the impact of leadership styles on interpersonal trust
AbstractThis project focuses on different leadership styles and there relationship withinterpersonal trust in organizational settings. The objective of this project is to study theand to understand different types of leadership styles ,with the help of Multifactorleadership Questionnaire(MLQ), and there relationship with interpersonal trust amongthe employees in organizations,using Interpersonal Trust Scale developed byChristopher,K.J.Leadership is a very important topic for research in todays work settings. Its veryimportant to study the different types of leadership and to find out how and in what wayseach leadership style affects employees interpersonal trust within the work settings.Leadership plays a significant role in increasing the trust among the employees. If theleader is able to choose a leadership style which is appropriate for a specific situation ,he can certainly increase the interpersonal trust among the employees of the organization.Employees also trust their leader when they find their leader competent enough to makeappropriate decisions for them and for the organization as a whole.This project basically focuses on the importance of different leadership styles. The mainobjective of this project is to understand and explain the relationship between leadership
styles and interpersonal trust.This project will help the managers and leaders understand the importance of differentleadership styles in different situations and also it will help them understand thecorrelation between leadership and interpersonal trust. This project will help the leadersselect the right leadership style in order to increase interpersonal trust among theemployees of the organization. This,in turn,will increase the team spirit andorganizational trust in the employees.About the organizationNational Thermal Power Corporation(NTPC) is Indias largest power company. It wasset up in 1975 to accelerate power development in India. It is emerging as an ‘IntegratedPower Major’, with a significant presence in the entire value chain of power generationbusiness.NTPC ranked 341st in the ‘2010, Forbes Global 2000’ ranking of the World’s biggestcompanies.Human resources at NTPCPeople before PLF (Plant Load Factor) is the guiding philosophy behind the entiregamut of HR policies at NTPC. The human resources department at NTPC is strongly
committed to the development and growth of all the employees as individuals and notjust as employees. It currently employs approximately 26,000 people at NTPC.Competence building, Commitment building, Culture building and Systems building arethe four building blocks on which its HR systems are based.NTPC has a well established talent management system in place, to ensure that itdelivers on its promise of meaningful growth and relevant challenges for its employees.The talent management system comprises PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,CAREER PATHS and LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT.IntroductionThe concept of leadership Leadership can be defined as a process by which one individual influences otherstoward the attainment of group or organizational goals. Three points about the definitionof leadership should be emphasized. First, leadership is a social influence process.Leadership cannot exist without a leader and one or more followers. Second, leadershipelicits voluntary action on the part of followers. The voluntary nature of complianceseparates leadership from other types of influence based on formal authority. Finally,leadership results in followers behavior that is purposeful and goal-directed in some sort
of organized setting. Many, although not all, studies of leadership focus on the nature ofleadership in the workplace.Leadership is probably the most frequently studied topic in the organizational sciences.Thousands of leadership studies have been published and thousands of pages onleadership have been written in academic books and journals, business-orientedpublications, and general-interest publications. Despite this, the precise nature ofleadership and its relationship to key criterion variables such as subordinate satisfaction,commitment, and performance is still uncertain, to the point where Fred Luthans, in hisbook Organizational Behavior (2005), said that "it [leadership] does remain pretty muchof a black box or unexplainable concept."Leadership should be distinguished from management. Management involves planning,organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling, and a manager is someone who performsthese functions. A manager has formal authority by virtue of his or her position oroffice. Leadership, by contrast, primarily deals with influence. A manager may or maynot be an effective leader. A leaders ability to influence others may be based on avariety of factors other than his or her formal authority or position.In the sections that follow, the development of leadership studies and theories over timeis briefly traced. Table 1 provides a summary of the major theoretical approaches.
Historical Leadership TheoriesLeadership Time of Major TenetsTheory IntroductionTrait Theories 1930s Individual characteristics of leaders are different than those of nonleaders.Behavioral 1940s and The behaviors of effective leaders are different than theTheories 1950s behaviors of ineffective leaders. Two major classes of leader behavior are task-oriented behavior and relationship-oriented behavior.Contingency 1960s and Factors unique to each situation determine whetherTheories 1970s specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be effective. Historical Leadership TheoriesLeadership Time of Major TenetsTheory IntroductionLeader-Member 1970s Leaders from high-quality relationships with someExchange subordinates but not others. The quality of leader- subordinates relationship affects numerous workplace outcomes.Charismatic 1970s and Effective leaders inspire subordinates to commitLeadership 1980s themselves to goals by communicating a vision, displaying charismatic behavior, and setting a powerful personal example.Substitutes foe 1970s Characteristics of the organization, task, andLeadership subordinates may substitute for or negate the effects of
leadership behaviors.HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTThree main theoretical frameworks have dominated leadership research at differentpoints in time. These included the trait approach (1930s and 1940s), the behavioralapproach (1940s and 1950s), and the contingency or situational approach (1960s and1970s).Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which one person canenlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objectiveand directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Thisdefinition is similar to Northouses (2007, p3) definition — Leadership is a processwhereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership knowledge and skills. This iscalled Process Leadership (Jago, 1982). However, we know that we have traits that caninfluence our actions. This is called Trait Leadership (Jago, 1982), in that it was oncecommon to believe that leaders were born rather than made. These two leadership types
are shown in the chart below (Northouse, 2007, p5):While leadership is learned, the skills and knowledge processed by the leader can beinfluenced by his or hers attributes or traits, such as beliefs, values, ethics, and character.Knowledge and skills contribute directly to the process of leadership, while the otherattributes give the leader certain characteristics that make him or her unique.Skills, knowledge, and attributes make the Leader, which is one of the:Four Factors of Leadership
LeaderYou must have an honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what youcan do. Also, note that it is the followers, not the leader or someone else who determinesif the leader is successful. If they do not trust or lack confidence in their leader, thenthey will be uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your followers, notyourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.FollowersDifferent people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requiresmore supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivationrequires a different approach than one with a high degree of motivation. You must knowyour people! The fundamental starting point is having a good understanding of humannature, such as needs, emotions, and motivation. You must come to know youremployees be, know, and do attributes.CommunicationYou lead through two-way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, whenyou “set the example,” that communicates to your people that you would not ask them toperform anything that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicateeither builds or harms the relationship between you and your employees.
