Title A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Theories of Leadership Subtitle A practical and conceptual analysis of the contributionsof trait, style and contingency approaches to research to the understanding of associated processes of leadership. Abstract This aims of this essay are to explore the nature of the leadership process and to review the main contributions of trait, style (behavioural) and contingency (situational) approaches to leadership research. The essay begins with a brief discussion on the nature of the leadership process (Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985; McHugh & Thomson, 1995; Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998) and offers a definition of leadership as process of social influence, which often occurs within teams resulting in the willing commitment to and achievement of organisational goals. The contributions of trait, style (behavioural) and contingency (situational) approaches to leadership research are critically evaluated in order to provide an understanding of the leadership process, its contingent variables, and to provide an entitative perspective (Meyer et al., 1985; Hosking & Morley, 1991) on this important component of organisational behaviour. Key Words Leadership, Management, Followers, Subordinates, Influence, Vision, Shared Goals, Trait, Characteristics, Great Man Theories, Style Theories, Behavioural Theories, Leadership Style, Leadership Behaviours, Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaires, LBDQ, Initiating Structure, Consideration, Employee Orientation, Production Orientation, Task, Relationship, Managerial Grid, Participative, Authoritarian, Democratic, Laissez-Faire, Contingency Theory, LPC, Least Preferred Co-worker, Task Structure, Leader Member Relations, Leader Positional Power, Situational Leadership, Follower Maturity, Job Maturity, Task Maturity, Psychological Maturity, Telling, Selling, Participating, Delegating, Maturity, Readiness, Normative Decision Making Model of Leadership, Entitative, Organisation, Organisational Behaviour. The Nature of Leadership In recent years there has been more written about leadership than almost any other facet of management and remains an active area of inquiry (Bass, 1990; Bennis, 1989; Yukl, 1998; Burns 1978) states that “leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth.” (Burns, 1978, p.2). Yukl (1998) argues that researchers in the field usually define leadership according to their own, subjective perspectives and the aspects of the phenomena of most interest to them, and cites the work of Stogdill (1974) who even after a comprehensive review of the leadership literature concluded that there were almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define it. In reviewing some of the historical definitions of leadership Yukl (1998) argues that leadership has been defined in terms of traits, behaviours, influence, interaction patterns, role relationships, psychosocial constructs of personality, and occupation of an administrative position. 1. Leadership is “the behaviour of an individual directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal” (Hemphill & Coons, 1957, p.7) 2. Leadership is “the influential increment over and above the mechanical compliance with directives of the organisation” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p.528) 3. Leadership is “the process of influencing the activities of an organised group toward goal achievement” (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p.46) 4. Leaders are “those who consistently make effective contributions to social order and who are expected and perceived to do so” (Hosking, 1988, p.153) 5. Leadership is “the process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose (Jacobs & Jacques, 1990, p.281) 6. Leadership is “the ability to step outside the culture…to start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptive. (Schein, 1992, p.2) 7. Leadership is “the process of making sense of what people are doing together so that people will understand and be committed” (Drath & Palus, 1994, p.4) 8. Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplished (Richards & Engle, 1986, p.206) (Yukl, 1998, p.2-3) A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 1 this perspective argues that the extent to which a leader is able to influence followers is constrained by a combination of personal characteristics (traits) which are argued to have innate and phenotypical components. 2001. “They are (a) leadership is a process. and structural and process determinants of work. 2001) despite the many ways in which leadership has been conceptualised. a power relationship. and Bass (1990) who argued that the components of leadership can be defined in terms of: the focus of group processes. which enables followers to achieve team and organisational objectives (goals) which they share with the leader and includes facets of leadership which transforms followers through vision setting. argue that most definitions of leadership reflect an underlying assumption that it involves a process of intentional influence whereby one person is able to guide and facilitate the activities.. from this perspective the leader is viewed as at the centre of group activity and the process of leadership embodies the will of the group. of a group or organisation in order to achieve shared goals. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 2 . (c) leadership occurs within a group context. which enables leaders to bring about change in a group. the following broad definition of leadership is proffered]. and (d) leadership involves goal attainment. Leadership is the process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. relationships. (1991) in arguing that over the past fifty years there have been as many as sixty-five different classification systems developed to define the dimensions of leadership. it is possible to identify several components which are central to the phenomena of leadership. [Thus. Northhouse (2001) cites the work of Fleishman et al. 2001) among others. a construct of personality. as an instrument of goal achievement.(Yukl.” (Northouse. (b) leadership involves influence. an act or behaviour. Northhouse. according to (Northouse. 1998. which exists between leaders and followers and is the prime mechanism of influence.3) A Critical Review of Trait. role modelling and individualised attention. p. …. Thus. Consequently.389) and argue that research has focussed on personality traits. height and energy level. Trait Theories of Leadership The ‘trait’ approach to leadership research was historically the first systematic approach to the study of leadership developed in the early 1900’s. intelligence. trait researchers concentrated on isolating traits. trait theory was the most influential leadership theory with over one hundred studies undertaken. and educational achievements. (Northouse. (Bass. creativity. A central tenet of this approach was the belief that leaders were born with these traits and only great people possessed them. In the period 1904-1948. styles of leadership and more recently on situation-contingent styles and the relations between leaders and group members. and an individual who was able to provide leadership in one situation might not be able to transfer this leadership to a different situation. p. 1990. Northouse. 2001. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 3 . Leadership Traits examined during this period included physical characteristics such as the leader’s appearance. Stogdill’s (1948) review of trait leadership studies suggested that there was no consistent set of traits which differentiated leaders from followers or non-leaders. Yukl. 1998). need for achievement and power. sociability. self-esteem. 1985. A Critical Review of Trait. Yukl. which made leaders more effective in given situations rather than trying to isolate a universal set of leadership traits.The theme of leadership as a process of social influence is emphasised by McHugh & Thomson (1995) who cite Buchanan & Huczynsci (1985) in defining leadership as: “a social process in which one individual influences the behaviour of others without the use or threat of violence” (Buchanan & Huczynsci. 2001. personal characteristics such as. emotional stability. This approach led to the development of what were called ‘great man’ theories because they focussed on the identification of innate qualities and psychological characteristics possessed by great social and military leaders. 