the impact of leadership styles on interpersonal trust

Abstract

This project focuses on different leadership styles and there relationship with

interpersonal trust in organizational settings. The objective of this project is to study the

and to understand different types of leadership styles ,with the help of Multifactor

leadership Questionnaire(MLQ), and there relationship with interpersonal trust among

the employees in organizations,using Interpersonal Trust Scale developed by

Christopher,K.J.

Leadership is a very important topic for research in today's work settings. It's very

important to study the different types of leadership and to find out how and in what ways

each leadership style affects employees interpersonal trust within the work settings.

Leadership plays a significant role in increasing the trust among the employees. If the

leader is able to choose a leadership style which is appropriate for a specific situation ,

he can certainly increase the interpersonal trust among the employees of the organization

.Employees also trust their leader when they find their leader competent enough to make

appropriate decisions for them and for the organization as a whole.

This project basically focuses on the importance of different leadership styles. The main

objective of this project is to understand and explain the relationship between leadership

styles and interpersonal trust.

This project will help the managers and leaders understand the importance of different

leadership styles in different situations and also it will help them understand the

correlation between leadership and interpersonal trust. This project will help the leaders

select the right leadership style in order to increase interpersonal trust among the

employees of the organization. This,in turn,will increase the team spirit and

organizational trust in the employees.

About the organization

National Thermal Power Corporation(NTPC) is India's largest power company. It was

set up in 1975 to accelerate power development in India. It is emerging as an ‘Integrated

Power Major’, with a significant presence in the entire value chain of power generation

business.

NTPC ranked 341st in the ‘2010, Forbes Global 2000’ ranking of the World’s biggest

companies.

Human resources at NTPC

People before PLF (Plant Load Factor) is the guiding philosophy behind the entire

gamut of HR policies at NTPC. The human resources department at NTPC is strongly

committed to the development and growth of all the employees as individuals and not

just as employees. It currently employs approximately 26,000 people at NTPC.

Competence building, Commitment building, Culture building and Systems building are

the four building blocks on which it's HR systems are based.

NTPC has a well established talent management system in place, to ensure that it

delivers on it's promise of meaningful growth and relevant challenges for it's employees.

The talent management system comprises PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,

CAREER PATHS and LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT.

Introduction

The concept of leadership

Leadership can be defined as a process by which one individual influences others

toward the attainment of group or organizational goals. Three points about the definition

of leadership should be emphasized. First, leadership is a social influence process.

Leadership cannot exist without a leader and one or more followers. Second, leadership

elicits voluntary action on the part of followers. The voluntary nature of compliance

separates leadership from other types of influence based on formal authority. Finally,

leadership results in followers' behavior that is purposeful and goal-directed in some sort

of organized setting. Many, although not all, studies of leadership focus on the nature of

leadership in the workplace.

Leadership is probably the most frequently studied topic in the organizational sciences.

Thousands of leadership studies have been published and thousands of pages on

leadership have been written in academic books and journals, business-oriented

publications, and general-interest publications. Despite this, the precise nature of

leadership and its relationship to key criterion variables such as subordinate satisfaction,

commitment, and performance is still uncertain, to the point where Fred Luthans, in his

book Organizational Behavior (2005), said that "it [leadership] does remain pretty much

of a 'black box' or unexplainable concept."

Leadership should be distinguished from management. Management involves planning,

organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling, and a manager is someone who performs

these functions. A manager has formal authority by virtue of his or her position or

office. Leadership, by contrast, primarily deals with influence. A manager may or may

not be an effective leader. A leader's ability to influence others may be based on a

variety of factors other than his or her formal authority or position.

In the sections that follow, the development of leadership studies and theories over time

is briefly traced. Table 1 provides a summary of the major theoretical approaches.

Historical Leadership Theories
Leadership Time of
Major Tenets
Theory Introduction
Trait Theories 1930s Individual characteristics of leaders are different than

those of nonleaders.
Behavioral 1940s and The behaviors of effective leaders are different than the

Theories 1950s behaviors of ineffective leaders. Two major classes of

leader behavior are task-oriented behavior and

relationship-oriented behavior.
Contingency 1960s and Factors unique to each situation determine whether

Theories 1970s specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be

effective.
Historical Leadership Theories
Leadership Time of
Major Tenets
Theory Introduction
Leader-Member 1970s Leaders from high-quality relationships with some

Exchange subordinates but not others. The quality of leader-

subordinates relationship affects numerous workplace

outcomes.
Charismatic 1970s and Effective leaders inspire subordinates to commit

Leadership 1980s themselves to goals by communicating a vision,

displaying charismatic behavior, and setting a powerful

personal example.
Substitutes foe 1970s Characteristics of the organization, task, and

Leadership subordinates may substitute for or negate the effects of

leadership behaviors.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Three main theoretical frameworks have dominated leadership research at different

points in time. These included the trait approach (1930s and 1940s), the behavioral

approach (1940s and 1950s), and the contingency or situational approach (1960s and

1970s).

Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which one person can

enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".

Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective

and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. This

definition is similar to Northouse's (2007, p3) definition — Leadership is a process

whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.

Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership knowledge and skills. This is

called Process Leadership (Jago, 1982). However, we know that we have traits that can

influence our actions. This is called Trait Leadership (Jago, 1982), in that it was once

common to believe that leaders were born rather than made. These two leadership types

are shown in the chart below (Northouse, 2007, p5):

While leadership is learned, the skills and knowledge processed by the leader can be

influenced by his or hers attributes or traits, such as beliefs, values, ethics, and character.

Knowledge and skills contribute directly to the process of leadership, while the other

attributes give the leader certain characteristics that make him or her unique.

Skills, knowledge, and attributes make the Leader, which is one of the:

Four Factors of Leadership

Leader

You must have an honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what you

can do. Also, note that it is the followers, not the leader or someone else who determines

if the leader is successful. If they do not trust or lack confidence in their leader, then

they will be uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your followers, not

yourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.

Followers

Different people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requires

more supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivation

requires a different approach than one with a high degree of motivation. You must know

your people! The fundamental starting point is having a good understanding of human

nature, such as needs, emotions, and motivation. You must come to know your

employees' be, know, and do attributes.

Communication

You lead through two-way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, when

you “set the example,” that communicates to your people that you would not ask them to

perform anything that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate

either builds or harms the relationship between you and your employees.

Situation

All situations are different. What you do in one situation will not always work in

another. You must use your judgment to decide the best course of action and the

leadership style needed for each situation. For example, you may need to confront an

employee for inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is too late or too early, too

harsh or too weak, then the results may prove ineffective.

Also note that the situation normally has a greater effect on a leader's action than his or

her traits. This is because while traits may have an impressive stability over a period of

time, they have little consistency across situations (Mischel, 1968). This is why a

number of leadership scholars think the Process Theory of Leadership is a more accurate

than the Trait Theory of Leadership.

Various forces will affect these four factors. Examples of forces are your relationship

with your seniors, the skill of your followers, the informal leaders within your

organization, and how your organization is organized.

Bass' Theory of Leadership

Bass' theory of leadership states that there are three basic ways to explain how people

become leaders (Stogdill, 1989; Bass, 1990). The first two explain the leadership

development for a small number of people. These theories are:

• Some personality traits may lead people naturally into leadership roles. This is the

Trait Theory.

• A crisis or important event may cause a person to rise to the occasion, which

brings out extraordinary leadership qualities in an ordinary person. This is the

Great Events Theory.

• People can choose to become leaders. People can learn leadership skills. This is

the Transformational or Process Leadership Theory. It is the most widely accepted

theory today and the premise on which this guide is based.

Total Leadership

What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those they

respect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A

sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.

When a person is deciding if she respects you as a leader, she does not think about your

attributes, rather, she observes what you do so that she can know who you really are.

She uses this observation to tell if you are an honorable and trusted leader or a self-

serving person who misuses authority to look good and get promoted. Self-serving

leaders are not as effective because their employees only obey them, not follow them.

They succeed in many areas because they present a good image to their seniors at the

expense of their workers.

Be Know Do

The basis of good leadership is honorable character and selfless service to your

organization. In your employees' eyes, your leadership is everything you do that effects

the organization's objectives and their well-being. Respected leaders concentrate on

(U.S. Army, 1983):

• what they are [be] (such as beliefs and character)

• what they know (such as job, tasks, and human nature)

• what they do (such as implementing, motivating, and providing direction).

What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those they

respect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A

sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.

The Two Most Important Keys to Effective Leadership

According to a study by the Hay Group, a global management consultancy, there are 75

key components of employee satisfaction (Lamb, McKee, 2004). They found that:

• Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of

employee satisfaction in an organization.

• Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to

winning organizational trust and confidence:

1. Helping employees understand the company's overall business strategy.

2. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key

business objectives.

3. Sharing information with employees on both how the company is doing and

how an employee's own division is doing — relative to strategic business

objectives.

Principles of Leadership

To help you be, know, and do, follow these eleven principles of leadership (U.S. Army,

1983). The later chapters in this Leadership guide expand on these principles and

provide tools for implementing them:

1. Know yourself and seek self-improvement - In order to know yourself, you

have to understand your be, know, and do, attributes. Seeking self-improvement

means continually strengthening your attributes. This can be accomplished

through self-study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others.

2. Be technically proficient - As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid

familiarity with your employees' tasks.

3. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions - Search for ways

to guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they

always do sooner or later — do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take

corrective action, and move on to the next challenge.

4. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making,

and planning tools.

5. Set the example - Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only

hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we

want to see - Mahatma Gandhi

6. Know your people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and

the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.

7. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them,

but also seniors and other key people.

8. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers - Help to develop good

character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.

9. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished -

Communication is the key to this responsibility.

10.Train as a team - Although many so called leaders call their organization,

department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of

people doing their jobs.

11.Use the full capabilities of your organization - By developing a team spirit, you

will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest

capabilities.

Attributes of Leadership

If you are a leader who can be trusted, then those around you will grow to respect you.

To be such a leader, there is a Leadership Framework to guide you:

BE KNOW DO

BE a professional. Examples: Be loyal to the organization, perform selfless service, take

personal responsibility.

BE a professional who possess good character traits. Examples: Honesty, competence,

candor, commitment, integrity, courage, straightforwardness, imagination.

KNOW the four factors of leadership — follower, leader, communication, situation.

KNOW yourself. Examples: strengths and weakness of your character, knowledge, and

skills.

KNOW human nature. Examples: Human needs, emotions, and how people respond to

stress.

KNOW your job. Examples: be proficient and be able to train others in their tasks.

KNOW your organization. Examples: where to go for help, its climate and culture, who

the unofficial leaders are.

DO provide direction. Examples: goal setting, problem solving, decision making,

planning.

DO implement. Examples: communicating, coordinating, supervising, evaluating.

DO motivate. Examples: develop morale and esprit de corps in the organization, train,

coach, counsel.

Environment

Every organization has a particular work environment, which dictates to a considerable

degree how its leaders respond to problems and opportunities. This is brought about by

its heritage of past leaders and its present leaders.

Goals, Values, and Concepts

Leaders exert influence on the environment via three types of actions:

1. The goals and performance standards they establish.

2. The values they establish for the organization.

3. The business and people concepts they establish.

Successful organizations have leaders who set high standards and goals across the entire

spectrum, such as strategies, market leadership, plans, meetings and presentations,

productivity, quality, and reliability.

Values reflect the concern the organization has for its employees, customers, investors,

vendors, and surrounding community. These values define the manner in how business

will be conducted.

Concepts define what products or services the organization will offer and the methods

and processes for conducting business.

These goals, values, and concepts make up the organization's personality or how the

organization is observed by both outsiders and insiders. This personality defines the

roles, relationships, rewards, and rites that take place.

Roles and Relationships

Roles are the positions that are defined by a set of expectations about behavior of any

job incumbent. Each role has a set of tasks and responsibilities that may or may not be

spelled out. Roles have a powerful effect on behavior for several reasons, to include

money being paid for the performance of the role, there is prestige attached to a role, and

a sense of accomplishment or challenge.

Relationships are determined by a role's tasks. While some tasks are performed alone,

most are carried out in relationship with others. The tasks will determine who the role-

holder is required to interact with, how often, and towards what end. Also, normally the

greater the interaction, the greater the liking. This in turn leads to more frequent

interaction. In human behavior, its hard to like someone whom we have no contact with,

and we tend to seek out those we like. People tend to do what they are rewarded for, and

friendship is a powerful reward. Many tasks and behaviors that are associated with a role

are brought about by these relationships. That is, new task and behaviors are expected of

the present role-holder because a strong relationship was developed in the past, either by

that role-holder or a prior role-holder.

Culture and Climate

There are two distinct forces that dictate how to act within an organization: culture and

climate.