SituationAll situations are different. What you do in one situation will not always work inanother. You must use your judgment to decide the best course of action and theleadership style needed for each situation. For example, you may need to confront anemployee for inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is too late or too early, tooharsh or too weak, then the results may prove ineffective.Also note that the situation normally has a greater effect on a leaders action than his orher traits. This is because while traits may have an impressive stability over a period oftime, they have little consistency across situations (Mischel, 1968). This is why anumber of leadership scholars think the Process Theory of Leadership is a more accuratethan the Trait Theory of Leadership.Various forces will affect these four factors. Examples of forces are your relationshipwith your seniors, the skill of your followers, the informal leaders within yourorganization, and how your organization is organized.Bass Theory of LeadershipBass theory of leadership states that there are three basic ways to explain how peoplebecome leaders (Stogdill, 1989; Bass, 1990). The first two explain the leadershipdevelopment for a small number of people. These theories are:
• Some personality traits may lead people naturally into leadership roles. This is the Trait Theory. • A crisis or important event may cause a person to rise to the occasion, which brings out extraordinary leadership qualities in an ordinary person. This is the Great Events Theory. • People can choose to become leaders. People can learn leadership skills. This is the Transformational or Process Leadership Theory. It is the most widely accepted theory today and the premise on which this guide is based.Total LeadershipWhat makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those theyrespect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. Asense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.When a person is deciding if she respects you as a leader, she does not think about yourattributes, rather, she observes what you do so that she can know who you really are.She uses this observation to tell if you are an honorable and trusted leader or a self-serving person who misuses authority to look good and get promoted. Self-servingleaders are not as effective because their employees only obey them, not follow them.They succeed in many areas because they present a good image to their seniors at theexpense of their workers.
Be Know DoThe basis of good leadership is honorable character and selfless service to yourorganization. In your employees eyes, your leadership is everything you do that effectsthe organizations objectives and their well-being. Respected leaders concentrate on(U.S. Army, 1983): • what they are [be] (such as beliefs and character) • what they know (such as job, tasks, and human nature) • what they do (such as implementing, motivating, and providing direction).What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those theyrespect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. Asense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.The Two Most Important Keys to Effective LeadershipAccording to a study by the Hay Group, a global management consultancy, there are 75key components of employee satisfaction (Lamb, McKee, 2004). They found that: • Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction in an organization. • Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to winning organizational trust and confidence: 1. Helping employees understand the companys overall business strategy.
2. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key business objectives. 3. Sharing information with employees on both how the company is doing and how an employees own division is doing — relative to strategic business objectives.Principles of LeadershipTo help you be, know, and do, follow these eleven principles of leadership (U.S. Army,1983). The later chapters in this Leadership guide expand on these principles andprovide tools for implementing them: 1. Know yourself and seek self-improvement - In order to know yourself, you have to understand your be, know, and do, attributes. Seeking self-improvement means continually strengthening your attributes. This can be accomplished through self-study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others. 2. Be technically proficient - As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid familiarity with your employees tasks. 3. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions - Search for ways to guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they
always do sooner or later — do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take corrective action, and move on to the next challenge.4. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making, and planning tools.5. Set the example - Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we want to see - Mahatma Gandhi6. Know your people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.7. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them, but also seniors and other key people.8. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers - Help to develop good character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.9. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished - Communication is the key to this responsibility.10.Train as a team - Although many so called leaders call their organization, department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of people doing their jobs.11.Use the full capabilities of your organization - By developing a team spirit, you will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest capabilities.
Attributes of LeadershipIf you are a leader who can be trusted, then those around you will grow to respect you.To be such a leader, there is a Leadership Framework to guide you:BE KNOW DOBE a professional. Examples: Be loyal to the organization, perform selfless service, takepersonal responsibility.BE a professional who possess good character traits. Examples: Honesty, competence,candor, commitment, integrity, courage, straightforwardness, imagination.KNOW the four factors of leadership — follower, leader, communication, situation.KNOW yourself. Examples: strengths and weakness of your character, knowledge, andskills.KNOW human nature. Examples: Human needs, emotions, and how people respond tostress.KNOW your job. Examples: be proficient and be able to train others in their tasks.KNOW your organization. Examples: where to go for help, its climate and culture, whothe unofficial leaders are.DO provide direction. Examples: goal setting, problem solving, decision making,planning.
DO implement. Examples: communicating, coordinating, supervising, evaluating.DO motivate. Examples: develop morale and esprit de corps in the organization, train,coach, counsel.EnvironmentEvery organization has a particular work environment, which dictates to a considerabledegree how its leaders respond to problems and opportunities. This is brought about byits heritage of past leaders and its present leaders.Goals, Values, and ConceptsLeaders exert influence on the environment via three types of actions: 1. The goals and performance standards they establish. 2. The values they establish for the organization. 3. The business and people concepts they establish.Successful organizations have leaders who set high standards and goals across the entirespectrum, such as strategies, market leadership, plans, meetings and presentations,productivity, quality, and reliability.Values reflect the concern the organization has for its employees, customers, investors,vendors, and surrounding community. These values define the manner in how businesswill be conducted.
Concepts define what products or services the organization will offer and the methodsand processes for conducting business.These goals, values, and concepts make up the organizations personality or how theorganization is observed by both outsiders and insiders. This personality defines theroles, relationships, rewards, and rites that take place.Roles and RelationshipsRoles are the positions that are defined by a set of expectations about behavior of anyjob incumbent. Each role has a set of tasks and responsibilities that may or may not bespelled out. Roles have a powerful effect on behavior for several reasons, to includemoney being paid for the performance of the role, there is prestige attached to a role, anda sense of accomplishment or challenge.Relationships are determined by a roles tasks. While some tasks are performed alone,most are carried out in relationship with others. The tasks will determine who the role-holder is required to interact with, how often, and towards what end. Also, normally thegreater the interaction, the greater the liking. This in turn leads to more frequentinteraction. In human behavior, its hard to like someone whom we have no contact with,and we tend to seek out those we like. People tend to do what they are rewarded for, andfriendship is a powerful reward. Many tasks and behaviors that are associated with a roleare brought about by these relationships. That is, new task and behaviors are expected ofthe present role-holder because a strong relationship was developed in the past, either by
that role-holder or a prior role-holder.Culture and ClimateThere are two distinct forces that dictate how to act within an organization: culture andclimate.Each organization has its own distinctive culture. It is a combination of the founders,past leadership, current leadership, crises, events, history, and size (Newstrom, Davis,1993). This results in rites: the routines, rituals, and the “way we do things.” These ritesimpact individual behavior on what it takes to be in good standing (the norm) and directsthe appropriate behavior for each circumstance.The climate is the feel of the organization, the individual and shared perceptions andattitudes of the organizations members (Ivancevich, Konopaske, Matteson, 2007).While the culture is the deeply rooted nature of the organization that is a result of long-held formal and informal systems, rules, traditions, and customs; climate is a short-termphenomenon created by the current leadership. Climate represents the beliefs about the“feel of the organization” by its members. This individual perception of the “feel of theorganization” comes from what the people believe about the activities that occur in theorganization. These activities influence both individual and team motivation andsatisfaction, such as: • How well does the leader clarify the priorities and goals of the organization? What
is expected of us? • What is the system of recognition, rewards, and punishments in the organization? • How competent are the leaders? • Are leaders free to make decisions? • What will happen if I make a mistake?Organizational climate is directly related to the leadership and management style of theleader, based on the values, attributes, skills, and actions, as well as the priorities of theleader. Compare this to “ethical climate” — the feel of the organization about theactivities that have ethical content or those aspects of the work environment thatconstitute ethical behavior. The ethical climate is the feel about whether we do thingsright; or the feel of whether we behave the way we ought to behave. The behavior(character) of the leader is the most important factor that impacts the climate.On the other hand, culture is a long-term, complex phenomenon. Culture represents theshared expectations and self-image of the organization. The mature values that createtradition or the “way we do things here.” Things are done differently in everyorganization. The collective vision and common folklore that define the institution are areflection of culture. Individual leaders, cannot easily create or change culture becauseculture is a part of the organization. Culture influences the characteristics of the climateby its effect on the actions and thought processes of the leader. But, everything you doas a leader will affect the climate of the organization.