1998). given added support with the advent of psychometric testing in the 1920’s and 1930’s. insight. the trait the leader possesses must be relevant to situations in which the leader is functioning….Findings showed that leadership was not a passive state but resulted from a working relationship between the leader and other group members. the second survey “argued moderately that both personality and situational factors are determinants of leadership. 2001. vigour and persistence in pursuit of goals. Sogdill’s (1974) survey provided a more balanced analysis of the roles of traits and the leadership process: whilst the first survey argues that leadership is determined principally by situational factors. Northouse." (Northouse. intelligence. alertness. 1994. willingness to accept the consequences of decision and action. venturesomeness and originality in problem solving. “…an individual does not become a leader solely because he or she posses certain traits. ability to influence other persons’ behaviour. This research marked the beginning of a new approach to leadership research that focussed on leadership behaviours and leadership situations. drive to exercise initiative in social situations. Yukl. p. persistence. Rather. responsibility.16) Stogdill’s (1974) survey. analysis indicated that. 2001. willingness to tolerate frustration and delay. analysed 163 new studies and identified 10 traits which were associated with leadership: “The leader is characterised by a strong drive for responsibility and task completion. 1998). p. and the capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purposes at hand. readiness to absorb interpersonal stress.Given the limitations identified above Stogdill’s (1948) analysis of over one hundred studies undertaken between 1904-1948 argued that within an average group the following traits differentiated leaders from non-leaders (followers).” (Stogdill.17) A Critical Review of Trait. selfconfidence and sense of personal identity. self-confidence and sociability. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 4 Additionally Stogdill’s (1948) meta- . 1974.81) According to (McKenna. 2001. initiative.” (Northouse. p. dominance. or both.” (Northouse.A survey by Mann (1959) which analysed the nature of leadership in small groups identified leaders as possessing the following traits: intelligence. 2001). 1994. 2001. Fig 1 Studies of leadership Traits and Characteristics Stogdill (1948) Mann (1959) Stogdill (1974) Lord.. According to Northouse (2001) the significance of this study compared with similar research is that: “According to these writers [Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)]. 2001. adjustment. p. cognitive ability and knowledge of the business. individuals can be born with these traits. p. 1985) are a combination of innate and phenotypical constructs of personality and the wider social system. A meta-analysis of the Mann’s (1959) findings by Lord et al. masculinity. This survey placed less emphasis on situational factors than (Stogdill’s 1948. honesty and integrity. the desire to lead. 1974) surveys and tentatively suggested that personality traits alone could be used to discriminate between leaders and non-leaders. they can learn them. In another contemporary review of leadership traits Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) postulate that the following six traits differentiate leaders from non-leaders: drive. DeVader & Alliger (1986) Alertness Masculinity Persistence Masculinity Insight Adjustment Insight Intelligence Responsibility Dominance Self-confidence Dominance Initiative Extroversion Responsibility Persistence Self-confidence Sociability Conservatism Cooperativeness Tolerance Influence Sociability Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) Motivation Integrity Confidence Cognitive ability Task Knowledge [Source: Northouse. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 5 . self-confidence. extroversion and conservatism. masculinity and dominance as follower attributions of leadership but argued strongly that personality traits alone could not be used to differentiate between leaders and non-leaders. (1986) identified: intelligence. (McKenna.17-18) In other words characteristics of leadership and thus determinants of the social influence process (Buchanan & Huczynsci.18] A Critical Review of Trait. Northouse. p. The point is that traits are relatively fixed psychological structures. identified traits are often ambiguous. The trait approach to leadership research is particularly weak in describing how a leader’s traits affect the facilitation and outcome of group processes in particular organisational settings. nurturance and emotionality. productivity or follower satisfaction. 2001. and this limits the value of teaching and leadership A Critical Review of Trait.” (Northouse. which appear to show that groups prefer high-status members as leaders and that the characteristics of followers determine the acceptability of leadership characteristics. “Even if definitive traits could be identified.Trait approaches to leadership research have failed to provide any correlation between leadership ability and specific characteristics of the leader. 1998). Additionally. From an educational perspective trait theories do not provide a conceptual framework which can be used as the basis of management and leadership development programmes. (Yukl. For example. training. rather than traits associated with female constructs of leadership such as. aggression and rationality. it is not reasonable to send managers to a training programme to raise their IQ or to train them to become introverted or extroverted people. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 6 . trait theories focus on the leader rather than followers or the leadership process and in emphasising the identification of traits fail to link these to leadership outcomes such as organisational effectiveness.24) In summarising the legacy of the trait line of research McHugh & Thomson (1995) return to Stogdill’s (1974) review in arguing that most interesting evidence relates to the disconfirmative findings on the acceptability of leaders to group members. McHugh & Thomson (1995) argue that the most abiding feature of leadership traits in management literature are that they provide good examples of traits considered to be stereotypically male such as dominance. teaching new traits is not an easy process because traits are not easily changed. ill defined and fail to take into account the situation. passivity. Style/Behavioural Theories of Leadership The failure of trait theories of leadership which viewed leadership as a quality anchored in the personality of a particularly individual which enabled them to assume an influential role within society. 1994). task (production) related behaviours and relationship (group) related behaviours. Researchers utilising the style approach conceptualised leadership as composed of two general types of behaviours. These theories viewed leadership as a phenomenon. Research at the Ohio State University was initiated to identify how individuals behaved when they were leading a group or providing organisational leadership. (McKenna. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 7 . Task related behaviour emphasises leader control and is often bounded in organisational procedures and rules. Leadership behaviours were analysed using a Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) that asked subordinates (followers) in military. 1985) comprise of the bulk of research relating to style (behavioural) theories of leadership. whereas relationship orientated behaviour is more responsive to the needs of followers and emphasises the role of leadership in motivating and developing work teams. 1957) A Critical Review of Trait. representing a shift in emphasis from viewing leadership as a trait to conceptualising leadership as an activity. These studies coupled with later work by Blake & Mouton (1964. resulted in a new approach to leadership research which gave rise to a set of approaches collectively known as style or behavioural theories of leadership. 1978. Thus. The main studies on leadership style were undertaken in the USA at Ohio State University beginning in the late 1940’s. The original LBDQ developed by (Hemphill & Coons. with a focus on what leaders do and how they act. educational and industrial contexts to identify the frequency of certain types of leadership behaviour. and expanding the study of leadership to include the actions of leaders towards followers in differing organisational contexts each with associated criterion for leadership effectiveness. which did not resided solely in the personality of an individual but could be cultivated as distinct patterns of learnt behaviour. based on the findings of Stogdill’s (1948) research and at the same time a group of researchers at the University of Michigan began to explore the nature and function of leadership in small groups. 