We know that a successful leadership will not only depend on the style but also the circumstances. These could be the nature of the organisation or any other environmental factors.
The contingency approach conclude that there are number of ways of leading people in different situations. Let's explore some of them. Shall we?
Distributed leadership
CIPD states, that distributed leadership is found to be one of the factors important for "shaping the future."
What does it mean?
The leadership style allows all in the organisation to be managing their own job. Sounds simple?
There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages of this approach. People feel more engaged and have the autonomy, but we might need to watch for consistency and we need to have managers who also have responsibility. People might feel more strategic and empowered but that require a great deal of effort and vision.
It is very much based on culture. People need to be empowered to take risks. There needs to be a very open environment. Everyone is in it together. Someone still needs to facilitate it in the organisations, of course. Suggestion schemes are early adoptions of this approach. It allows people to come up with new ideas on an open forums, vote and give change assess them and challenge them. People can challenge ideas, share thoughts in an open way and its everyones responsibility to take the lead. Getting all managers and employees involved especially when managing change can be very beneficial.
Many organisations realise that traditional models of management with hierarchy might not work great for organisations. Businesses start enabling the culture to be more agile. New leadership programs are being developed through empowering people first in order to built networks across professional solos and enable for teams to come together. The shift here is from dependence to interdependence. Team can become incredibly strong if it is managed right. People need to be given freedom to make decisions within clear organisational framework. There will be different employees on a different stages of the journey and it is long term transformation. New structures, reporting, decisions are to be made to support the different levels in the organisation to enable people to take ownership.
Although it is a very appealing idea, sometimes this approach might not be a good solution. It would depend on the type of business. Speed of decision making and distribution would be one factor. Some business would not find it fit for purpose. It can be great for services, for example. We want people in service industry to do what is right for the customer. These types of environments, therefore might benefit from this approach. It also depends on the organisational objectives and the existing culture.
This approach gets a lot of attention. Many times, if understood incorrectly may have negative consequences. However, distributed leadership approach can be introduced partially with allowing people to challenge decisions. This will however, need a relevant level of support.. People have the knowledge and capability but they need to be encouraged and agile to adopt change. This may require a lot of preparation.
Organisations need to challenge and exercise new ways of working, particularly in the area of leadership quality. This thinking and agility that distributed leadership concept can set many organisations in a right place.
Situational leadership
Hersley (2001) believes that we need to adopt different leadership style depending on a situation within a group. It will differ, of course, depending on the experience and qualifications of the team members. The leader needs, therefore, choose the most appropriate style.
Source: Research Gate researchgate.net/figure/Hersey-Blanchard-Model_fig2_281586293
Hersey identifies four styles:
Telling - where leader provides a lot of guidance and direction, but not much supportive behaviour. The leader has to structure tasks and give people instruction as there might not be enough willingness in the team.
Selling - this style requires a lot of task oriented direction and relationship behaviour. This style would be appropriate with moderate level of readiness among the team. The team members may be willing but do not have enough ability to perform the tasks. Dialogue is required to get the commitment.
Participating - this involves a lot of two way communication and supportive behaviour, but not much guidance relating to the task. Here the team may be competent but not willing. Instead of giving instructions the leader need to focus on discussion and encouragement.
Delegating - this style involves little direction. The team has the ability to complete tasks and the willingness to do so. The leader would engage very little in the process but focus more on monitoring the progress.
We can clearly see how the leadership style can develop and change. Different employees may also need different types of leadership as they develop in their career. A new person in an organisation may need a lot of telling, but when a senior manager is recruited we may need to adopt more delegating style in most situations.
Findler's Contingency Theory
Findler (1978) tried to observe situations in which different types of leadership would be more appropriate. He looked at the relationships with subordinates and the differences in tasks as well as the amount of power given to the leader.
He came out with the following statements:
If the situation is very favourable (good interpersonal relations, clear task and strong power) or,
If the situation is very unfavourable (poor interpersonal relations, unclear task and weak position power then a task oriented leader will be more effective to apply direction and control.
If the situation is neither very favourable or very unfavourable, then people oriented leader with participative approach would be most helpful.
When there is a crisis, leader needs to take control and put interpersonal relationships into the background. Leaders in neither strong or weak situation can work on building the trust and commitment.
Vroom and Yetton
Vroom and Yetton (1973) looks at different leadership styles depending on decision-making situations. They argue that the decision and the setting around the decision impact the results:
Decision quality - the impact of the decision on performance
Decision acceptance - the willingness of the team to put decision into action
Time - the time needed for decision to be made
They have developed seven questions that will determine most appropriate style:
Is there a quality requirement in the problem?
Do I have enough information for quality decision?
Is the problem structured?
Is subordinate acceptance important in effective implementation?
If I made the decision alone, would I make sure it would be accepted?
Do the subordinates share the business goals in solving the problem?
Is there likely to be a conflict between the subordinates to reach the solution?
The style will then depend on the answers.
It can be Autocratic, when the leader uses the available information and makes the decision or seeks the information from the subordinates to make the decision.
It could also be Consultative, where the leader shares problem with the team individually and makes a decision which may or not include their views, or share problem with subordinates as a group and make a decision which may or not include the teams views.
And finally, the Group style can be adopted, where the leader shares problem with the team members as a group and make decision collectively without imposing his own will.
We must bear in mind, however, that one decision may need to involve more than one style depending on the information available. There is also a lot more for a leader to deal with hence this model may give rather limited insights.
Path-Goal Theory
The Path-Goal theory is made based on the assumption that individuals are motivated by believing that more effort will lead to more performance, and that improved performance will lead to positive rewards and avoid negative outcomes.
The theory suggests that the leader can influence the team members by recognising these believes and satisfying them. They may make it clear to them that they needs will be met if they perform effectively. Leaders may also provide support, guidance, training and other assistance so that they can perform the task successfully.
Here, the role of the leader is to make it easier for individuals achieve their objectives and therefore they will be more likely to achieve the expectations. The leader either needs to clarify the task to build people's confidence to complete the task.
People's characteristics, such as ability, needs, skills and motivation and the work environment (clarify of the task, rules and responsibility) will influence the style approach.
From that, four leadership styles were identified:
Directive - used when team's ability, skill and motivation are low and there is not much clarity about the task to complete. To ensure that the individuals achieve the task the leader needs to give clarity, direction, guidance and develop the abilities to carry it out.
Supportive - used when the task is clear, but the individuals lack the ability, skills and confidence. Leader then supports and coach to increase it.
Achievement orientated - used when task is clear and it is not challenging for the team. The leader might introduce more challenging goals.
Participative - used when individuals have high level of ability and skills, but there might be issues with the task. The leader works with them, sharing and consulting to ensure successful completion of the task.
We might, however, not want to presume that people are motivated by the achievement of the tasks as this model doesn't recognise different things motivating others. We should always not assume that leadership only involves encouraging others to achieve tasks, there is certainly more to the leadership then that.
Summary
I hope that these short examination of different models can bring us closer to the questions we have about our own leadership style and challenges we are facing. It is clear that all of the approaches might have one underlying answer to all of our questions. The most important part is that we challenge ourselves and look for new solutions, take action and decide what works for us.
コメント