For information on culture, see Long-Term Short-Term OrientationThe Process of Great LeadershipThe road to great leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) that is common to successfulleaders: • Challenge the process - First, find a process that you believe needs to be improved the most. • Inspire a shared vision - Next, share your vision in words that can be understood by your followers. • Enable others to act - Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem. • Model the way - When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells others what to do, a leader shows that it can be done. • Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers hearts, while keeping the pains within your own.Theories of leadershipLeadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader mayor may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theoriesinvolving traits, situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,
 charisma, and intelligence, among others. Somebody whom people follow:somebody who guides or directs others.Early western historyThe search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries.Historys greatest philosophical writings from Platos Republic to Plutarchs Lives haveexplored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlyingthis search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumptionthat leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This ideathat leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the "trait theory ofleadership".The trait theory was explored at length in a number of works in the 19th century. Mostnotable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works haveprompted decades of research. In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identifiedthe talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In GaltonsHereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerfulmen. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when movingfrom first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership wasinherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable workslent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of theleader.
Rise of alternative theoriesIn the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of thesestudies (e.g., Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959) prompted researchers totake a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing theextant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across anumber of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in onesituation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadershipwas no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches(see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective incertain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadershiptheory and research for the next few decades.Reemergence of trait theoryTRAIT APPROACHThe scientific study of leadership began with a focus on the traits of effective leaders.The basic premise behind trait theory was that effective leaders are born, not made, thusthe name sometimes applied to early versions of this idea, the "great man" theory. Manyleadership studies based on this theoretical framework were conducted in the 1930s,
1940s, and 1950s.Leader trait research examined the physical, mental, and social characteristics ofindividuals. In general, these studies simply looked for significant associations betweenindividual traits and measures of leadership effectiveness. Physical traits such as height,mental traits such as intelligence, and social traits such as personality attributes were allsubjects of empirical research.The initial conclusion from studies of leader traits was that there were no universal traitsthat consistently separated effective leaders from other individuals. In an importantreview of the leadership literature published in 1948, Ralph Stogdill concluded that theexisting research had not demonstrated the utility of the trait approach.Several problems with early trait research might explain the perceived lack of significantfindings. First, measurement theory at the time was not highly sophisticated. Little wasknown about the psychometric properties of the measures used to operationalize traits.As a result, different studies were likely to use different measures to assess the sameconstruct, which made it very difficult to replicate findings. In addition, many of the traitstudies relied on samples of teenagers or lower-level managers.Early trait research was largely non theoretical, offering no explanations for theproposed relationship between individual characteristics and leadership.Finally, early trait research did not consider the impact of situational variables that mightmoderate the relationship between leader traits and measures of leader effectiveness. As
a result of the lack of consistent findings linking individual traits to leadershipeffectiveness, empirical studies of leader traits were largely abandoned in the 1950s.New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews thatwould ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study ofleadership. For example, improvements in researchers use of the round robin researchdesign methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge asleaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statisticaladvances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they couldquantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. Thisadvent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadershipresearch rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with newmethods, leadership researchers revealed the following: • Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. • Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as: • intelligence • adjustment • extraversion • conscientiousness • openness to experience • general self-efficacy
While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergencehas not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptualframeworks.Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still: 1. focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills; 2. fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes; 3. do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences; 4. do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership.Attribute pattern approachConsidering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers havebegun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differences—the leaderattribute pattern approach. In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attributepattern approach is based on theorists arguments that the influence of individualcharacteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integratedtotality rather than a summation of individual variables.In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated
constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantialvariance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained bysingle attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.Behavioral and style theoriesLEADER BEHAVIOR APPROACHPartially as a result of the disenchantment with the trait approach to leadership thatoccurred by the beginning of the 1950s, the focus of leadership research shifted awayfrom leader traits to leader behaviors. The premise of this stream of research was that thebehaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical, mental, oremotional traits. The two most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at OhioState University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. Thesestudies sparked hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely cited.The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ),administering it to samples of individuals in the military, manufacturing companies,college administrators, and student leaders. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. Theconclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe howleaders carry out their role.Two factors, termed consideration and initiating structure, consistently appeared.
Initiating structure, sometimes called task-oriented behavior, involves planning,organizing, and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration involves showingconcern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates accomplishments,and providing for subordinates welfare.The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at OhioState. Under the general direction of Rensis Likert, the focus of the Michigan studieswas to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity andjob satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations:an employee orientation and a production orientation. Leaders with an employeeorientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Those with a productionorientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job.The conclusion of the Michigan studies was that an employee orientation and generalinstead of close supervision yielded better results. Likert eventually developed four"systems" of management based on these studies; he advocated System 4 (theparticipative-group system, which was the most participatory set of leader behaviors) asresulting in the most positive outcomes.One concept based largely on the behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness wasthe Managerial (or Leadership) Grid, developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. Thegrid combines "concern for production" with "concern for people" and presents fivealternative behavioral styles of leadership. An individual who emphasized neitherproduction was practicing "impoverished management" according to the grid. If a person
emphasized concern for people and placed little emphasis on production, he was terms a"country-club" manager.Conversely, a person who emphasized a concern for production but paid little attentionto the concerns of subordinates was a "task" manager. A person who tried to balanceconcern for production and concern for people was termed a "middle-of-the-road"manager.Finally, an individual who was able to simultaneously exhibit a high concern forproduction and a high concern for people was practicing "team management."According to the prescriptions of the grid, team management was the best leadershipapproach. The Managerial Grid became a major consulting tool and was the basis for aconsiderable amount of leadership training in the corporate world.The assumption of the leader behavior approach was that there were certain behaviorsthat would be universally effective for leaders. Unfortunately, empirical research has notdemonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leaderbehaviors and leader effectiveness. Like trait research, leader behavior research did notconsider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leaderbehaviors and leader effectiveness.Managerial grid modelresponse to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research
leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders,determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. DavidMcClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful,perhaps even essential.Illustration 1: A graphical representation of the managerial grid modelA graphical representation of the managerial grid modelKurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on theinfluence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated theperformance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. Ineach, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making,
praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (projectmanagement) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model wasdeveloped by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five differentleadership styles, based on the leaders concern for people and their concern for goalachievement.Positive reinforcementB.F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept ofpositive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus ispresented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in thefuture.The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in abusiness setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. Thisemployee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employeedecides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actuallyshows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more oftenbecause the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is apositive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the
behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time.The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leadersto motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcementto increase productivity. Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests thatreinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, manyreinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higherperformance for lower costs.CONTINGENCY (SITUATIONAL) APPROACHContingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or workgroup context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will beeffective. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Four ofthe more well-known contingency theories are Fiedlers contingency theory, path-goaltheory, the Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership, and the situationalleadership theory. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in theparagraphs that follow.Introduced in 1967, Fiedlers contingency theory was the first to specify how situationalfactors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. The
theory suggests that the "favorability" of the situation determines the effectiveness oftask- and person-oriented leader behavior.Favorability is determined by (1) the respect and trust that followers have for the leader;(2) the extent to which subordinates responsibilities can be structured and performancemeasured; and (3) the control the leader has over subordinates rewards. The situation ismost favorable when followers respect and trust the leader, the task is highly structured,and the leader has control over rewards and punishments.Fiedlers research indicated that task-oriented leaders were more effective when thesituation was either highly favorable or highly unfavorable, but that person-orientedleaders were more effective in the moderately favorable or unfavorable situations. Thetheory did not necessarily propose that leaders could adapt their leadership styles todifferent situations, but that leaders with different leadership styles would be moreeffective when placed in situations that matched their preferred style.Fiedlers contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodologicalgrounds. However, empirical research has supported many of the specific propositionsof the theory, and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadershipeffectiveness.Path-goal theory was first presented in a 1971Administrative Science Quarterly articleby Robert House. Path-goal theory proposes that subordinates characteristics andcharacteristics of the work environment determine which leader behaviors will be more
effective. Key characteristics of subordinates identified by the theory are locus ofcontrol, work experience, ability, and the need for affiliation. Important environmentalcharacteristics named by the theory are the nature of the task, the formal authoritysystem, and the nature of the work group. The theory includes four different leaderbehaviors, which include directive leadership, supportive leadership, participativeleadership, and achievement-oriented leadership.According to the theory, leader behavior should reduce barriers to subordinates goalattainment, strengthen subordinates expectancies that improved performance will leadto valued rewards, and provide coaching to make the path to payoffs easier forsubordinates. Path-goal theory suggests that the leader behavior that will accomplishthese tasks depends upon the subordinate and environmental contingency factors.Path-goal theory has been criticized because it does not consider interactions among thecontingency factors and also because of the complexity of its underlying theoreticalmodel, expectancy theory. Empirical research has provided some support for the theoryspropositions, primarily as they relate to directive and supportive leader behaviors.The Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model was introduced by Victor Vroom andPhillip Yetton in 1973 and revised by Vroom and Jago in 1988. The theory focusesprimarily on the degree of subordinate participation that is appropriate in differentsituations. Thus, it emphasizes the decision-making style of the leader.There are five types of leader decision-making styles, which are labeled AI, AII, CI, CII,
and G. These styles range from strongly autocratic (AI), to strongly democratic (G).According to the theory, the appropriate style is determined by answers to up to eightdiagnostic questions, which relate to such contingency factors as the importance ofdecision quality, the structure of the problem, whether subordinates have enoughinformation to make a quality decision, and the importance of subordinate commitmentto the decision.The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model has been criticized for its complexity, for its assumptionthat the decision makers goals are consistent with organizational goals, and for ignoringthe skills needed to arrive at group decisions to difficult problems. Empirical researchhas supported some of the prescriptions of the theory.The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 byHersey and Blanchard. The theory suggests that the key contingency factor affectingleaders choice of leadership style is the task-related maturity of the subordinates.Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to acceptresponsibility for their own task-related behavior. The theory classifies leader behaviorsinto the two broad classes of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors. Themajor proposition of situational leadership theory is that the effectiveness of task andrelationship-oriented leadership depends upon the maturity of a leaders subordinates.Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodologicalgrounds. However, it remains one of the better-known contingency theories ofleadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability
and leadership style.Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Socialscientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men asCarlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times producethe person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situationscall for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimalpsychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individualactually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics ofthe situation in which he functions."Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building uponthe research of Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models ofleadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situationseach style works better in.The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but failsto win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democraticleadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally,the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, butas the leaders do not "take charge", they can be perceived as a failure in protracted orthorny organizational problems.Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is
sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appearmore prominently in recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decisionmodel, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.The Fiedler contingency model bases the leaders effectiveness on what Fred Fiedlercalled situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style andsituational favorability (later called situational control). The theory defined two types ofleader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with thegroup (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying outthe task itself (task-oriented). According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader.Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadershiporientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highlystructured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorablesituation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremelyfavorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform bestin situations with intermediate favorability.Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973)and later with Arthur Jago(1988), developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which was used in anormative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situationalvariables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. This approachwas novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on differentgroup decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This
model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and wasbased on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom. According to House, the essence ofthe theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors thatcomplement subordinates environments and abilities in a manner that compensates fordeficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unitperformance".The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive,participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and followercharacteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model statesthat the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the fourdepending on what the situation demands.The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on thecircumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes thereciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggests fourleadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the modelposits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of follower-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of thecharacteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.
Functional theoryFunctional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is aparticularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contributeto organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leaders main job is tosee that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be saidto have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness andcohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton,1986).While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership(Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broaderorganizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature onfunctional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman andWalton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert,Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs whenpromoting organizations effectiveness. These functions include environmentalmonitoring, organizing subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates,motivating others, and intervening actively in the groups work.A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initialwork identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates
perceived their supervisors behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to asconsideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved infostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showingconcern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiatingstructure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment.This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holdingsubordinates accountable to those standards.Transactional and transformational theoriesEric Berne first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms oftransactional analysis.The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform certain tasks andreward or punish for the teams performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager tolead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predeterminedgoal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct,and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and rewardeffectiveness when expected outcome is reached. Idiosyncrasy Credits, first posited byEdward Hollander (1971) is one example of a concept closely related to transactionalleadership.
Emotions and leadershipLeadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotionsentwined with the social influence process. In an organization, the leaders mood hassome effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels: 1. The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion. Mood contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers. 2. The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood. 3. Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example,
expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by theleader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were otherfindings.Beyond the leaders mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive andnegative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead toemotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during interactions with theiremployees are the sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affectiveevents. Examples – feedback giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Sinceemployee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it isimperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational leaders.Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in theself and others, contributes to effective leadership within organizations.
