What Is Your Leadership Style?
Define your predominant leadership style. ask those who work with you if in their honest opinion this is indeed the leadership style that you use most often. What style of leadership do you work best under? What leadership style best describes your present or former managers?
For some time, theorists believed that leaders had a predominant leadership style and used it consistently. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, theorists began to believe that most leaders did not fit a textbook picture of any one style but rather fell somewhere on a continuum between authoritarian and laissez-faire. They also came to believe that leaders moved dynamically along the continuum in response to each new situation. This recognition was a forerunner to what is known as situational or contingency leadership theory.
Situational and Contingency Leadership Theories (1950 to 1980)
The idea that leadership style should vary according to the situation or the individuals involved was first suggested almost 100 years ago by Mary Parker Follett, one of the earliest management consultants and among the first to view an organization as a social system of contingencies.
Her ideas, published in a series of books between 1896 and 1933, were so far ahead of their time that they did not gain appropriate recognition in the literature until the 1970s. Her law of the situation, which said that the situation should determine the directives given after allowing everyone to know the problem, was contingency leadership in its humble origins.
Fiedler’s (1967) contingency approach reinforced these findings, suggesting that no one leadership style is ideal for every situation. Fiedler felt that the interrelationships between the group’s leader and its members were most influenced by the manager’s ability to be a good leader. The task to be accomplished and the power associated with the leader’s position also were cited as key variables.
In contrast to the continuum from autocratic to democratic, Blake and Mouton’s (1964) grid showed various combinations of concern or focus that managers had for or on productivity,
tasks, people, and relationships. In each of these areas, the leader-manager may rank high or low, resulting in numerous combinations of leadership behaviors. Various formations can be effective depending on the situation and the needs of the worker.
Hersey and Blanchard (1977) also developed a situational approach to leadership. Their tridimensional leadership effectiveness model predicts which leadership style is most appropriate in each situation on the basis of the level of the followers’ maturity. As people mature, leadership style becomes less task focused and more relationship oriented.
Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) built on the work of Lewin and White, suggesting that managers need varying mixtures of autocratic and democratic leadership behavior. They believed that the primary determinants of leadership style should include the nature of the situation, the skills of the manager, and the abilities of the group members.
Although situational and contingency theories added necessary complexity to leadership theory and continue to be applied effectively by managers, by the late 1970s, theorists began arguing that effective leadership depended on an even greater number of variables, including organizational culture, the values of the leader and the followers, the work, the environment, the influence of the leader-manager, and the complexities of the situation. Efforts to integrate these variables are apparent in more contemporary interactional and transformational leadership theories.
INTERACTIONAL LEADERSHIp THEORIES (1970 TO pRESENT)
The basic premise of interactional theory is that leadership behavior is generally determined by the relationship between the leader’s personality and the specific situation. Schein (1970), an interactional theorist, was the first to propose a model of humans as complex beings whose working environment was an open system to which they responded. A system may be defined as a set of objects, with relationships between the objects and between their attributes. A system is considered open if it exchanges matter, energy, or information with its environment.
Schein’s model, based on systems theory, had the following assumptions:
• People are very complex and highly variable. They have multiple motives for doing things. For example, a pay raise might mean status to one person, security to another, and both to a third.
• People’s motives do not stay constant but change over time.
• Goals can differ in various situations. For example, an informal group’s goals may be quite distinct from a formal group’s goals.
• A person’s performance and productivity are affected by the nature of the task and by his or her ability, experience, and motivation.
• No single leadership strategy is effective in every situation.
To be successful, the leader must diagnose the situation and select appropriate strategies from a large repertoire of skills. Hollander (1978) was among the first to recognize that both leaders and followers have roles outside of the leadership situation and that both may be influenced by events occurring in their other roles.
With leader and follower contributing to the working relationship and both receiving something from it, Hollander (1978) saw leadership as a dynamic two-way process.
According to Hollander, a leadership exchange involves three basic elements:
• The leader, including his or her personality, perceptions, and abilities.
• The followers, with their personalities, perceptions, and abilities.
• The situation within which the leader and the followers function, including formal and informal group norms, size, and density.
Leadership effectiveness, according to Hollander, requires the ability to use the problem-solving process; maintain group effectiveness; communicate well; demonstrate leader fairness, competence, dependability, and creativity; and develop group identification.