2001. or relationships within the organisation. 1963. but as two distinct continua of leadership behaviour. through planning. Thus. two way communications and participative leadership. The two categories of behaviours identified by the LBDQ-XII represented the core of the style approach and were considered central to what leaders do: leaders provide structure for subordinates and they nurture them in order to achieve the objectives inherent in the structuring of work. the degree to which a leader exhibited one behaviour was not constrained or related by the degree to which s/he exhibited behaviours on the other continuum. “A high score on this dimension characterises individuals who play an active role in directing group activities p. (Northouse. initiating structure and consideration. scheduling. Initiating structure indicates a concern with defining and organising roles. Stogdill. establishing well defined channels of organisation and work organisation. 1974) to categorise subordinates’ responses around two general types of leadership behaviours. a leader could be low in initiating the structure but low or high in consideration behaviour. McKenna.consisted of 150 items. and so on. That is. a leader could be high in initiating structure and low or high in task behaviour. 1994. trying out new ideas and practices. Yukl. communicating information. A Critical Review of Trait. Data collected from the extensive use of the LBDQ-XII allowed researchers (Fleishman & Harris. and focus on meeting individual and group needs. 1962. or. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 8 .” (McKenna. 1994. five years later a shortened version known as LBDQ-XII was developed by Stogdill (1963) and became the more widely used instrument. and establishing procedures for completing the work and communication within the work team – these behaviours are frequently termed task or production orientated behaviours. building trust and mutual respect and are representative of a climate of good rapport.364) Consideration behaviours are concerned with building relationships with subordinates (followers). 1998) make the important point that these two behaviours were distinct and independent and were not considered as end points of a single continuum. concern for production and concern for people . later research by (Khan. These behaviours are analogous with the leadership behaviours identified as initiating structure by the Ohio State researchers.At the same time as the Ohio State studies were been undertaken researchers from the University of Michigan (Cartwright & Zander. 1961) identified two types of leadership behaviour which they called employee orientation and production orientation. 1985. 1978. a resource to be exploited in completing the task. The key difference between the Michigan and Ohio State studies were that the Michigan researchers originally conceptualised employee orientation and production orientation as opposites ends of the same continuum. 1956) suggested that in fact these behaviours were capable of being conceptualised on two independent continua and that leaders were able to simultaneously show a high regard for employee and production needs. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 9 . valuing their individuality and taking a genuine interest in developing good interpersonal relationships within work groups. Katz & Khan. However. These behaviours are analogous with the leadership behaviours identified as consideration by the Ohio State researchers.these are loosely analogous to initiating structure/production orientation and consideration/employee orientation respectively. It is designed to develop managerial self-awareness (and presumably leadership self-awareness) in relation to how managers can facilitate the achievement of organisational objectives through combinations of two behaviours namely. Employee orientation describes leadership behaviour characterised by concern for the needs of subordinates (followers). Likert. 1960. 1991) which was originally conceptualised as a 'managerial behaviour grid' (Blake & Mouton. which are concerned with the production aspects of the work and stress the importance of the technical aspects of work organisation and view subordinates as a means to get the work done. 1964) is a model of leadership behaviour which has been extensively used in organisational and managerial development. The 'leadership grid' (Blake & Mouton. suggesting that leaders could not simultaneously be highly orientated towards production and employees. Thus. Production Orientation describes leadership behaviours. Concern for production and concern for people are tested as separate dimensions of leadership style and are not shown as a point on a single continuum but rather as a point on a two dimensional grid. (see fig 2 on page 11). A Critical Review of Trait. 1951. 9) .'Impoverished Management'. A Critical Review of Trait. essentially Blake & Mouton's (1978. 1) . However.The leadership behaviour questionnaires (LBQs) used. 1991) model does not add any additional insight into the leadership process than the other style (behavioural) models of leadership and does not attempt to conceptualise a contingent relationship between leadership behaviours and the wider environment. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 10 . result in a leader being able to score between a maximum (9.'Team Management' or a minimum of (1. 1985. In an idealised organisational/managerial (leadership) development programme participants once they have established a datum of behaviours from the LBQs then utilise a planned series of development activities to develop leadership behaviours commensurate with other points on the grids. Leadership is characterised by participative decision making and problem solving. • 9. 1991. p. These managers are going through the motions of managing but are really not contributing anything to the organisation.9 Country Club Management.9) Country Club Management Thoughtful attention to the needs of the people for satisfying relationships leads to a comfortable. • 9.365] High C 10 O N 9 c e 8 r n 7 F o 6 r 5 P e 4 o p 3 l e 2 1 Low 1 (1. friendly organisational atmosphere and work tempo (9. interdependence through a 'common stake.9 Team Management. individual initiative by subordinates (followers) may be view as insubordination.1 Impoverished Management. The 9. Since these managers tend to lead by issuing orders.9) Team Management Work accomplishment is from committed people. Managers with a 9.1 style exhibit leadership behaviours.29.9 manager demonstrates high concern for people and results and views relationships between these two dimensions of leadership as complementary rather that antagonistic. in the organisational purpose leads to relationships of trust and respect (5. McKenna. p. 1994.5) Middle of the rode Management Adequate organisational performance is possible through balancing the necessity to get work out while maintaining morale of people at a satisfactory level.1 Task/Authority-Compliance Management.Fig 2 Leadership Grid [Source: Adapted from: Blake & Mouton. (1. Mangers with a 1. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 11 . The 1. This managerial style emphasises results but shows little concern for people.1 style fail to demonstrate a concern for people or results. Mangers with a 5.1) Impoverished Management Exertion of minimum effort to get the required work done is appropriate to sustain organisational membership (9.5 middle of the Road Management. which focus on the arrangements of work conditions and discount the importance of creativity and interpersonal processes. the integration of A Critical Review of Trait.5 style have a moderate amount of concern for both results and people. • 5.1) Task Management Authority-Compliance Management: efficiency in operations results from arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a minimum degree 2 3 4 5 6 Concern for production/Results 7 8 9 The five basic types of managerial style (including leadership style) are described as: • 1. Leadership behaviour is characterised by a low concern for results and an attempt to create work environments with pleasant social environments with positive interpersonal relationships. attitudes and needs. • 1. Their management style is characterised by a lack of leadership. Managers who use this leadership style try to balance employee morale with acceptable levels of work output and try to resolve conflict through accommodation and compromise. 