Neo-emergent theoryThe Neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espousesthat leadership is created through the emergence of information by the leader or otherstakeholders, not through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, thereproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership bythe majority. It is well known that the great naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his ownversions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in England hewould receive a true heros welcome.In modern society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own views of a leader,which may be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, apayment, or an inherent interest of the author, media, or leader. Therefore, it can becontended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect theirtrue leadership qualities at all.RECENT DEVELOPMENTSAlthough trait, behavioral, and contingency approaches have each contributed to theunderstanding of leadership, none of the approaches have provided a completelysatisfactory explanation of leadership and leadership effectiveness. Since the 1970s,several alternative theoretical frameworks for the study of leadership have been
advanced. Among the more important of these are leader-member exchange theory,transformational leadership theory, the substitutes for leadership approach, and thephilosophy of servant leadership.LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORYLeader-member exchange (LMX) theory was initially called the vertical dyad linkagetheory. The theory was introduced by George Graen and various colleagues in the 1970sand has been revised and refined in the years since. LMX theory emphasizes the dyadic(i.e., one-on-one) relationships between leaders and individual subordinates, instead ofthe traits or behaviors of leaders or situational characteristics.The theorys focus is determining the type of leader-subordinate relationships thatpromote effective outcomes and the factors that determine whether leaders andsubordinates will be able to develop high-quality relationships.According to LMX theory, leaders do not treat all subordinates in the same manner, butestablish close relationships with some (the in-group) while remaining aloof from others(the out-group). Those in the in-group enjoy relationships with the leader that is markedby trust and mutual respect. They tend to be involved in important activities anddecisions. Conversely, those in the out-group are excluded from important activities anddecisions.LMX theory suggests that high-quality relationships between a leader-subordinate dyad
will lead to positive outcomes such as better performance, lower turnover, jobsatisfaction, and organizational commitment. Empirical research supports many of theproposed relationships.TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIESBeginning in the 1970s, a number of leadership theories emerged that focused on theimportance of a leaders charisma to leadership effectiveness. Included within this classof theories are Houses theory of charismatic leadership, Basss transformationalleadership theory, and Conger and Kanungos charismatic leadership theory.These theories have much in common. They all focus on attempting to explain howleaders can accomplish extraordinary things against the odds, such as turning around afailing company, founding a successful company, or achieving great military successagainst incredible odds. The theories also emphasize the importance of leaders inspiringsubordinates admiration, dedication, and unquestioned loyalty through articulating aclear and compelling vision.Tranformational leadership theory differentiates between the transactional and thetransformational leader. Transactional leadership focuses on role and task requirementsand utilizes rewards contingent on performance. By contrast, transformational leadershipfocuses on developing mutual trust, fostering the leadership abilities of others, andsetting goals that go beyond the short-term needs of the work group.
Basss transformational leadership theory identifies four aspects of effective leadership,which include charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and consideration. A leaderwho exhibits these qualities will inspire subordinates to be high achievers and put thelong-term interest of the organization ahead of their own short-term interest, accordingto the theory. Empirical research has supported many of the theorys propositions.SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP THEORYKerr and Jermier introduced the substitutes for leadership theory in 1978. The theorysfocus is concerned with providing an explanation for the lack of stronger empiricalsupport for a relationship between leader traits or leader behaviors and subordinatessatisfaction and performance. The substitutes for leadership theory suggests thatcharacteristics of the organization, the task, and subordinates may substitute for ornegate the effects of leadership, thus weakening observed relationships between leaderbehaviors and important organizational outcomes.Substitutes for leadership make leader behaviors such as task-oriented or relationship-oriented unnecessary. Characteristics of the organization that may substitute forleadership include formalization, group cohesiveness, inflexible rules, andorganizational rewards not under the control of the leader. Characteristics of the task thatmay substitute for leadership include routine and repetitive tasks or tasks that aresatisfying. Characteristics of subordinates that may substitute for leadership includeability, experience, training, and job-related knowledge.
The substitutes for leadership theory has generated a considerable amount of interestbecause it offers an intuitively appealing explanation for why leader behavior impactssubordinates in some situations but not in others. However, some of its theoreticalpropositions have not been adequately tested. The theory continues to generate empiricalresearch.SERVANT LEADERSHIPThis approach to leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. Itsuggests that leaders must place the needs of subordinates, customers, and thecommunity ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. Characteristics ofservant leaders include empathy, stewardship, and commitment to the personal,professional, and spiritual growth of their subordinates. Servant leadership has not beensubjected to extensive empirical testing but has generated considerable interest amongboth leadership scholars and practitioners.Leadership continues to be one of the most written about topics in the social sciences.Although much has been learned about leadership since the 1930s, many avenues ofresearch still remain to be explored as we enter the twenty-first century.Leadership StylesLeadership style refers to a leaders behavior. It is the result of the philosophy,personality, and experience of the leader. Rhetoric specialists have also developed
models for understanding leadership (Robert Hariman, Political Style,Philippe-JosephSalazar, LHyperpolitique. Technologies politiques De La Domination).Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there islittle time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority hassignificantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocraticleadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned teamwith a homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may bemore effective.The style adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of thegroup while balancing the interests of its individual members.Autocratic or authoritarian styleUnder the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in theleader, as with dictators.Leaders do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocraticmanagement has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. Itpermits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group andkeeps each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to be shared with the rest of
the group.In an autocratic leadership style, the person in charge has total authority and control overdecision making. By virtue of their position and job responsibilities, they not onlycontrol the efforts of the team, but monitor them for completion –often under closescrutinyThis style is reminiscent of the earliest tribes and empires. Obviously, our historicalmovement toward democracy brings a negative connotation to autocracy, but in somesituations, it is the most appropriate type of leadership. That, of course, doesn’t mean ablank check to ignore the wellbeing of his subordinate.When is it used?The autocratic leadership style is best used in situations where control is necessary, oftenwhere there is little margin for error. When conditions are dangerous, rigid rules cankeep people out of harm’s way. Many times, the subordinate staff is inexperienced orunfamiliar with the type of work and heavy oversight is necessary.Rigid organizations often use this style. It has been known to be very paternalistic, andin highly-professional, independent minded teams, it can lead to resentment and strainedmorale.Good fits for Autocratic Leadership: • Military
• Manufacturing • ConstructionHow to be effective with this positionIt’s easy to see the immediate goal of this type of leadership: use your expertise to getthe job done. Make sure that everyone is exactly where they need to be and doing theirjob, while the important tasks are handled quickly and correctly.In many ways this is the oldest leadership style, dating back to the early empires. It’svery intuitive to tell people what needs to be done by when.It is difficult balancing the use of authority with the morale of the team. Too much directscrutiny will make your subordinates miserable, and being too heavy handed willsquelch all group input. Being an effective autocratic leader means being veryintentional about when and how demands are made of the team.Here are some things to keep in mind to be an effective when acting as an autocraticleader: • Respect your Subordinates: It’s easy to end up as rigid as the rules you are trying to enforce. It’s important that you stay fair and acknowledge that everyone brings something to the table, even if they don’t call the shots. Making subordinates realize they are respected keeps moral up and resentment low; every
functional team is built on a foundation of mutual respect. • Explain the rules: Your people know they have to follow procedure, but it helps them do a better job if they know why. • Be consistent: If your role in the team is to enforce the company line, you have to make sure you do so consistently and fairly. It’s easy to respect someone objective, but hard to trust someone who applies policy differently in similar circumstances. • Educate before you enforce: Having everyone understand your expectations up front will mean less surprises down the road. Being above board from the outset prevents a lot of miscommunications and misunderstandings. • Listen, even if you don’t change: We all want to feel like our opinions are appreciated, even if they aren’t going to lead to immediate change and being a leader means that your team will want to bring their opinions to you. It’s important to be clear that they are heard, no matter the outcome.Participative or democratic styleThe democratic leadership style consists of the leader sharing the decision-makingabilities with group members by promoting the interests of the group members and bypracticing social equality.