Ouchi (1981) was a pioneer in introducing interactional leadership theory in his application of Japanese style management to corporate America. Theory Z, the term Ouchi used for this type of management, is an expansion of McGregor’s Theory Y and supports democratic leadership. Characteristics of Theory Z include consensus decision making, fitting employees to their jobs, job security, slower promotions, examining the long-term consequences of management decision making, quality circles, guarantee of lifetime employment, establishment of strong bonds of responsibility between superiors and subordinates, and a holistic concern for the workers (Ouchi, 1981). Ouchi was able to find components of Japanese-style management in many successful American companies.
In the 1990s, Theory Z lost its favor with many management theorists. American managers are unable to put these same ideas into practice in the United States. Instead, they continue to boss-manage workers in an attempt to make them do what they do not want to do. Although Theory Z is more comprehensive than many of the earlier theories, it too neglects some of the variables that influence leadership effectiveness. It has the same shortcomings as situational theories in inadequately recognizing the dynamics of the interaction between the worker and the leader.
One of the pioneering leadership theorists of this time was Kanter (1977), who developed the theory that the structural aspects of the job shape a leader’s effectiveness. She postulated that the leader becomes empowered through both formal and informal systems of the organization. A leader must develop relationships with a variety of people and groups within the organization in order to maximize job empowerment and be successful. The three major work empowerment structures within the organization are opportunity, power, and proportion.
Kanter asserts that these work structures have the potential to explain differences in leader responses, behaviors, and attitudes in the work environment.
Nelson and Burns (1984) suggested that organizations and their leaders have four developmental levels and that these levels influence productivity and worker satisfaction. The first of these levels is reactive. The reactive leader focuses on the past, is crisis driven, and is frequently abusive to subordinates. In the next level, responsive, the leader is able to mold subordinates to work together as a team, although the leader maintains most decision-making responsibility. At the proactive level, the leader and followers become more future oriented and hold common driving values. Management and decision making are more participative.
At the last level, high-performance teams, maximum productivity and worker satisfaction are apparent.
Brandt’s (1994) interactive leadership model suggests that leaders develop a work environment that fosters autonomy and creativity through valuing and empowering followers. This leadership “affirms the uniqueness of each individual,” motivating them to
“contribute their unique talents to a common goal.” The leader must accept the responsibility for quality of outcomes and quality of life for followers. Brandt states that this type of leadership affords the leader greater freedom while simultaneously adding to the burdens of leadership. The leader’s responsibilities increase because priorities cannot be limited to the organization’s goals, and authority confers not only power but also responsibility and obligation. The leader’s concern for each worker decreases the need for competition and fosters an atmosphere of collegiality, freeing the leader from the burden of having to resolve follower conflicts.
Wolf, Boland, and Aukerman (1994) also emphasized an interactive leadership model in their creation of a collaborative practice matrix. This matrix highlights the framework for the
development and ongoing support of relationships between and among professionals working together. The “social architecture” of the work group is emphasized, as is how expectations, personal values, and interpersonal relationships affect the ability of leaders and followers to achieve the vision of the organization.
Kanter (1989) perhaps best summarized the work of the interactive theorists by her assertion that title and position authority were no longer sufficient to mold a workforce where subordinates are encouraged to think for themselves, and instead managers must learn to work synergistically with others.
Transactional and Transformational Leadership
Similarly, Burns (2003), a noted scholar in the area of leader–follower interactions, was among the first to suggest that both leaders and followers have the ability to raise each other to higher levels of motivation and morality. Identifying this concept as transformational leadership, Burns maintained that there are two primary types of leaders in management. The traditional manager, concerned with the day-to-day operations, was termed a transactional leader. The manager who is committed, has a vision, and is able to empower others with this vision was termed a transformational leader. A composite of the two different types of leaders is shown in Table 2.2.
Transactional leaders focus on tasks and getting the work done. Transformational leaders focus on vision and empowerment.
Similarly, Bass and Avolio (1994) suggested that transformational leadership leads followers to levels of higher morals because such leaders do the right thing for the right reason, treat people with care and compassion, encourage followers to be more creative and innovative, and inspire others with their vision. This new shared vision provides the energy required to move toward the future.
Doody and Doody (2012) agree, suggesting that traditionally, nurses have been overmanaged and inadequately led, and that contemporary health-care organizations need increasingly adaptive and flexible leadership. Doody and Doody suggest that transformational leadership “motivates followers by appealing to higher ideas and moral values, where the leader has a deep set of internal values and ideas. This leads followers acting to sustain the greater good, rather than their own interests, and supportive environments where responsibility is shared” (p. 1212).