Each organization has its own distinctive culture. It is a combination of the founders,

past leadership, current leadership, crises, events, history, and size (Newstrom, Davis,

1993). This results in rites: the routines, rituals, and the “way we do things.” These rites

impact individual behavior on what it takes to be in good standing (the norm) and directs

the appropriate behavior for each circumstance.

The climate is the feel of the organization, the individual and shared perceptions and

attitudes of the organization's members (Ivancevich, Konopaske, Matteson, 2007).

While the culture is the deeply rooted nature of the organization that is a result of long-

held formal and informal systems, rules, traditions, and customs; climate is a short-term

phenomenon created by the current leadership. Climate represents the beliefs about the

“feel of the organization” by its members. This individual perception of the “feel of the

organization” comes from what the people believe about the activities that occur in the

organization. These activities influence both individual and team motivation and

satisfaction, such as:

• How well does the leader clarify the priorities and goals of the organization? What

is expected of us?

• What is the system of recognition, rewards, and punishments in the organization?

• How competent are the leaders?

• Are leaders free to make decisions?

• What will happen if I make a mistake?

Organizational climate is directly related to the leadership and management style of the

leader, based on the values, attributes, skills, and actions, as well as the priorities of the

leader. Compare this to “ethical climate” — the feel of the organization about the

activities that have ethical content or those aspects of the work environment that

constitute ethical behavior. The ethical climate is the feel about whether we do things

right; or the feel of whether we behave the way we ought to behave. The behavior

(character) of the leader is the most important factor that impacts the climate.

On the other hand, culture is a long-term, complex phenomenon. Culture represents the

shared expectations and self-image of the organization. The mature values that create

tradition or the “way we do things here.” Things are done differently in every

organization. The collective vision and common folklore that define the institution are a

reflection of culture. Individual leaders, cannot easily create or change culture because

culture is a part of the organization. Culture influences the characteristics of the climate

by its effect on the actions and thought processes of the leader. But, everything you do

as a leader will affect the climate of the organization.

For information on culture, see Long-Term Short-Term Orientation

The Process of Great Leadership

The road to great leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) that is common to successful

leaders:

• Challenge the process - First, find a process that you believe needs to be

improved the most.

• Inspire a shared vision - Next, share your vision in words that can be understood

by your followers.

• Enable others to act - Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem.

• Model the way - When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells

others what to do, a leader shows that it can be done.

• Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers' hearts, while keeping

the pains within your own.

Theories of leadership

Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may

or may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories

involving traits,[2] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,

[3] charisma, and intelligence, among others. Somebody whom people follow:

somebody who guides or directs others.

Early western history

The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries.

History's greatest philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have

explored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying

this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption

that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea

that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of

leadership".

The trait theory was explored at length in a number of works in the 19th century. Most

notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have

prompted decades of research.[4] In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified

the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton's

Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful

men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving

from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was

inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works

lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the

leader.

Rise of alternative theories

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these

studies (e.g., Bird, 1940;[5] Stogdill, 1948;[6] Mann, 1959[7]) prompted researchers to

take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the

extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a

number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one

situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership

was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches

(see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in

certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership

theory and research for the next few decades.

Reemergence of trait theory

TRAIT APPROACH

The scientific study of leadership began with a focus on the traits of effective leaders.

The basic premise behind trait theory was that effective leaders are born, not made, thus

the name sometimes applied to early versions of this idea, the "great man" theory. Many

leadership studies based on this theoretical framework were conducted in the 1930s,

1940s, and 1950s.

Leader trait research examined the physical, mental, and social characteristics of

individuals. In general, these studies simply looked for significant associations between

individual traits and measures of leadership effectiveness. Physical traits such as height,

mental traits such as intelligence, and social traits such as personality attributes were all

subjects of empirical research.

The initial conclusion from studies of leader traits was that there were no universal traits

that consistently separated effective leaders from other individuals. In an important

review of the leadership literature published in 1948, Ralph Stogdill concluded that the

existing research had not demonstrated the utility of the trait approach.

Several problems with early trait research might explain the perceived lack of significant

findings. First, measurement theory at the time was not highly sophisticated. Little was

known about the psychometric properties of the measures used to operationalize traits.

As a result, different studies were likely to use different measures to assess the same

construct, which made it very difficult to replicate findings. In addition, many of the trait

studies relied on samples of teenagers or lower-level managers.

Early trait research was largely non theoretical, offering no explanations for the

proposed relationship between individual characteristics and leadership.