A Participative Leader, rather than taking autocratic decisions, seeks to involve otherpeople in the process, possibly including subordinates, peers, superiors and otherstakeholders. Often, however, as it is within the managers whim to give or deny controlto his or her subordinates, most participative activity is within the immediate team.The question of how much influence others are given thus may vary on the managerspreferences and beliefs, and a whole spectrum of participation is possible, as in the tablebelow. < Not participative Highly participative > Leader Team proposes Joint Full proposes Autocratic decision, decision with delegation of decision, decision by listens to team as decision to leader has leader feedback, equals team final decision then decidesThere are many varieties on this spectrum, including stages where the leader sells theidea to the team. Another variant is for the leader to describe the what of objectives orgoals and let the team or individuals decide the how of the process by which the how
will be achieved (this is often called Management by Objectives).The level of participation may also depend on the type of decision being made.Decisions on how to implement goals may be highly participative, whilst decisionsduring subordinate performance evaluations are more likely to be taken by the manager.There are many potential benefits of participative leadership, as indicated in theassumptions, above.This approach is also known as consultation, empowerment, joint decision-making,democratic leadership, Management By Objective (MBO) and power-sharing.Participative Leadership can be a sham when managers ask for opinions and then ignorethem. This is likely to lead to cynicism and feelings of betrayal.Laissez-faire or free rein styleA person may be in a leadership position without providing leadership, leaving thegroup to fend for itself. Subordinates are given a free hand in deciding their own policiesand methods.The Laissez Faire Leadership Style was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in1938, along with the autocratic leadership and the democratic leadership styles. Thelaissez faire style is sometimes described as a "hands off" leadership style because the
leader provides little or no direction to the followers.The characteristics of the laissez faire style include: • Allows followers to have complete freedom to make decisions concerning the completion of their work or ask questions of the leader • The leader provides the followers with the materials they need to accomplish their goals and answers the followers questionsIn this type of leadership style,the leader totally trusts their employees/team to performthe job themselves. He just concentrates on the intellectual/rational aspect of his workand does not focus on the management aspect of his work.The team/employees are welcomed to share their views and provide suggestions whichare best for organizational interests. This leadership style works only when theemployees are skilled, loyal, experienced and intellectual.Narcissistic leadershipVarious academics such as Kets de Vries, Maccoby, and Thomas have identifiednarcissistic leadership as an important and common leadership style.Narcissistic leadership is a common form of leadership. The narcissism may be healthyor destructive although there is a continuum between the two. To critics, "narcissistic
leadership (preferably destructive) is driven by unyielding arrogance, self-absorption,and a personal egotistic need for power and admiration."here are four basic types of leader with narcissists most commonly in type 3 althoughthey may be in type 1: 1. authoritarian with task orientated decision making 2. democratic with task orientated decision making 3. authoritarian with emotional decision making 4. democratic with emotional decision makingToxic leadershipA toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or anorganization, and who abuses the leader-follower relationship by leaving the group ororganization in a worse-off condition than when he/she first found them.The phrase was coined by Marcia Whicker in 1996 and is linked with a number ofdysfunctional leadership styles.Other names include the little Hitler, manager from helland boss from hell.
Basic traits of toxic leadershipThe basic traits of a toxic leader are generally considered to be either/orinsular,intemperate, glib, operationally rigid, callous, inept, discriminatory, corrupt oraggressive by scholars such as Barbara Kellerman.These may occur as either: • Oppositional behaviour. • Poor self-control and or restraint. • Plays corporate power politics. • Physical and/or psychological • An overcompetitive attitude to other bullying. employees. • Procedural inflexibility. • Perfectionistic attitudes. • Discriminatory attitudes (sexism, • Abuse of the disciplinary system etc.). (such as to remove a workplace rival). • Causes workplace division instead of • A condescending/glib attitude. harmony. • Use "divide and rule" tactics on their employees.
The concept of interpersonal trustOn the basis of their review, Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) conceptually definedtrust as “a willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based onthe expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor,irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that party.”Interpersonal Trust is the perception you have that other person will not do anythingthat harm your interest.Interpersonal trust - a willingness to accept vulnerability or risk based on expectationsregarding another person’s behavior – is a vitally important concept for human behavior,affecting our interactions both with adversaries and competitors as well as with alliesand friends. Indeed, interpersonal trust could be said to be responsible in part fornudging competitors towards becoming allies, or – if betrayed – leading friends tobecome adversaries.IMPORTANCE OF INTERPERSONAL TRUSTInterpersonal trust is very important in organizational settings. It leads to: • Team Spirit • Cordial Environment • Target Fulfillment • Less Turnover Rate
• Enthusiasm Among Employees • Sound Relationships • Better Communication • Delegation Of Authority And Responsibility • DefensivenessEffects of Interpersonal TrustCooperationCooperation is frequently associated with trust – particularly when cooperation putsone at risk of being taken advantage of by a partner (Mayer et al., 1995). I propose thattrust will positively effect two components of cooperation: coordination and helping.The ability to harmoniously combine actions (i.e., be coordinated) is likely to becontingent upon the extent to which individuals can depend upon their partners and canpredict their partners behaviors. Dependability and predictability are constituentelements of trust. Helping behavior should also be greater in high-trust groups, asindividuals anticipate that their partners will not take advantage of their assistance.Instead, in high-trust groups, individuals may expect their partner to respond in kind, asthey know their partners are taking their interests into account. Individuals in low-trustgroups would not tend to hold these expectations.
Group decision-making processesGroup members could be expected to be more likely to diagnose (critique) performanceof the group, express ideas for improving it, and commit to a plan if they feel that theirpartners are taking the group’s interests into account and will be dependable. Forexample, if an individual suspects that her partners will betray her by not carrying outtheir ends of the bargain, she will be unlikely to agree to the plan. Hence, groups withlow levels of trust will be likely to experience less diagnosis of performance, fewer ideasexpressed, and fewer commitments to a decision.EffortExpectancy theory can be used to make predictions about the intensity of effort, asrelated to trust, in cases where individuals are highly interdependent (e.g., see Sheppard,1993). Using the latter assumption, when an individual thinks her group members areundependable (i.e., she has low trust), she may perceive her effort as unrelated to groupperformance – because the poor performance of her partners will limit the performanceof the group and make her efforts futile. In this case, the logic of expectancy theorywould predict that she put forth a low level of effort. Put differently, trust influences agroup member’s expectations about the extent to which her effort can be converted intogroup performance.