Kouzes and Posner (2007) are perhaps the best known authors to further the work on transformational leadership in the past decade. Kouzes and Posner suggest that exemplary leaders foster a culture in which relationships between aspiring leaders and willing followers can thrive. This requires the development of the five practices shown in Display 2.4. Kouzes and Posner suggest that when these five practices are employed, anyone can further their ability to lead others to get extraordinary things done.
TABLE 2.2 Transactional and Transformational Leaders Transformational Leader Transactional Leader Focuses on management tasks identifies common values
is committed is a caretaker
Uses trade-offs to meet goals inspires others with vision Does not identify shared values has long-term vision
examines causes Looks at effects
Uses contingency reward empowers others
Although the transformational leader is held as the current ideal, many management theorists sound a warning about transformational leadership. Although transformational qualities are highly desirable, they must be coupled with the more traditional transactional qualities of the day-to-day managerial role. In addition, both sets of characteristics need to be present in the same person in varying degrees. The transformational leader will fail without traditional management skills. Indeed, Avolio et al. (2009, p. 428) note that much of the disillusionment with leadership theory and research in the early 1980s was related to “the fact that most models of leadership and measures accounted for a relatively small percentage of variance in performance outcomes such as productivity and effectiveness.”
Although transformational qualities are highly desirable, they must be coupled with the more traditional transactional qualities of the day-to-day managerial role or the leader will fail.
In addition, Badaracco cautions that “because we admire heroes, it is easy to overlook the inconvenient fact that some leaders are effective without being either visionary or very inspiring. There must be a place for leading by example and other forms of quiet leadership”
(McCrimmon, n.d., para 2). Similarly, the North Carolina Center for Student Leadership in Ethics & Public Service (2009) warns that transformational leaders must be careful not to mistake passion and confidence for truth and reality. “Whilst it is true that great things have been achieved through enthusiastic leadership, it is also true that many passionate people have led the charge right over the cliff and into a bottomless chasm. Just because someone believes they are right, it does not mean they are right” (para 14).
Finally, recent research by Braun, Peus, and Frey (2012) suggests another potential limitation to holding transformational leadership as the ideal. Their attempt to test the interaction effects of leader gender, leader attractiveness, and leadership style on followers’
trust and loyalty found that attractive females using transformational leadership skills struggled more than less attractive females to gain follower support and trust; the so-called beauty is beastly effect. The same results did not occur for attractive males. It also did not occur when transactional leadership skills were used. These study results hold implications for female leaders, for followers, and for anyone who evaluates leaders and their effectiveness in organizational contexts. (See Examining the Evidence 2.1.)
Full-Range Leadership Theory
It is this idea that context is an important mediator of transformational leadership that led to the creation of full-range leadership theory early in the 21st century. This theory, originally developed by Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam (2003), suggests that there are nine
1. Modeling the way: Requires value clarification and self-awareness so that behavior is congruent with values.
2. Inspiring a shared vision: entails visioning which inspires followers to want to participate in goal attainment.
3. Challenging the process: identifying opportunities and taking action.
4. Enabling others to act: Fostering collaboration, trust, and the sharing of power.
5. Encouraging the heart: Recognize, appreciate, and celebrate followers and the achievement of shared goals.
DISpLAy 2.4 Kouzes and Posner’s Five Practices for Exemplary Leadership
Source: Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). the leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
factors impacting leadership style and its impact on followers; five are transformational, three are transactional, and one is a nonleadership or laissez-faire leadership factor (Rowold &
Schlotz, 2009) (see Display 2.5).
Source: Braun, S., Peus, C., & Frey, D. (2012). Is beauty beastly?: Gender-specific effects of leader attractiveness and leadership style on followers’ trust and loyalty. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 220(2), 98–108.
