Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Tug-of-War of Leadership

by

Tug-of-war, the classic game of two teams using their strength to pull the other team towards a center line via a rope. Is it truly solely based upon brute force strength, or can there be a strategic advantage to how people are positioned amongst each other, who is selected to be at the front or rear of the team, body orientation, and working as a cohesive unit? Well, if you are like me and have been binge watching Netflix’s latest South Korean drama, “Squid Game” then you have most likely seen the tug-of-war episode and possibly gave consideration to how the application of leadership played such a critical role.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The underdog team of ten decided as a group to use the advice of an elderly man who had a record of winning the game tug-of-war when he was younger, it was based on a specific strategy of utilizing the strengths of each member and placing each of them in positions that would enable them to succeed (Dong-hyuk, 2021). The first rule was to select a good leader to be at the front of the team, so he/she can be closest to the opposition leader and set the tone for the members behind him/her; if the leader appears to be dispirited or weak, the game is already lost. This is the epitome of “leading from the front” or “leading by example” and it shows others how to extend and push for greatness (Newlands, 2016).

Selecting the right kind of leader for tug-of-war or any other situation is what Austrian psychologist, Professor Fred Fiedler, based his contingency model off of in the mid-1960s (Pennsylvania State University World Campus [PSU WC], 2021). Fiedler recognized that leaders have general behavioral tendencies and specifies situations where certain leaders may be more effective than others (PSU WC, 2021). The main character, Seong Gi-Hun was selected to be at the front of the rope and chosen for his positive leader-member relationship with the group, which is the most powerful element of situational favorability (PSU WC, 2021).

The second rule of this strategy was to choose someone dependable for the end of the rope, like the anchor of a ship (Dong-hyuk, 2021). A quiet yet courageous character, Ali, was selected based on his leadership behavior of valiantly saving the life of Gi-Hun in the pilot episode. According to Hill (2010), the future of leadership is not going to be focused on leading from the front, but rather from behind. This may seem contradictory to emphasizing the importance of leading from the front, but I believe it to be complimentary to leading from the rear. Nelson Mandela associated a leader with a shepherd in his autobiography and said, “He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind” (Hill, 2010, para. 1). The impact of this life and death situation relied heavily on the leadership effectiveness at the front of the rope, but equally at the rear. According to Hill (2010), those who are exceptional at leading from behind are likely to be different than those who excelled at leading from the front.

The best benefit to applying this contingency theory to a game of tug-of-war (especially with the substantial risk of life or death as seen in Squid Game) is that it accepts the consistent behaviors of all leaders and searches for the unique situations which will allow them to excel. Not only is leadership selection and execution important in games like tug-of-war, but leaders must also embrace this metaphorical game in the workplace and everyday lives. Welcoming the unique consistent leadership behaviors of team members and utilizing them in appropriate situations (or altering the situation to fit their leadership style) will support an organization’s success in the never-ending game of tug-of-war with talent, market share, and resources.

 

References

Dong-hyuk, H. (Director). (2021). Squid game [Film]. Netflix. https://www.netflix.com/watch/81262752?trackId=14170289&tctx=2%2C0%2Ccd02c30e-227f-4ca3-8421-08130a2b6be1-585006311%2C80969e8b-a4f7-472b-81d2-a526c7233fbf_25552689X3XX1633498124507%2C80969e8b-a4f7-472b-81d2-a526c7233fbf_ROOT%2C

Hill, L. A. (2010, May 5). Leading from behind. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2010/05/leading-from-behind

Newlands, M. (2016, November 28). 9 powerful ways to lead by example. Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/285579

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contigency & Path-Goal Theories – Fiedler’s Contigency Model. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790578

 

 

An Obvious Trend

by

Trends Photo Trends2 Photo

 

Although the different approaches we have studied so far have their own assumptions, predictions and practices, some of them have an obvious trend that is hard to overlook.  Although they all provide different theories, the style, situational, contingency, and path-goal approaches all use two leadership aspects to explain how a leader can perform effectively – tasks and relationships.  Each theory uses these two aspects differently in order to explain what effective leadership involves (Northouse, 2013).

The style approach assumes that there are two kinds of leader behaviors that influence followers.  First, task behaviors emphasize goal achievement.  Second, relationship behaviors emphasize comfort and confidence (Northouse, 2013).  In this theory, different combinations of both behaviors help a leader influence the group to reach goals in an effective way.  Northouse (2013) describes three different studies that used these two behaviors to attempt to predict what combinations work best.  The Ohio State Studies provided a framework for Stodgill (1963) to develop the LBDQ-II, an instrument that tried to understand the frequency of certain leadership behaviors.  He summed up the style approach by describing two clusters of behaviors – initiating structure, focusing on task behaviors, and consideration, focusing on relationship behaviors.  Then, the University of Michigan tried to explain the relationship between leaders and small groups.  They found that employee orientations and production orientations can be combined at differing levels to influence followers.  Finally, Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (1960) attempted to combine the findings from both studies to explain how leaders help organizations succeed through concern for people and concern for production.  They devised a 9-poit scale that determined 5 major styles of leadership based on how concerned the leader is about tasks and relationships.  These 5 styles include authority-compliance (high task 9, low people, 1), country-club management (low task 1, high people 9), impoverished management (low task 1, low people 1), middle-of-the-road management (moderate task 5, moderate people 5), and team management (high task 9, high people 9).  Although this approach does not provide applicable information, all of the studies of have led to the same descriptive assumption; leadership is dependent on two behaviors, tasks and relationships, in order to be successful (Northouse, 2013).