Trust may also have a main effect on the direction of effort. In groups with high levelsof trust, individuals can feel comfortable directing their effort toward the group task,because they are not afraid that their partners will take advantage of them or will beundependable. If they are concerned about being taken advantage of by their partners, orif they think that their partners are undependable, they may be more likely to direct theirefforts toward goals where they do not have to rely on the behavior of others.PropositionThe relationship between interpersonal trust and work group performance will bemediated by three group processes: cooperation (coordination, helping), decision-making processes (diagnosing performance, expressing ideas, committing to a decision),and effort (intensity, direction).Interpersonal Trust as a ModeratorAs indicated earlier, much of the research in organizational behavior appears to positiontrust as a variable that has direct effects on work group process and performance. Trustcould, however, operate on group performance indirectly through a moderating role.While this idea has been relatively unexamined in empirical research, it has been hintedat in conceptual work.
For example, Hackman and Morris (1975) stated that team-building (e.g., trust-building)activities are intended to “remove some of the emotional and interpersonal obstacles toeffective group functioning and thereby permit group members to devote a greaterproportion of their energies toward actual task work” (p. 48). In recent work, Yeatts andHyden (1998, p. 102) present a similar argument. Lastly, Hwang and Burger (1997)proposed that trust is an important “condition” for cooperation.In sum, the language used by these researchers suggests that trust operates by facilitatingthe effects of other variable s on group process and performance.This idea is theoretically appealing. Instead of thinking of trust as a variable that drivesbehavior and performance (e.g., increasing trust leads to an increase in cooperation andperformance), trust may be better conceived of as a variable that influences how theteam members direct their energy (which is provided by the driver).To be more specific about this model, theories of task motivation (e.g., Kanfer,1990) suggest that behavior, and subsequently performance, are driven by needs, goals,or rewards – not by beliefs about co-workers.Under this model, trust would help channel the energy towards reaching alternativeobjectives (e.g., personal versus group objectives) as it provides information about theadvisability of engaging in particular courses of action (e.g., cooperating).
Managerial Behaviors That Promote InterpersonalTrustTrustworthy behavior: 1.Acting with discretion . 2.Being consistent between words and deeds. 3.Ensuring frequent and rich communication. 4. Engaging in collaborative communication. 5. Ensuring that decisions are fair and transparent .Organizational Factors : 6. Establishing and ensuring shared vision and language. 7. Holding people accountable for trust.Relational Factors 8. Creating personal connections. 9. Giving away something of value.Individual Factors 10.Disclosing your expertise and limitations.
Leadership and trustLittle attention has been given to leadership studies on the role of trust in influencingfollower’s behavioral outcomes. Trust is the building block of social exchange and rolerelationship. Leader member relationship needs trust. Leadership is consideredtrustworthy based on leadership’s conduct, integrity, use of control, ability tocommunicate, and ability to express interest for members. When trust is broken it canhave serious adverse effects on a group’s performance.Research indicates that trust, most specifically leadership trust, is a necessary and viablecomponent of organizational success. Leadership trust is literally defined as a leader-member relationship based on mutual respect, cooperation, commitment, reliability andequity. Effective leadership trust is also based in exchange theory, which proposes thatleaders and members create a mutual reciprocal relationship. When followers trustleader, they are willing to be vulnerable to the leader’s action—confident that theirrights and interests will not be abused.Leaders have a significant responsibility to increase member involvement to breedleadership trust. Honesty, for instance, consistently ranks at the top of most people’s listof characteristics they admire in their leaders. It is also important that leadership trustonly exists if leadership is aligned with organizational values, demonstrates fairness withmembers, and does not exploit members. Furthermore, organizations that experiencegreater trust in leadership can compete more effectively in economic markets and
Review of literatureEmpirical research has examined the main effects of trust on a variety of dependentvariables including organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., McAllister, 1995;Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Robinson, 1996), effort (e.g.,Williams & Karau, 1991), conflict (e.g., Ferrin & Shah, 1997), communication (e.g.,Mellinger, 1959; O’Reilly and Roberts, 1974; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974), decisionmaking (e.g., Zand, 1972), and group performance (e.g., Friedlander, 1970; Klimoski &Karol, 1976). Is there evidence from this research that would allow us to conclude that
trust exerts main effects on group performance? There are three factors that lead to anegative answer to this question.First, the results from the research cited above could be labeled as providing mild and/orinconsistent empirical results. For example, in the study of the effects of trust on theperformance of groups, two studies reported finding support for a main effect (Hughes,Rosenbach, & Clover, 1983; Klimoski & Karol, 1976); one study found support for anindirect effect (Friedlander, 1970), and one study found no effect (Kimmel et al., 1980).Studies of trust on behavioral dependent variables, with the possible exception ofcommunication, have also shown relatively inconsistent and/or weak results.Second, the results from much of the work cited above are potentially inflated due to thedesigns used.For example, many of the studies collected cross-sectional data that limits our ability toascertain thedirection of causality. In addition, many of the studies collected all data with self-reportsurveys, thuspotentially inflating the correlations.
Lastly, related research on the role of interpersonal relations in effecting groupperformance has shown weak results. For example, reviews of the research on groupperformance and on team-building tend to suggest that better interpersonal relationshipsamong team members does not necessarily result in higher team performance (McGrath& Altman, 1966; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990; Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas,1992; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980).In sum, given the mild support in prior research, the methodological limitations of thiswork, and research in related areas, we can not yet conclude that trust exerts main(direct) effects on group process and performance. Clearly, this proposition needs to besubjected to further careful empirical study before we could draw such a conclusion. Asindicated in the above critiques, careful empirical study should include (a) isolating theeffects of trust on behavior and performance, (b) measuring independent and dependentvariables at different points in time, and (c) measuring independent and dependentvariables using different methods and sources.