9 manager is primarily concerned with people and their feelings. multiply contingent nature of the leadership process it is not surprising that such approaches yielded ambiguous and contradictory results. in a vain search for a universal style of leadership. Hunt (1991) argues behavioural approaches to leadership tend to focus on micro-level perspectives constructed from an individual manager-subordinate relationship and neglects the role of managers in dealing with inter-organisational and environmental relationships. and contextually. 1985. such approaches failed to develop theories which explain how leadership behaviour contributes to the flexibility and adaptation of the organisation to turbulent and globalised economies. 1991) would argue that a high-high (9. 1968. are determinants of organisational culture. An interesting expansion on the idea that leadership style consisted of two types of behaviour namely those related to achieving the task often conceptualised as autocratic and those relating to developing interpersonal relationships often conceptualised as democratic (Lippitt & White. Northouse (2001) argues that whilst approaches to leadership derived from the work of (Blake & Mouton. 1992) would argue. Lewin. once social validity has been established. 1968) is offered by Likert (1967) who articulates four styles of leadership related to specific management cultures that he believed were present in organisations (see fig 3 on page 13) Yukl (1998) argues strongly that despite a large number of studies conducted by researchers from both Ohio State and Michigan University aimed at determining how best leaders could combine their task and relationship behaviours so as to maximise the impact of these behaviours on followers in order to further the aims of the organisation. given the complexity. A Critical Review of Trait. Blake & McCanse. 1978. in developing an immature team. which some researchers (Schein. alliance and group formation are critical and largely ignored by the narrow behavioural constructs proposed by the proponents of style theory. in which the leadership outcomes such as networking. Researchers were not able to establish a link between leadership behaviours and the outcomes of the leadership process such as organisational productivity and efficiency. 1967. and team effectiveness that were universally transferable.9 -Team Management) approach to leadership to be optimal this might not be effective in all situations eg in crisis (or even war). Hence. job satisfaction and staff morale.follower objectives with those of the organisation by developing work teams that utilise team members’ contributions in an independent way. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 12 . which provide a wholly inadequate conceptual framework for the analysis of contemporary leadership behaviour associated with interrelated globalised markets and associated economic systems.Comparison of Likert's (1967) cultural determinants of leadership Style with Michigan & Ohio State University studies on leadership style. Task Behaviours (Concern for production/ initiating structures) Benevolent Authoritative Continuum of leadership behaviours Consultative Participative The corollary to this argument is that style theorists in an arguably over eager effort to identify core leadership behaviours effectively reduced organisations to closed social systems. and establishing work processes. Subordinates (followers) have a moderate amount of influence in operational issues but policy making is conducted by senior managers only. Decision-making takes place at the apex of the organisation and excludes subordinates who are psychologically estranged from the aims of the organisation and the leadership process. A Critical Review of Trait. the leaders and followers are psychologically close and every attempt is made to integrate individual objectives (needs) with those of the organisation. The leader uses both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in order to positively reinforce desirable subordinate behaviours. upward communication is still limited to what subordinates perceive that their managers want to hear. with individuals being a member of more than one work team spread across established organisational structures. The leader uses a degree of positive reinforcement especially in relation to financial remuneration to encourage desirable behaviours amongst followers. Communication is mostly downward and upward communication tends to be restricted to what subordinates perceive that their managers want to hear. The leader discusses both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards with followers and involves them in the setting of group objectives. Most decision making occurs at the top of the organisation but limited delegation exists in relation to clearly defined operational tasks. The emphasis is the exchange of accurate information. Dominant Culture Leadership Behaviours Exploitive Authoritative The leader utilises downwards communication to threaten followers in a climate of negative reinforcement.Fig 3 . Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 13 Relationship Behaviours (Concern for people/Consideration) . 1974. Resulting in a conceptually simple framework for categorising leadership behaviour. 1995. The lack of emphasis on the contextual components of leadership and the contingent nature of leadership behaviour is a significant and fundamental weakness of this strand of research. Contingency Theories of Leadership The failure of style (behavioural) theories of leadership to take into account situational and contextual variables led to new multi-variable research which investigated which types of leadership behaviour would be best suited to certain contextual and situational variables. which provided added credence to the notion that the antecedence of leadership behaviours had both genetic and environmental components. which in turn could be used as a framework for self-reflection and planned leadership. McHugh & Thomson (1995) cite Stogdill's (1974) review of leadership research in arguing that: "In view of the complexity of leadership behaviour and the variety of situations in which it functions. p. p. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 14 .407 in McHugh & Thomson.Additionally. style theories of leadership tend to consider leadership behaviours as mutually exclusive rather than considering how leaders select and use patterns of behaviours to achieve their objectives and how the social context shape these (and indeed how in turn leadership behaviours shape the context). This led A Critical Review of Trait. and that such taxonomies need to take into account the instrumentality of first level outcomes in selecting future leadership behaviours. Kaplan (1986) argues that far more complex behavioural taxonomies are required than those proposed by the proponents of style theory to adequately describe and explain 'real-life' leadership actions.289) Whilst style theories of leadership marked a shift in the emphasis of leadership research from the identification of personality traits to what leaders actually do in practice. bipolar view of leader follower relationship [which is a central tenet of style research (see fig 3)]" (Stogdill. a conditional and multivariate hypothesis seems more reasonable than a simplistic. management and organisational development activities. which was viewed as contingent on levels of task structure. The situational variable of task structure is a direct reference to the degree to which the organisation and/or the wider operating environment clarifies the way in which tasks are to be carried out by for example the use of procedures.380) The positional power of the leader refers to the authority vested in the leader by the organisation as distinct from any other power base the leader may use to influence followers. Thus. because of the attempt to match leaders to appropriate situations. Fielder & Garcia. 1994. The leader's preferred style is determined using the Least Preferred Co-worker Questionnaire (LPC) which measures the leader's esteem for her/his least preferred co-worker. The theory attempts to predict how the preferred style of the leader. 