In the
previous blogs I talked about many different leadership theories that
concentrated on how the leader behaved, the traits of a leader, or the leader’s
skills. The previous leadership theories
failed to account for a very important aspect when it comes to how successful a
leader is. The people that are being
lead are not all the same. Some people
may respond to a leader who is more authoritarian while another may feel threatened
by that. Some of us just like leaders
that we can get along with and have personalities that mesh well. Just like leaders need to adapt for certain
situations, they also need to adapt to different people and tasks. The two theories that we are going to discuss
this week are the path-goal theory and the leader member exchange (LMX) theory.
Path-goal
theory is based on how the leader’s behavior fits with the characteristics of
the followers and tasks (Northouse, 2016).
The theory contains different leadership behaviors and explains what
characteristics of followers and tasks go best with those behaviors. As I previously said some people have
personalities that need authoritative leadership and some do not. The four styles of leadership and the kinds
of followers and tasks they are best for are (Northouse, 2016):
1.
Directive:
Effective with ambiguous tasks and authoritarian followers.
2.
Supportive: Effective for repetitive tasks and
followers that need affiliation.
3.
Participative: Also effective with ambiguous
tasks and for followers that are autonomous or have a need for control.
4.
Achievement-oriented: Effective for challenging
tasks and followers with a need to excel.
The
path-goal theory is unique in that it brings in the expectancy theory of
motivation and uses it for leadership theory (Northouse, 2016). I studied expectancy theory in my class on
organizational behavior and the two theories do have similarities. Expectancy theory says that the behavior of
people depends on the expectations that their behavior will achieve a certain outcome
and that the outcome will be satisfactory (Reinharth & Wahba, 1975). What this theory is basically saying is that
a person will not behave in a certain way at work if there is nothing positive
in it for them. Path-goal theory shows
that a follower is expecting certain behavior from the leader based on the
follower’s personality and the tasks they are being asked to do. I also believe there are certain aspects of
the next theory that are somewhat similar to expectancy theory as well.
So far we
have discussed theories that focus solely on the leader to the previous one
that brings in other aspects such as the characteristics of the followers and
tasks. This next theory goes even
further into the relationship between the leader and followers. Leader member exchange (LMX) theory is based
on the formation of relationships and the interactions between leaders and
followers (Northouse, 2016). We have
probably all experienced this in one way or another at work or on a sports team
where the leader appears to have a better relationship with some than they do
with others. We all know the person that
seems to “suck up” or “brown nose” the leader by always volunteering for extra
tasks and going the extra mile. The
leader will usually reciprocate this behavior by doing favors for them in
return. LMX theory calls the different
relationships leader-member dyads.
The two
leader-member dyads are in-group and out-group.
In-group dyads are based on expanded roles and out-group are based on
the job descriptions (Northouse, 2016).
As I was saying before the people at work that go the extra mile for the
leader and receive preferential treatment in return are those that would be
considered to be in the in-group dyad. The
people have a special relationship and a high level of trust with the
leader. The other people at work that
clock in, do their forty hours, and go home would be considered in the
out-group. The members of the out-group
do not do anything extra that would motivate the leader to reciprocate with special
treatment.
I know in
my experience with many different leaders from my time with the Navy that this
theory is reflects what happens in real life.
While I was in the Navy I had five or six different direct
supervisors. Some of them I would say I
was in the in-group with and a couple I was likely more in the out-group. Whether or not I was in the in or out-group
depended solely on my behavior. When I
was going through a hard time and struggling with my duties I was not one that
my leaders would care to help out if I needed it as much as those that were not
struggling. When I started to improve
and do my job above the minimum level required I noticed a shift in the way my
leaders treated me. When I messed up as
a member of the out-group they did not try to defend me near as much as when I
messed up as a member of the in-group.
The two theories covered this week better reflect the reality of leadership
because of the focus on how followers effect the outcomes of situations just as
much, if not more, than leaders.
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice
(7th ed.). Thousand oaks: Sage Publications.
Reinharth,
L., & Wahba, M. A. (1975). Expectancy Theory as a Predictor of Work
Motivation, Effort Expenditure, and Job Performance. Academy Of Management
Journal, 18(3), 520-537. doi:10.2307/255682
No comments:
Post a Comment