Like the style approach, the situational approach assumes that tasks and relationships encompass how a leader behaves.  Directive and supportive dimensions are defined in this theory too parallel the two behaviors in the style approach.  The two dimensions are used interchangeably and sometimes simultaneously at different levels in response to what the situation calls for.  Unlike the style approach, the situational approach requires that leaders are flexible and adaptive.  They must be able to read situations and act accordingly, while the style approach just describes how specific task and relationship behaviors create different leadership styles.  Leaders need to evaluate employees’ competence and commitment in order to change how much of each dimension they use to lead them.  Northouse (2013) outlines the Situational Leadership II (SLII) Model, developed by Blanchard, which illustrates the different combinations of the two dimensions that are possible.  They include directing (high directive, low supportive), coaching (high directive, high supportive), supporting (low directive, high supportive), and delegating (low directive, low supportive).  Which style is used depends on different development levels the followers possess, all varying in levels of competence and commitment (Northouse, 2013).  This approach moves past the descriptive nature of the style approach, while utilizes the same two aspects, tasks and relationships, and makes a more practical and prescriptive approach (PSU WC, 2014, L. 5).

Like the style and situational approaches, the contingency theory utilizes tasks and relationships to match appropriate leaders with appropriate contexts.  So, unlike the style approach that deems certain behaviors work best to influence groups, and unlike the situational approach that tries to explain that different situations call for different leadership styles, the contingency theory tries to place leaders in situations where they will succeed rather than fail.  It assumes that if the leader’s style does not match the situation, they will be unsuccessful in influencing subordinates and reaching goals.  The leader’s style is based on how much tasks and relationships motivate them. Using the Least Preferred Coworker Scale, it can be determined if a person is more task motivated or relationship motivated.  Determining the levels of these two aspects leads to the ability to place the leader in certain situations based on three factors – leader-member relations, task structure, and positive power.  Leader-member relations refer to group atmosphere, confidence and loyalty.  Task structure refers to how well defined a task is.  And positive power refers to legitimate authority of the leader.  Varying levels of leader motivations work best at varying levels of each factor, which are defined in 8 different categories.  These categories stress the importance of task and relationship aspects in the contingency theory (Northouse 2013).

The path-goal theory utilizes the same task and relationship aspects; the difference lies in the fact that this theory, unlike the other approaches, attempts to explain how these aspects motivate individuals.  Leaders attempt to behave in ways that complement or supplement the needs to the subordinates and situation. The motivational needs to the group involve how capable followers feel and whether or not they feel that payoffs of the task are worthwhile.  The four leadership behaviors of this theory are to be used interchangeably and sometimes simultaneously at varying degrees in order to reflect subordinate characteristics, such as need for affiliation, preference for structure, desire for control, and self-perception of ability, and task characteristics, such as design of the task and formal authority system of the organization (Northouse, 2013).  The directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented behaviors of this theory encompass tasks and relationships just like the other approaches, only in this theory they are used to motivate and support during task completion (Northouse, 2013).

It is clear that all four approaches utilize the same two leader aspects in order to try to define and explain effective leadership.  The style approach uses the two behaviors to show that combinations of each influence followers.  The situational approach uses directive and supportive dimensions to explain how a leader needs to be adaptive in order to be successful.  The contingency theory tries to match leaders to situations based on task and relationship motivations.  And finally, the path-goal theory stresses that leaders must be adaptive in their directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented behaviors in order to motivate employees (Northouse, 2013).  This trend does not surprise me.  The two main concepts of work are tasks and relationships.  It makes sense that effective leaders need to manipulate these two aspects in order to influence and motivate.  While each theory clearly has pros and cons, I think that a general rule has emerged – certain behaviors pertaining to tasks and relationships need to be used in the work place.  I believe that the flexibility aspects of the situational and path-goal theories ring more true than the style and contingency approaches.  In my eyes, it is important that leaders be able to evaluate themselves, their subordinates, and the situation in order to adapt to different needs.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). Psych 485 Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/05_lesson/printlesson.html