1987) are amongst the best known. (Northouse. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 15 . 2001). Positional power is A Critical Review of Trait. Leaders who described their LPC and MPC similarly were classified as having a high preference for relationship orientated behaviour whereas those who described their LPC much more negatively than their MPC were said to demonstrate a preference for task orientated behaviour. To arrive at a LPC scale leaders were asked to rate both their Most Preferred Co-worker (MPC) and LPC. the positional power of the leader and the structure of the job or task interrelate to determine the effectiveness of the leader. The leader finds it easier to force compliance in a structured job situation than in an unstructured job situation. leadership effectiveness was predicted to be dependent on the situational favourableness. Fiedler was able to make empirically grounded generalisations about which styles of leadership were best for given organisational contexts.to the development of contingent theories of leadership which are often referred to as 'leadermatch' theories. (Fiedler's 1964. leadermember relations. p." (McKenna. protocols. 1967. Fiedler’s (1964. rules and regulations. 1967) Contingency Theory Following the analysis of the leadership styles of many leaders (both good and bad). the leader's positional power and the leaders preferred style. "The degree of structure in the job or the task can be measured by establishing the extent to which one can be specific about the solution to the work problem. these three variables determine the conditions of 'favourableness' of various organisational contexts defined by unique combinations of these variables.6 0. Leader Member Relations is often regarded as the most important of contextual variable and refers to the extent to which the leader is trusted.Middle LPCs (Task Orientated) High LPCs (Relationship Orientated) Low LPCs Fig 4 .4 0.2 -0.Member Relations Task structure Leader Positional Power Structured Structured Structured Structured Strong Weak Strong Weak Leadership effectiveness Low .A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Taken collectively. organise work. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 16 . define methods of group working and define organisational policy. High LPC score: Realtionship Oreintated 1 0. p. 1967.2 Correlations between leader LPC and group Performance 0 I -0.6 -0. Fiedler.8 0.strong if the leader has the ability to reward or punish followers.146 Based on empirical research findings the theory predicts that in very favourable (octants 1-3) or very unfavourable (octant 8) conditions leaders with low LPC scores (who have a preference for A Critical Review of Trait.8 II III IV V VI VII VIII Low LPC score: Task Oreintated -1 Favourable to the leader I Good II Good III Good IV Good V Good Unstr Strong Unfavourable to the leader VI Poor Unstr Weak VII Poor Unstr Strong VIII Poor Unstr Weak Situational Variables Leader .4 -0. liked and respected by followers. (see fig 4 below). " (Northouse. Some respondents may get confused between an individual who is the least liked co-worker and their least preferred co-worker.285-6) provides an excellent summary of many of the criticisms of contingency theory. p. p. especially given that many researchers argue that by considering only three contingent variables Fiedler (1967) provides an incomplete picture of the leadership process and its outcomes. they do not fully explain how the respondent is to select his or her LPC. McHugh & Thomson (1995) argue that whilst many studies have cast doubt on Fielder's (1967) model it does fit with the notion that democratic (relationship orientated) leaders are preferred in most situations and that autocratic (task orientated) leaders are preferred in crisis or novel situations where there is a strong need amongst followers for quick decision making and for work to be organised. However. (Yukl. "Although it takes only a few minutes to complete the instructions on the LPC scale are not clear. the lack of clear directions on who to choose [and utilise to project their leadership style by reacting to observed behaviours in others] makes the measure of the LPC problematic. 1994. 2001. see fig 5 below. 1996. Because their final LPC score is predicated on who they choose as a least preferred co-worker.task orientated behaviour) are likely to perform best. 1998. McKenna. 1998) identify the indirect measure of preferred leadership style using the LPC score which tends to result in leaders with either high or low LPC scores with few intermediate scores. A Critical Review of Trait. (Northouse. as a major flaw in the research methodology. 2001. task orientated leaders are preferred in situations which Fielder's (1967) model describes as favourable.81) Such criticisms reinforce the difficulty in universally utilising the theory within real life contexts given the complexity of the three contingent variables each of which requires its own research instrument. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 17 . it does not adequately explain why autocratic. Yukl. In other situations which were either moderately favourable or moderately unfavourable (octants 4-7) then leaders with middle to high LPC scores (who have a preference for relationship orientated behaviour) are likely to perform best. Hunt. 1977. LPC scores may not be stable over time. The model does not explain why three different aspects of the situation should be combined and treated as a single continuum of leadership favourableness. (Shiflett.285-286) Researcher/Writer The LPC score is a "measure in search of meaning" (Schriesheim & Kerr. 1982. p. p. organising the work is the main concern of the leader. The model is not really a theory. (Kennedy. these leaders probably outnumber high and low LPC leaders. Research suggests that medium LPC leaders are more effective than either high or low LPC leader in at least 50% of situations (octants 4-7). and no explicit rationale was presented for them. whereas in many organisational situations. Shiflett. (Yukl. 1983) The weights used to compute situational favourability were determined in an arbitrary manner. 1981) The model treats task structure as given A Critical Review of Trait. 1973).Criticisms of Fiedler's (1967) Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 18 . presumably because they are able to better balance affiliation (relationship orientated behaviours) and achievement (task orientated behaviours) more successfully. 1991). and the current interpretation is speculative. Vecchio. Its interpretation has been changed in an arbitrary fashion. 1998. since it doesn't explain how a leader's LPC score affects group performance (Ashour. Research suggests that modifying the task structure has up to ten times the effect on group performance. There are no explicit intervening variables or leader behaviour variables to provide the causal link between the leader's LPC score and group performance Not a Theory Causal Variable Leader's LPC Score ? End Result Variable Group Performance Situational Variables Leader-Member Relations Leader's Positional Power Task Structure Weak Empirical Support Arbitrary weightings assigned to situational variables Lack of emphasis on medium LPC leaders The empirical support for the model is weak because it is based on correlational results that fail to achieve statistical significance in a majority of cases. 1973) The model treats task structure as given. 1972.23). even though correlations may be in the right direction (McMahon.Criticism LPC Score Fig 5 . (O'brien & Kabanoff. (Adapted from Yukl. 1973) The model and most of the empirical research neglects medium LPC scores. is willing to take responsibility for the job. willing and A Critical Review of Trait. …A subordinate or team working competently has the knowledge and skills to perform the task. the extent to which a subordinate’s task orientated knowledge and technical skills are contextually appropriate. selfconfidence and self-respect. and Psychological Maturity. depending on the circumstances. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 19 . the level of subordinate maturity determines the optimal pattern of leadership behaviour along a task orientated/relationship orientated behavioural continuum: as subordinate maturity increases from a minimum level to a moderate level the leader should utilise more relationship orientated behaviour and less task orientated behaviour. which prevail. 