You can put your own opinion and your own words, no copy and paste.
1. What are the similarities and differences between the trait and behavior approaches to leadership?
2. What are the major assumptions of the contingency approach to leadership?
3. Define the leadership and situational factors included in Fiedler's Contingency Model. What are the primary predictions of the model?
4. After assessing your own style, interview several people with whom you worked to determine whether their perceptions match your score based on the LPC.
5. Provide examples for the situations in which each of the major decision styles of the Normative Decision Model would be appropriate.
6. Provide examples of how the Path-Goal Theory of leadership can be used to improve leadership effectiveness.
7. What are positive and negative impacts of substitutes on leaders and organizations? Provide examples.
8. How does the LMX Model differ from all the other contingency theories of leadership?
9. How can leaders use the LMX Model in improving their effectiveness?
10. Compare and contrast the contingency models of leadership. How do they each contribute to our understanding of leadership?
1. What is the impact of individual characteristics on behavior?
2. How do values affect behaviors, and what impact does culture have on our value system?
3. How do emotional intelligence and general intelligence affect leadership?
4. What role does creativity play in leadership?
5. Describe the personality traits and their implications for leadership.
6. In your opinion (or based on your experience), do certain characteristics and traits have a greater impact than others on a person's leadership style? Explain your answer.
7. What are the limitations of the personality approach presented in this chapter, and how should the information about personal characteristics be used in leadership?
8. After completing the personality self-assessment surveys at the end of this chapter, consider your personal profile. What is the impact of this profile on your leadership style?
The Foundations of Modern Leadership
The scientific approach to understanding leadership that started at about the time of the industrial revolution added rigor and attempts at precise measurement to other already-existing views about leadership. The first modern approaches focused on the identification of traits that would distinguish leaders and followers. Although certain traits were found to be associated with leadership, no simple sets of traits consistently predicted who would be an effective leader. Because of inconclusive results, researchers turned their attention to leadership behaviors. The two major categories of initiation of structure and consideration were established as the central leadership behaviors. The switch from simple traits to simple behaviors still did not account for the complex leadership process and, therefore, did not allow researchers to make strong predictions about leadership effectiveness.
The early theories that are the foundation of modern leadership address either the way leaders use resources or the relationship between the leader and the follower. Fiedler's Contingency Model and the Normative Decision Model consider how the leader uses resources that are available and propose that the leader's style must be matched to the situation to achieve effectiveness. Whereas the Contingency Model assumes that the leader's style (LPC) is determined by internal traits and therefore difficult to change, the Normative Decision Model relies on decision-making styles that are assumed to be learnable. The two also differ on the criteria they use for leadership effectiveness. The Contingency Model looks at group performance; the Normative Decision Model focuses on decision quality. Perhaps their most interesting contribution to leadership application and training is that both models involve a series of well-defined variables that can be used to improve leadership effectiveness.
The relationship-based theories focus on the relationship between the leader and the follower. The Path-Goal Theory proposes that the leader's main function is to remove obstacles in the subordinates' path to allow them to perform their jobs and to be motivated and satisfied. The Substitutes for Leadership Model (SLM) explores situations in which a relationship between the leader and subordinates is not needed and is replaced by individual, group, and organizational factors. Finally, the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Model focuses on the dyadic relationship between a leader and each follower and proposes the concept of in-groups and out-groups as the defining element of that relationship.
All the models use a contingency view of leadership, and in all of them, the leader's behavior or style depends on the requirements of the situation. Although the concept of task and relationship orientation continues to be dominant, several of the models consider other factors, thereby expanding our views of leadership. The structure and routine of the task continue to be key situational factors, although other variables such as follower independence and maturity are also introduced.
The Foundations of Modern Leadership
This chapter presents the current thinking on the role of individual characteristics in leadership effectiveness and identifies several individual differences and personality characteristics that affect a leader's style and approach. Although these individual differences do not dictate behavior, they establish a zone of comfort for certain behaviors and actions. Values are long-lasting beliefs about what is worthwhile. They are strongly influenced by culture and are one of the determinants of ethical conduct. Intelligence is one of the abilities that most affects leadership. On the one hand, even though being intelligent is related to leadership to some extent, it is not a sufficient factor to predict effectiveness. On the other hand, research suggests that the concepts of emotional and social intelligence, which focuses on interpersonal rather than cognitive abilities, may link to leadership emergence effectiveness. Creativity is another ability that might play a role in leadership effectiveness, especially in situations that require novel approaches.
One of the most reliable measures of personality is the Big Five. Although the conscientiousness and extraversion dimensions in the Big Five show some links to work-related behavior, the traits are not linked directly to leadership. Several other individual traits do link to leadership. Proactiveness is an indicator of the degree to which individuals identify opportunities, take initiative and remove obstacles. Proactive people to be more satisfied with their work and career and more likely to initiate change, factors that may help leadership. Type A behavior focuses on the need for control as demonstrated through a person's time urgency, competitiveness, polyphasic behaviors, and hostility. The Type A's need for control makes it difficult to delegate tasks and pushes the individual toward short-term focus and selection of strategies that maximize control. Another relevant personality trait, self-monitoring, is the degree to which individuals read and use situational cues to adjust their behavior. High self-monitors possess a degree of flexibility that might be helpful in leadership situations. The Dark Triad (DT), which consists of Machiavellianism, and subclinical narcissism and psychopathy, describes a self-promoting, disagreeable, and emotionally cold pattern of traits and behaviors that are contrary to the emotional connection and fair and honest exchange that is essential to effective leadership.