This document discusses several theories of leadership including: sources of power; three leadership styles (autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire); Ohio State University's initiating structure vs consideration; Michigan University's production vs employee relations; the leadership grid's concern for production vs concern for people; Fiedler's contingency theory involving leader-member relations, task structure, and position power; path-goal theory involving four leadership behaviors based on follower ability and willingness; and how leaders should assist followers in attaining goals by determining outcomes, rewarding performance, and removing barriers.

1. POM

2.  Power is the capacity to affect other’s
behaviour. Here are some sources of power:
1. Legitimate power
2. Reward power
3. Coercive power
4. Expert power
5. Information power
6. Referent power

3.  Iowa State University identified 3 leadership
styles:
 Autocratic
 Democratic
 Laissez Faire

4.  These are:
1. Ohio State University
2. Michigan University
3. Leadership Grid

5. Focuses attention on a grid as follows:
1. Ohio State University:
Initiating Structure vs. Consideration
2. Michigan University:
Production vs. Employee Relations
3. Leadership Grid:
Concern for Production vs. Concern for people

6. Ohio State University, Michigan University,
Leadership Grid all emphasized similar things:
 Leaders who take a personal interest in the
needs of their subordinates &accept
individual differences among members
VS.
 Those tending to emphasize the technical
(production/structure) or task aspects of the
job.

7.  These theories of leadership try to isolate
critical situational factors that affect
leadership effectiveness.
 They consider the degree of structure in the
task being performed, the quality of leader-
member relations, the leader’s position
power, group norms, information availability,
employee acceptance of leader’s decisions,
employee maturity, and the clarity of the
employee’s role

8.  This says that effective group performance
depends on the proper match between the
leader’s style and the degree to which the
situation gives control to the leader.
 The least preferred co-worker (LPC)
questionnaire determines whether
individuals are mainly interested in good
personal relations with co-workers =
relationship-oriented OR mainly interested
in productivity = task-oriented.

9.  Fiedler identified 3 contingency dimensions that
together define the situation a leader faces:
 Leader-member relations. The degree of
confidence, trust, and respect members have in
their leader.
 • Task structure. The degree to which the job
assignments are procedurized (that is, structured
or unstructured).
 • Position power. The degree of influence a
leader has over power variables such as hiring,
firing, discipline, promotions, and salary
increases.

10.  Fiedler assumed that an individual’s
leadership style is fixed.
 Therefore, if a situation requires a task-
oriented leader and the leader is
relationship oriented
 either the situation has to be modified or
the leader must be removed and replaced

11.  A theory that proposes that effective leaders
adapt their leadership style according to how
willing and able a follower is to perform
tasks.
 Theories identifies 4 specific leader
behaviours:
 highly directive to-> highly laissez-faire:
1. unable and unwilling
2. unable and willing
3. able and unwilling
4. Able and willing

12.  Path-goal theory identifies four leadership
behaviours:
1. The directive leader
2. The supportive leader
3. The participative leader
4. The achievement-oriented leader

13.  Says that it is the leader’s job to assist followers in
attaining their goals & should follow three
guidelines to be effective:
1. Determine the outcomes subordinates want.
These might include good pay, job security,
interesting work, and the autonomy to do one’s
job.
2. Reward individuals with their desired outcomes
when they perform well.
3. Let individuals know what they need to do to
receive rewards (that is, the path to the goal),
remove any barriers that would prevent high
performance, and express confidence that
individuals have the ability to perform well.