1993). (1985. According to theory. which is concerned with the subordinate’s level of self-esteem.Situational Leadership – Hersey & Blanchard (1969. those of her/his subordinates and the task itself in the context of the situation or environment. A developed subordinate or group can be described as 'ready. The situational approach has been further developed by Hersey & Blanchard (1977. no one best way to influence people all the time. 1985) and by Blanchard et al. “Situational Leadership theory suggests that there is no such thing as a common style of good leadership. 1977. Maturity includes two related components: Job Maturity. which combination of task and relationship behaviour is appropriate. 1985) Situational leadership is a contingency model of leadership first proposed by Hersey & Blanchard (1969) and was based on Reddin’s (1967) 3-D Management Style theory. as subordinate maturity increases beyond a moderate level the leader should decrease the amount of relationship behaviour whilst continuing to decrease the amount the task related behaviour. but that a leader will be effective when s/he matches her/his style to her/his own requirements. The theory focuses on leadership in different situations and focuses on the need of the leader to adopt different leadership styles depending on the maturity of individual employees. The individual manager needs to work out which approach to use. and is highly committed to achievement of the task.. This style is called 'telling' because it requires telling people what. and supportive behaviour to reinforce the team's willingness and enthusiasm A Critical Review of Trait.165) Fig 6 Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey & Blanchard. Selling is for individuals and/or groups of moderate maturity (M2). 2001. People who are willing but unable to take responsibility need directive behaviour because of their lack of ability. 1988. when and where to perform. how. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 20 . people and/or teams who are unable and unwilling to take responsibility and need clear. 1977) (Northouse P. The relative lack of these characteristics shows the degree of underdevelopment or immaturity. It emphasises directive behaviour.” (Kakabadse et al. p.able'. specific directions and supervision.54) Key Task Behaviour Relationship Behaviour Little Amount of leader Behaviour Much M1 Low M2 M3 Moderate Follower Maturity M4 High Combinations of task and relationship behaviours are further sub-divided into four categories of leadership behaviour Telling is for low maturity followers (M1). p.. (Northouse. Followers are permitted to decide how. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 21 . Participating involves high relationship behaviour and low task behaviour. The style is called 'participating' because the leader and follower share in decision making. which can be applied in a variety of contexts. Delegating is for high maturity individuals and teams (M4). providing a conceptual framework with a high prescriptive value. (See fig 7 on page 22) Situational leadership theory has been used extensively in the development of managers and has stood the test of time and the marketplace! It provides a practical. when and where to perform. Yukl. The follower has the ability but lacks self-confidence or enthusiasm. Thus. but the leader is the facilitator. 2001.Participating is for moderate to high maturity individuals and teams (M3). which emphasises the importance of leader flexibility and sensitivity to organisational and subordinate needs. so the leader needs to maintain two-way communications to support the follower's ability. intuitive and sensible approach to optimising leadership behaviour based on easily identifiable (observable) contingent variables. 1998) A Critical Review of Trait. They are psychologically mature and therefore do not need above-average amounts of two-way dialogue. The people have both ability and motivation and little direction or support is needed. Yukl 1998.Low Relations HT .Fig 7 – Situational Leadership II – Blanchard et al. p.Low Task HR . 1985 [Source: Adapted from Northouse. 2001.Low Relations A Critical Review of Trait.High Task HR ..Low Task LR .High Relations LT . Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 22 . 271] High Low Task/High Relations Participating High Task/High Relations Selling Relationship Behaviour S3 S2 S4 S1 Delegating Low Low Task/Low Relations Low High M4 Telling High Task/Low Relations High Low M1 Task Behaviour Moderate M3 M2 Job-related development MATURITY of followers Key S1 S2 S3 S4 HT .High Task LR . 55. p.High Relations LT . motivation and ability).” (Northouse. which raises concerns about the theoretical basis of the approach. Further they do not provide an explanation for how competence and commitment are weighted across different development levels. (Yukl. In their 1985 model these levels of maturity have been replaced by a series of development levels (D1 – high commitment and low competence. p. (Yukl. “The author’s of situational leadership do not explain the theoretical basis for these changes in the composition of each of the development levels. subordinate confidence.272) The theory is narrow in scope because it only uses one situational variable namely the maturity of the subordinate and the model fails to identify any interim variables which would delineate a causal relationship between the leader’s behaviour and subordinate performance such as subordinate motivation. M3 – Unwilling and able and M4 – willing and able). Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 23 . p. A Critical Review of Trait. (Barrow. 1977)”. role clarity. D3 – variable commitment and high competence and D4 – High commitment and high competence). 1998. 2001) argue that the ambiguous conceptualisation concerning the development levels of subordinates. task structure etc. 1998. D2 – low commitment and some competence. M2 – willing and unable. 2001. Northouse. and questionable assumptions are made about how to weight and combine them.60) “Maturity is composed of diverse levels (ie task complexity. in their 1977 model Hersey & Blanchard identify four levels of maturity (M1 – unwilling and unable.Despite its extensive use as a framework for management development the theory attracts the following criticisms: There are only a limited number of research studies to test the underlying assumptions of the theory. (GI applies to single subordinate issues. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 24 . Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect on your subordinates’ influence You share a problem with your subordinates as a group. are summarised in fig 8. CI and CII consultative processes. You do not try to influence the group to adopt ‘your’ solution and you are willing to accept and implement any solution that has the support of the entire group. which a leader might use in dealing with an issue affecting a group of subordinates.) Having identified these processes Vroom and Yetton's research programme then proceeded to answer two basic questions: What decision-making processes should managers use to deal effectively with the problems they encounter in their jobs? What decision-making processes do managers use in dealing with their problems and what factors affect their choice of processes and degree of subordinate participation? A Critical Review of Trait. You may or may not tell your subordinates what the problem is when getting the information from them. and then decide on the solution to the problem yourself. getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Vroom argues that possible decision making processes. You obtain the necessary information from your subordinate(s). Fig 8 Vroom & Yetton (1973) Possible Decision Making Processes AI AII You solve the problem or make the decision yourself. collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions. The role played by your subordinates in making the decision is clearly one of providing necessary information to you. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect your subordinate’s influence. You share a problem with your subordinates as a group. decision quality and decision acceptance. Together you generate and evaluate alternatives and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. rather than generating or evaluating native solutions.Normative Decision Making Model of Leadership – Vroom & Yetton (1973) Vroom & Yetton (1973) developed a decision making model of leadership which is contingent on two variables. You share the problem with the relevant subordinates individually. and GII is a group process. Your role is much like that of a chairperson. using information available to you at that time. CI CII GII Processes AI and AII are designated autocratic processes. a decision process which took less time.” (Handy. if it were equally effective.In attempting to answer the first question Vroom & Yetton (1973) developed a detailed normative model of decision making based on the rational principles consistent with existing evidence on the consequences of management decision-making on organisational effectiveness and identified three classes of consequences (situations). The normative Decision Model (fig 9) provides a predictive. have to be able to be able utilise a range of leadership behaviours. would normally be preferable to one which took longer. leadership is more than taking decisions with a group or for a group. which influence decision effectiveness: The quality or rationality of the decision .clearly a process that jeopardised this would be ineffective. 1993. The acceptance or commitment on the part of the subordinates to execute the decision effectively .if this commitment is necessary then processes. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 25 . would be ineffective The amount of time required to make the decision . which do not generate it even though they give a high quality decision. if they are to be rational and effective.106) A Critical Review of Trait. however some doubt that what they actually do conforms to what they say they do and. The normative model requires that all managers. it seems. Even Vroom’s more complicated model is not complicated enough. There is. in practice. p. logical (rational) model of decisionmaking contingent on the above variables. “This is a pleasing rational model of decision making and Vroom has found that it works well in helping managers to describe and plan their own decision making processes. ranging from autocratic to consultative to participative. 1990. 1973 – Decision Tree Model of Leadership – [Source: Vroom. p.Fig 9 .317) Is there a quality requirement such that one solution is likely to be more rational than another? Do I have sufficient information to make a quality decision? Is the Problem Structured? Is Acceptance of the decision by subordinates critical to effective implementation? If you were to make the decision by yourself.GII 5 .GII Yes Yes No Yes 7 .CII 13 .Vroom V H. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 26 .AII 11 .CII Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 8 .A1 2 .CI Yes Yes 14 . is it reasonably certain that it would be accepted by your subordinates? E No Yes Yes Yes 1 .GII Yes Yes No Yes 9 .A1 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 10 .A1 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 4 .CII A Critical Review of Trait.A1 6 .AII Do subordinates share the organisational goals to be obtained in solving the problem? Is conflict among subordinates likely in preferred solutions? A B C D F G 3 .CII Yes Yes No Yes 12 . 1974 in Pugh (Ed). social constructivist view of organisations. human resource management and thus leadership are characterised by five defining features. This short chapter draws heavily on the work of Hosking & Morley (1991) to presents an alternative. Thomson & McHugh. Thomson & McHugh. Thus. p. Membership and Organisational Boundaries: the organisation unlike informal grouping defines by nature of its boundaries and structures who is and who is not a member. more or less permanent boundaries. 1991. 1995). A Critical Review of Trait. Meyer (1985) as cited by (Hosking & Morley. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 27 . Such an approach focuses on the characteristics of individuals and groups within organisations. We have assumed that since we know what organisations were. Thus. and separate an organisation from its environment.57) Central to entitative perspectives is that the concept of organisation is seen to require explanation as a whole. individual behaviour is theorised independently of context and the extent to which context shapes behaviour and behaviour shapes context is ignored. which emphasises a contextually interdependent relationship between organisational entities and their environment. organisations and contexts. entities called organisations were appropriate for research” (Meyer. 1995) argues that entitative approaches to the study of organisational behaviour.Summary Historical approaches to leadership research discussed in this essay whilst providing important insights into the processes of leadership as distinct from management. they are based on research paradigms which are entrenched in an entitative concept of organisation which Hosking & Morely (1991) argue dominate the disciplines of organisational behaviour and human resource management. such specifications for organisational membership differentiate one organisation from another. (Hosking & Morley. 1991. They cite Meyer (1985) who in relation to entitative streams of research states that: “[We] have proceeded on the assumption that organisations were well defined units with identifiable. thus emphasising the separateness and independence of individuals. and the person and the organisation are viewed as separate and distinct entities. organising and thus leadership. 1985. Leaders in Organisations. Organisational-Environmental Independence: the organisation and the environment are viewed as separate and independent entities. p. The structure is assumed to be a relatively stable feature of the organisation that defines accountability for organisational outcomes and serves to organise and control work primarily through the use of authoritarian power.339-355 in Yukl G. 1973. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. whether research has addresses closed-system. NJ: Prentice Hall Barrow J C. 1998. The Skills of Leadership. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 28 . and the adoption of organisational forms which promote an open systems relationship with the market. Academy of Management Review. Given the discontinuous change which characterises contemporary operating environments.” (Meyer. then clearly there is a need to adopt approaches to leadership research which recognises both detailed and dynamic complexity (Senge. Aldershot: Gower Publications Ashour A S.231-251 in Yukl G. 1977. 1985. The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation. p. 1990. advances in technology which blurs the organisational – environmental boundaries. The variables of leadership: A Review and conceptual framework. Organisational Structure: the organisational entity has a structure that is clearly defined and related to the stated and understood organisational purpose(s). 1998. 9. Thus the underlying assumption pervading trait. References Adair J.57). 1984. Leaders in Organisations. and a realisation that organisations exist in a symbiotic relationship with their environments. Organisational Purpose: the organisational entity has a clearly defined purpose(s) which is more or less understood by all of its members – this is what some researchers refer to as the existence of shared goals and/or values. p.Organisational Identity: the organisation has an identity of its own which is recognised by all of its members and none-members alike. NJ: Prentice Hall Bass B M. 2. 1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research: New York: Free Press A Critical Review of Trait. style and contingency approaches to leadership research is the “understanding of organisations as well defined entities [which] has pervaded research. open system or evolutionary theory. Autumn. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 29 . Advances in experimental social psychology.43-56 Handy C. The new managerial grid. 1987. 1978.4-21 in Yukl G. Zigarmi P. in Berkpwitz (Ed).4 Fiedler F E. 1989. 1967. p. A theory of leadership effectiveness. An evaluation of conceptual A Critical Review of Trait. Patterns of leadership behaviour related to employee grievance and turnover. Harnessing personal energy: How companies can inspire employees. Evanston. 1998. Harmondsworth: Penguin Business Harrison R. Leadership. Houston TX: Gulf Publishing Blake R R & Mouton J S. IL: Row. 1999. Organisational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. Leaders in Organisations. The Journal of Leadership Studies. Houston. p. A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. London: Prentice-Hall Burns J M. 1962. Making Common Sense: Leadership as meaning making in a community of practice. 