Two hundred and fifty-three undergraduate students (127 female and 126 male) with an average age of 21.9 years from a german university participated in this study. Leader gender (male versus female), leader attractiveness (attractive versus unattractive), and leadership style (transformatio- nal versus transactional) were varied in a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects design. participant gender (male versus female) was accounted for as a quasi-experimental factor. participant evaluations of trust, loyalty, and ascribed leader communion were collected as measures of dependent and mediating variables, respectively.
attractive when compared with unattractive female leaders elicited lower levels of trust and loyalty in their followers when they displayed a transformational leadership style, but not when they displayed a transactional leadership style. The researchers suggested that these study fin- dings had important implications in at least four regards: (1) The study raised the awareness of the potential impact of physical appearance on the ability of female leaders to successfully employ transformational leadership strategies; (2) to counteract biased evaluations toward attractive female leaders, leadership assessments must be conducted in a structured manner, primarily based on behavioral criteria with relevance to their effectiveness as a leader as opposed to aspects related to candidates’ gender role; (3) the practice of attaching portraits to application materials challenges the fairness of selection procedures for male and female applications; and (4) enhanced training of all (future) female leaders and young professionals in general is needed with regard to the pitfalls of biased perceptions and evaluations based on gender stereotypes in organizational settings.
Examining the Evidence 2.1
DISpLAy 2.5 Nine Factors of Full-Range Leadership Theory
Factor 1 inspirational motivation transformational
Factor 2 idealized influence (attributed) transformational
Factor 3 idealized influence (behavior) transformational
Factor 4 intellectual stimulation transformational
Factor 5 individualized consideration transformational
Factor 6 Contingent reward transactional
Factor 7 active management-by-exception transactional
Factor 8 Management-by-exception passive transactional
Factor 9 Nonleadership Laissez-faire
In describing these factors, Rowold and Schlotz (2009) suggest that the first factor, inspirational motivation, is characterized by the leader’s articulation and representation of vision. Idealized influence (attributed), the second factor, relies on the charisma of the leader to create emotional ties with followers that build trust and confidence. The third factor, idealized influence (behavior), results in the leader creating a collective sense of mission and values and prompting followers to act upon these values. With the fourth factor, intellectual stimulation, leaders challenge the assumptions of followers’ beliefs as well as analyze subordinates’ problems and possible solutions. The final transformational factor,
individualized consideration, occurs when the leader is able to individualize his or her followers, recognizing and appreciating their unique needs, strengths, and challenges.
The first transactional factor, as described by Rowold and Schlotz (2009), is contingent reward. Here, the leader is task oriented in providing followers with meaningful rewards based on successful task completion. Active management-by-exception, the second transactional factor, suggests that the leader watches and searches actively for deviations from rules and standards and takes corrective actions when necessary. In contrast, the third transactional factor, management-by-exception passive, describes a leader who intervenes only after errors have been detected or standards have been violated. Finally, the ninth factor of full-range leadership theory is the absence of leadership. Thus, laissez-faire is a contrast to the active leadership styles of transformational and transactional leadership exemplified in the first eight factors.
Leadership Competencies
Just as Fayol and Gulick identified management functions, contemporary leadership experts suggest that there are certain competencies (skills, knowledge, and abilities) health-care leaders need to be successful. The American College of Healthcare Executives, the American College of Physician Executives, the American Organization of Nurse Executives, the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, the Healthcare Financial Management Association, and the Medical Group Management Association have collaborated to identify leadership competencies, which included leadership skills and behavior; organizational climate and culture; communicating vision; and managing change (Esparza and Rubino, 2014).
INTEGRATING LEADERSHIp AND MANAGEMENT
Because rapid, dramatic change will continue in nursing and the health-care industry, it has grown increasingly important for nurses to develop skill in both leadership roles and management functions. For managers and leaders to function at their greatest potential, the two must be integrated.
Gardner (1990) asserted that integrated leader-managers possess six distinguishing traits:
1. They think longer term: They are visionary and futuristic. They consider the effect that their decisions will have years from now as well as their immediate consequences.
2. They look outward, toward the larger organization: They do not become narrowly focused. They are able to understand how their unit or department fits into the bigger picture.
3. They influence others beyond their own group: Effective leader-managers rise above an organization’s bureaucratic boundaries.
4. They emphasize vision, values, and motivation: They understand intuitively the unconscious and often nonrational aspects that are present in interactions with others.
They are very sensitive to others and to differences in each situation.
5. They are politically astute: They are capable of coping with conflicting requirements and expectations from their many constituencies.
6. They think in terms of change and renewal: The traditional manager accepts the structure and processes of the organization, but the leader-manager examines the ever- changing reality of the world and seeks to revise the organization to keep pace.
Leadership and management skills can and should be integrated as they are learned.
Table 2.3 summarizes the development of leadership theory through the end of the 20th century. Newer (21st century) and emerging leadership theories are discussed in Chapter 3.