Theoretical BasesTrust has been a frequently cited determinant of group performance (Golembiewski &McConkie, 1988). In prior research, the argument for a main effect of trust onperformance is relatively straightforward. Put simply, trust increases the ability of groupmembers to work together. Since work groups require that individuals work together,trust is expected to increase the performance of the group, both in terms of effectivenessand efficiency. Effectiveness is expected to be positively related to trust, as the lattermay improve cooperation and the motivation to work jointly (Larson & LaFasto, 1989),that in turn may improve the group’s execution of its task. Efficiency is expected toincrease, as trust reduces the need for controls (e.g., rules, monitoring) and increases the
ability to confront performance problems; both of these factors facilitate the maximalutilization of the group’s resources (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995; Larson & LaFasto,1989). In making this argument, as well as others this paper, moderate to high levels ofinterdependence act as a boundary condition. Lacking a moderate level ofinterdependence, trust becomes less meaningful as individuals do not need to rely uponeach other to reach their goals.In a study on Authentic Leadership, Trust and Work Engagement by Arif Hassan andForbis Ahmed,it was found that Interpersonal trust between leaders and members of thework group is central to their effective functioning. Though leaders play the primary rolein establishing and developing trust, little research has examined the specific leadershippractices which engender trust towards them. There are some evidences, however, tosuggest that some leaders, such as authentic and transformational, seem to be moreeffective than others in promoting a trusting relationship with their followers .They found in their study that trust in leaders is particularly important for effectivefunctioning in organizations such as banks where tasks are complex and require highlevels of interdependence, cooperation, information sharing and above all trust.Rationale/objectives of studyThe rationale of this study is to-
1.Identify the different types of leadership styles.2.Understand the importance of each leadership style in specific situations.3.Explain the concept of Interpersonal trust.4.Identify the antecedents,consequences and importance of interpersonal trust inorganizations.5.Understand the relationship between leadership styles and interpersonal trust.6.Identify effective ways to adapt appropriate leadership styles (in order to increaseinterpersonal trust and to improve the performance of employees).This study will help us understand-1. To what extent authentic leaders promote subordinates trust in them and their workengagement?2. How does subordinates’ trust in leaders facilitate employees work engagement?3. How does trust mediate the relationship between leadership authenticity andemployees work engagement?HypothesesHypothesis 1
Leadership style ,adopted by the leader,affects the Interpersonal trust between leaderand employees/subordinates.Hypothesis 2Transformational and transactional leadership styles Positively affect the interpersonaltrust between bosses and subordinates.MethodologySampleThis study was done on NTPC employees. A random sample of 50 people was takenfrom different departments of the organization,including human relations department,department of information and technology etc.This study was made irrespective of gender. Participants were asked to fill aquestionnaire which contained items measuring leadership styles of the leaders,asperceived by the employees, and the level of interpersonal trust among the employees.For measuring leadership styles,Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used and forthe purpose of measuring interpersonal trust,Interpersonal Trust Scale byChristopher,K.J.was applied.
About the questionnairesMulti-factor Leadership QuestionnaireThe most widely used measure of transformational leadership is the MLQ. An earlierversion of the MLQ was originally developed by Bass (1985), based on a series ofinterviews he and his associates conducted with 70 senior executives in South Africa.These executives were asked to recall leaders within their experiences who had raisedtheir awareness to broader goals, moved them to higher motives, or inspired them to putothers interests ahead of their own. The executives were then asked to describe howthese leaders behaved-what they did to effect change. From these descriptions and fromnumerous other interviews with both junior and senior executives, Bass constructed thequestions that make up the MLQ. Since it was first designed, the MLQ has gone throughmany revisions, and it continues to be refined to strengthen its reliability and validity(Bass & Avolio, 1993).The MLQ is made up of questions that measure followers perceptions of a leadersbehavior for each of the seven factors in the transformational and transactionalleadership model (see Figure 8.2), and it also has items that measure extra effort,effectiveness, and satisfaction.Based on a summary analysis of a series of studies that used the MLQ to predict howtransformational leadership relates to outcomes such as effectiveness, Bryman (1992)and Bass and Avolio (1994) have suggested that the charisma and motivation factors on
the MLQ are the most likely to be related to positive effects. Individualizedconsideration, intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward are the next mostimportant factors. Management-by-exception in its passive form has been found to besomewhat related to outcomes, and in its active form it has been found to be negativelyrelated to outcomes. Generally, laissez-faire leadership has been found to be negativelyrelated to outcomes such as effectiveness and satisfaction in organizations.Bass and Avolio (1992) have developed an abbreviated version of the MLQ, called theMLQ-6S. We present it in this section so that you can assess your own transformational,transactional, and non-transactional leadership style. At the end of the questionnaire, weprovide information you can use to interpret your scores.These seven factors can be divided into three groups. The first group includes the scoreson Factors I through 4, which represent items that directly assess the degree to which theleadership is transformational. Higher scores on these factors indicate more frequentlydisplayed transformational leadership. The second group includes scores on Factors 5and 6. These factors represent the transactional dimensions of ones leadership. Higherscores on these factors suggest the leader uses reward systems and/or correctivestructures in his/her leadership style. The last factor, laissez-faire leadership, assesses thedegree to which the leader employs hands-off leadership, or nonleadership. On thisfactor, higher scores indicate that s/he tends to provide little structure or guidance tosubordinates.The MLQ-6S covers a number of dimensions of leadership, or what Bass and Avolio
(1994) have called a full range of leadership styles.Idealized influence _____ Factor 1Inspirational motivation _____ Factor 2Intellectual stimulation _____ Factor 3Individualized consideration _____ Factor 4Contingent reward _____ Factor 5Management-by-exception _____ Factor 6Laissez-faire Leadership _____ Factor 7Score range: High = 9-12, Moderate = 5-8, Low = 0-4
Factor 1Idealized influence indicates whether the leader holds subordinates trust, maintain theirfaith and respect, shows dedication to them, appeals to their hopes and dreams, and actsas their role model.Factor 2Inspirational motivation measures the degree to which your leader provides a vision,uses appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on their work, and tries tomake others feel their work is significant.Factor 3Intellectual stimulation shows the degree to which your leader encourages others to becreative in looking at old problems in new ways, creates an environment that is tolerantof seemingly extreme positions, and nurtures people to question their own values andbeliefs and those of the organization.Factor 4Individualized consideration indicates the degree to which your leader shows interest inothers well-being, assigns projects individually, and pays attention to those who seem
less involved in the group.Factor 5Contingent reward shows the degree to which your leader tells others what to do in orderto be rewarded, emphasizes what s/he expects from them, and recognizes theiraccomplishments.Factor 6Management-by-exception assesses whether your leader tells others the jobrequirements, is content with standard performance, and is a believer in "if it aint broke,dont fix it."Factor 7Laissez-faire measures whether your leader requires little of others, is content to letthings ride, and lets others do their own thing.
Interpersonal Trust ScaleInterpersonal Trust Scale consists of 20 items which measure the level of interpersonaltrust between employees and leaders. This scale was developed by Christopher,K.J. Itincludes items such as ,In important matters I never rely on others.” or “Most peoplelike taking responsibility.” This is a self rater scale. The respondent requires to respondto each statement in “true” or “false”.Statistical AnalysisAfter the data was collected,its statistical analysis was done. First the items were scoredas per the scoring keys. Then the average scores were computed. For the statisticalanalysis of MLQ the scores for all the seven factors were calculated separately to assessthe seven leadership factors. The average score was found to be 10.15 for Idealizedinfluence, 10.36 for Inspirational motivation, 9 for Intellectual stimulation, 9.45 forIndividual consideration, 9.43 for Contingent reward, 9.61 for management by exceptionand 5.02 for laissez fair leadership. According to the scoring key,the average score ofthe first six factors is High (9-12) and that of the seventh factor is moderate (5-8).After computing the average scores of each factor,the average scores oftransactional,transformational and laissez fair leadership-styles were calculated. Theaverage score of transformational leadership style was found to be 9.74,which,as per the