 

by

The Fiedler Contingency Theory is an effective tool for assessing whether or not a leader is in charge of the right person or group of people.  It suggests that there are situational variables (leader-member relations, task structure, and position power).  When considering these three variables, it becomes easier to match a leader with the right kind of members in order to lead effectively (Northouse, 2013, p. 123)
I think this style of leadership theory is a great one because it allows leaders to do their jobs in a more efficient way.  It also affords members the luxury of being lead by the kind of leader they would prefer to work under.  It makes sense to me that productivity and morale in the work place would be greater and there would be a higher rate of overall job satisfaction if we all worked for leaders we got along with, felt supported by and were motivated by.
When considering the three variables mentioned above, I think it’s important to pair leaders and members who respond to each others styles of interaction.  For instance, pairing a leader who leads in a dictatorial way and is more task oriented than relationship oriented, with a relationship oriented member is going to result in an unhappy member and the leader may even feel a sense of frustration as well because they probably won’t be very effective in getting the member to do what they want to do. Feeling ineffective can lead to frustration and can reflect negatively, adding to an already bad situation.
As for the task-structure component of the leadership variable, this has to do with the “degree to which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out” (Northouse, p. 124).  I would think a dictatorial leader would have no problem with this, however if the follower needs more of a relationship-oriented approach and there is no exchange or give and take when talking about what needs to be done, the member may feel too controlled and dislike the leader.  Again, a bad outcome and this sets up a negatively charged environment for both the leader and the member.
Finally, the power position variable of the contingency theory has to do with “the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish followers” (Northouse, p. 125).  One would hope that just because a leader has this type of authority, they would not abuse it, but I’m sure we’ve all been managed by someone in our lifetime that has.  However, in the right circumstance if led by a leader who you do relate well to, a leader with a high level of power position can be a good thing come time for advancement or pay raise!  The power position has more to do with the level of authority a leader has, than with the way in which they use their authority.
In conclusion, I think the Fiedler’s contingency theory, makes a lot of sense and I lean towards that being a really logical way to assess the relationship between a leader and their followers.  Why wouldn’t the two rather be placed in a situation that would only benefit both of them?


References:

Northouse, P.G.  (2013).  Leadership:  Theory and Practice (6th edition).  Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.

https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2013/06/19/774/

A Successful Leader

by

When I read Contingency Theory, I remembered when in third grade my mother was my teacher. This was a very disturbing experience to me, since my mother did not allow me to call her “mother” during class hours. But, my impression was that,  the rest of the students were very receptive of my mother’s teaching style. She had a consistent behavior, typical of the Contingence Model (Penn State), as soon as we entered the classroom. Then, she changed her role of mother to become a teacher with an authoritative style. In other words, she established principles and had high expectations of appropriate behavior. Even though she was warm and supportive with students, she made it clear what behaviors were acceptable and not acceptable inside of the classroom (http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/311content/classmgt/mgtstyle.html). Being in that classroom gave me the opportunity to see my mother from a different perspective. Looking back, I think she was the right leader in the right situation.

The contingency theory is a leadership theory with strong empirical support concerned with both, styles and situations. This approach matches leaders to adequate situations – or changes the situation to fit the leader’s style – in order to achieve successful leadership (Northouse, 2013). The theory states that some leaders are better in some situations than others in which they may not be that successful. In addition to that, the more control a leader has, the more favorable she or he perceives the situation (Penn State). According to Fiedler’s Contingency Model, Situational Favorability signals the amount of control a leader has over the followers. Fiedler classifies three components of situational favorability: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Penn State). My mother had position power, and I experienced it.

The reason I can say my mother had position power is because she was a schoolteacher. She had control over her followers. She had a rank and authority. My mother could administer reward and punishments. She also conducted follower performance. All these elements match Fiedler’s “positions power” description (Penn State). From what I could experience, children saw her as an authoritative figure. Similarly to authoritative parenthood, she was demanding but also responsive (Siegler. 2006). She was exigent with her students, but very often she also rewarded them with affection and valued every student’s effort.

The class was responsive to her leadership style, and everybody had respect for her. Even today on Facebook, I receive complements from people who still remember her with respect and affection as “the sweet Miss. Elvira”. It makes me think her leadership style was right for the group and the situation. The contingence theory says that the right leader must be in the right situation to lead successfully (Penn State). Based on my perception, her situation favorability was high because she attained a good leader-follower relationship (Penn State). In addition to that, she had defined tasks – another prescription of the Contingency Model. This was because she was assigned the same group of students from the moment they entered 1st grade until they finished 3rd grade. Therefore, she was very knowledgeable and experienced about the class program and the students. And lastly, and as I previously explained, she had a strong leader position power (Penn State). All these elements made up a favorable situation (Penn State), which allowed her to teach and set clear rules and boundaries while achieving a balance between the demanded rules and the rewarding nurturing (https://tle.wisc.edu/teaching-academy/fall-kickoff-symposium).

Considering she was a 1st, 2nd and 3th grade teacher for more than eighteen years, I believe my mother was the right leader for that age group. I could experience that she truly enjoyed teaching. She loved working with children and knew how to communicate with them very effectively. The fact that her students remember her with respect, gratitude and love also signals that she might have been a successful leader.

Reference:

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Penn State World Campus (2012). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contingency and Path Theories. Retrieved on August 30, 2012, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/002/content/01_lesson.html.

Siegler, R. S., DeLoache, J. S., & Eisenberg, N. (2006). How children develop (2nd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

 

Skip to toolbar