulak, 1999). This concept states that a corporal makes decisions that lead to real strategic consequences (Krulak). Corporals are enlisted personnel at the rank of E-5 and have only been in the military for about 2-3 years. Corporals are leaders in their own regard as they make strategic decisions and are in charge of a small team (Krulak). That leads to the problem of how to apply the Great Man Theory. If only some individuals are born with the traits, yet everyone in the military can be considered a leader due to their decisions having strategic importance, it would be hard to apply the Great Man Theory in the situation of military personnel recruiting.

One thing that can be understand from the Great Man Theories is that at the time of the theory leaders were viewed as deity like figures, as the name “Great Man” would indicate. This is further indicated by the assumption that a person had to be born with the traits, and they could not be developed over time. A lot of the traits are very masculine too. Which makes since that at the time period women could not be in positions of power.

If trait theories were to make a resurfacing again in 10-20 years, an interesting analysis would be comparing the Great Man Theories to the new version. One reason for this, is that very slowly woman are slowly entering into positions of power. As it is seen from Pew Research Center’s graphic demonstrating the slow climb to recently reaching congress being 20% women (Pew Research Center, 2020).

Overall, the Great Man Theories can be seen as important historical step in the study of leadership theories. The theory led to different versions of trait theories that we see today. While the theory may not be actively used today, it can also show us a glimpse of what leadership was viewed as during the development of the theory.

References:

Florida Tech. (n.d.). Great Man Theory. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.floridatechonline.com/blog/psychology/top-8-leadership-theories/

Juneja, P. (n.d.). Great Man Theory of Leadership. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.managementstudyguide.com/great-man-theory.htm

Krulak, G. C. (1999, January). The Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the Three Block War: Operation Absolute Agility. Marine Corps Gazette.

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 8th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pew Research Center. (2020, August 07). Women in Leadership Positions. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/chapter-1-women-in-leadership/

 

Skip to toolbar