1960. Zigarmi D & Nelson R. Group Dynamics research and theory. p. NJ: Prentice Hall Fiedler F E. Greensboro. 1964. 1994. 1978. 1985. Organisational Dynamics. 1964. Houston TX: Gulf Publishing Blake R R & Mouton J S. Houston TX: Gulf Publishing Blake R R & Mouton J S. Leadership and the one minute manager: increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. p. William Morrow Publishing Buchanan D & Huczynski A. 1985. TX: Gulf Publishing Blake R R & Mouton J S. New York. The leadership grid III. 15. The managerial grid. New approaches to leadership: cognitive resources and organisational performance. Personnel Psychology. Understanding Organisations.Peterson Fiedler F E & Garcia J E. 1985. 1991. On Becoming a leader. New York: Harper Row Cartwright & Zander. Zigarmi D. Leadership dilemmas – Grid solutions. New York: John Wiley Drath & Palus. 1991.22-36 Blanchard K. p. 1993. Houston TX: Gulf Publishing Blanchard K. The new managerial grid III. New York: Academic Press in Yukl G. London: Hutchinson Business Books Ltd Blake R R & McCanse A A. 1(1). Situational Leadership after 25 years: A retrospective. vol 1. 1993.Bennis W G.149-190. NC: Centre for Leadership. 1987. New York: McGraw-Hill Fleishman E A & Harris E F. 1991 A Social Psychology of Organising People. London: Sage Publications Jacobs & Jacques. Columbus. Ohio State University Hersey P & Blanchard K H.weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories.81-98 in McKenna E. p.22-36 Hosking D M. 10(2). Contemporary Business. Path-Goal theory of leadership. The wrap and woof of the general manager’s job in Schneider B & Schoorman (Eds).153 Hosking D M & Morely I E. 1957. 2001. Development of the leader behaviour description questionnaire in Stogdill R and Coons A E (Eds). p. Facilitating work effectiveness. Human organisation and worker motivation. 3 (Fall). Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed). London: Sage Publications Hersey P & Blanchard K H. SL II: A situational approach to managing people. Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human resources. Englewood Cliffs. 1977. Ohio: Bureau of business research. 1994. 1986. 1985. Summer 99. Escondido. CA: Blanchard Training and Development Inc Hersey P & Blanchard K H. Situational leadership after 25 years: A retrospective. Leadership Quarterly. Measures of Leadership. NJ: Leadership library of America Kakabadse A. Englewood Cliffs. 1990. 2001. 1996. Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hunt J G. Leader behaviour: its description and measurement. Lexington: MA: Lexington Books Katz D & Khan R L.285 Hemphill J K & Coons A E. p. 1(1). Leadership and Skilful Process. 1969. New York: John Wiley A Critical Review of Trait. p. 1988. Processes and Contexts. NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P. 25. Ludlow R & Vinnicombe S. 1974. 1988. 1951. 1993. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 30 . London: Prentice Hall House R J & Mitchell T R. Journal of management studies. Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed). Organising. Military executive leadership in Clark K E and Clark M B (Eds). London: Sage Publications Hersey P & Blanchard K H. Harmondsworth: Penguin Business Kaplan R E. the Journal of Leadership studies. NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P. Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human resources. Leadership: A New synthesis. West Orange. Working In Organisations. McGraw-Hill Likert R. Management and Organisational Behaviour. Profile of Organisational Characteristics. 2000. Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook. 1997. 1967. NJ: Prentice Hall Khan R L.Kennedy J K (Jr). 1995. 2001. New patterns of Management. 25. Journal of Applied Psychology. The prediction of productivity. 2000 (3rd Ed). p. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates McKenna E. 1959. 30. Ann Arbor.Theory and Practice. Leadership: Do traits matter?. p. A meta analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An Application of validity generalisation procedures. Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed). Psychological bulletin 56. Leadership . Leaders in Organisations. 1991. Leadership. Middle LPC leaders and the contingency model of leadership effectiveness. 1982. New York. 1994. Devader C L and Alliger G M. 1956. 241-270 McHugh D & Thompson P. London: Sage Publications Northouse P G. 1998. London: Pitmans Publishing Northhouse P G. Personnel Psychology. Nurse Executive Leadership Found in Participative Organisations. MI: Rensis Likert Associates. p. The Human Organisation: its management and value. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates McMahon J T. Theory and Practice.41-49 Kirkpatrick S A.241-250 Lord R G. p. London: Macmillan Business McKenna E. McGraw-Hill Likert R. The contingency theory: Logic and method revisited. Leaders in Organisations. 5. 1961. 1972. 71. 1985. NJ: Prentice Hall Meyer M. Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook.48-60 in Northouse P G. New York. Limits to Bureaucratic Growth. Journal of social issues.1-14 in Yukl G. 697-711 in Yukl G. 1994. p. Work Organisations: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage Publications Likert R. 1999. The Executive. New York: Walter de Gruyer Mullins L. 1986. 2001. in Dunham-Taylor J. London: Sage Publications A Critical Review of Trait. 12. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 31 . 30(5). Stevenson W & Webster S. Chp2. 1998. & Lock E A. 402-410 Mann R D. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance. A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups. Australian Journal of Psychology. 1983. some implications of its statistical and methodological properties. Leaders and Managers: International perspectives on managerial behaviour. p. Schriesheim & Stewart R (Eds). Leaders in Organisations. Theories and measures of leadership a critical approach in Yukl G. p. Personal factors associated with leadership: A Survey of theory and research. 1981. p. Functionalism: Basis for an alternative approach to the study of leadership in Hunt J G. Yukl G. p. Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviours. 1984. 1948. 1974. The contingency model of leadership effectiveness. 1999. Alexandria.404-408.46 Richards & Engle. 1998. NJ: Prentice Hall Segne P. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Schriesheim C A & Kerr S. Transforming Leadership. London. Leaders in Organisations.285 Rauch C F & Behling O. 10(2). MacKenzie S B. Century Business. Handbook of leadership: a survey of literature. Hosking D M. The effects of leadership style and group structure upon small group productivity: A test of a discrepancy theory of leadership effectiveness. The fifth discipline the art and Practice of the learning organisation.206 Schein E H. 1986. p. Leadership Quarterly. Leaders in Organisations. 1998.423-470 Porter E H & Lawler E E. Leaders in Organisations. 21. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 32 . Homewood. Ohio state University. After the vision: Suggests to corporate visionaries and vision champions in Adams J D (Ed). p.419-440 in Yukl G. NJ: Prentice Hall A Critical Review of Trait. 1990. 1994. Journal of Management. 1973. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. 1977. Motivation and transformational leadership: Some organisational context issues in Yukl G. Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Porter L W & Bigley G A. New York: Pergamon Press. Organisational Culture and Leadership (2 Ed). 1998. 1997. Ahearne M & Bommer W H. Behavioural Science. 33(2). 18(6). Bureau of Business research Stogdill R M. 1992. Manual for the leader behaviour questionnaire. Summer 99. 1995. New York: Free Press Vecchio R P. Psychological Bulletin. 93.O’Brien G E & Kabanoff B.157-158 in Yukl G. 1963. Assessing the validity of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia. VA: Miles River Press. New York: Free Press Stogdill R M. NJ: Prentice Hall Stogdill R M. p. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. UK Shiflett S C. 1998. NJ: Prentice Hall Podsakoff P M. IL: IrwinDorsey in McKenna E. NJ: Prentice Hall A Critical Review of Trait. Leadership and decision-making. Leaders in Organisations.Vroom V H & Yetton P H. 1998 (4th Ed). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press Yukl G. 1973. Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 33 .
Report "A Review of Trait Style & Contingency Research"