Finally, early trait research did not consider the impact of situational variables that might

moderate the relationship between leader traits and measures of leader effectiveness. As

a result of the lack of consistent findings linking individual traits to leadership

effectiveness, empirical studies of leader traits were largely abandoned in the 1950s.

New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that

would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of

leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round robin research

design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as

leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical

advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could

quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This

advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership

research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new

methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:

• Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.

• Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as:

• intelligence

• adjustment

• extraversion

• conscientiousness

• openness to experience

• general self-efficacy

While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence

has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual

frameworks.

Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still:

1. focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to

the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and

problem-solving skills;

2. fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes;

3. do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable

over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences;

4. do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity

necessary for effective leadership.

Attribute pattern approach

Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have

begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differences—the leader

attribute pattern approach. In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute

pattern approach is based on theorists' arguments that the influence of individual

characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated

totality rather than a summation of individual variables.

In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated

constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial

variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by

single attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.

Behavioral and style theories

LEADER BEHAVIOR APPROACH

Partially as a result of the disenchantment with the trait approach to leadership that

occurred by the beginning of the 1950s, the focus of leadership research shifted away

from leader traits to leader behaviors. The premise of this stream of research was that the

behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical, mental, or

emotional traits. The two most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio

State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. These

studies sparked hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely cited.

The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ),

administering it to samples of individuals in the military, manufacturing companies,

college administrators, and student leaders. Answers to the questionnaire were factor-

analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. The

conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how

leaders carry out their role.

Two factors, termed consideration and initiating structure, consistently appeared.

Initiating structure, sometimes called task-oriented behavior, involves planning,

organizing, and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration involves showing

concern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates' accomplishments,

and providing for subordinates' welfare.

The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio

State. Under the general direction of Rensis Likert, the focus of the Michigan studies

was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and

job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations:

an employee orientation and a production orientation. Leaders with an employee

orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Those with a production

orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job.

The conclusion of the Michigan studies was that an employee orientation and general

instead of close supervision yielded better results. Likert eventually developed four

"systems" of management based on these studies; he advocated System 4 (the

participative-group system, which was the most participatory set of leader behaviors) as

resulting in the most positive outcomes.

One concept based largely on the behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness was

the Managerial (or Leadership) Grid, developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. The

grid combines "concern for production" with "concern for people" and presents five

alternative behavioral styles of leadership. An individual who emphasized neither

production was practicing "impoverished management" according to the grid. If a person

emphasized concern for people and placed little emphasis on production, he was terms a

"country-club" manager.

Conversely, a person who emphasized a concern for production but paid little attention

to the concerns of subordinates was a "task" manager. A person who tried to balance

concern for production and concern for people was termed a "middle-of-the-road"

manager.

Finally, an individual who was able to simultaneously exhibit a high concern for

production and a high concern for people was practicing "team management."

According to the prescriptions of the grid, team management was the best leadership

approach. The Managerial Grid became a major consulting tool and was the basis for a

considerable amount of leadership training in the corporate world.

The assumption of the leader behavior approach was that there were certain behaviors

that would be universally effective for leaders. Unfortunately, empirical research has not

demonstrated consistent relationships between task-oriented or person-oriented leader

behaviors and leader effectiveness. Like trait research, leader behavior research did not

consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader

behaviors and leader effectiveness.

Managerial grid model

response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research

leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders,

determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. David

McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-

developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful,

perhaps even essential.

Illustration 1: A graphical representation of the managerial grid model

A graphical representation of the managerial grid model

Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the

influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the

performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In

each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making,

praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project

management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.

The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was

developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different

leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal

achievement.

Positive reinforcement

B.F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of

positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is

presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the

future.The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a

business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This

employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee

decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually

shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often

because the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a

positive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the

behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time.

The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders

to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-

Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement

to increase productivity. Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that

reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many

reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher

performance for lower costs.

CONTINGENCY (SITUATIONAL) APPROACH

Contingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work

group context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be

effective. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Four of

the more well-known contingency theories are Fiedler's contingency theory, path-goal

theory, the Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership, and the situational

leadership theory. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the

paragraphs that follow.

Introduced in 1967, Fiedler's contingency theory was the first to specify how situational

factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. The

theory suggests that the "favorability" of the situation determines the effectiveness of

task- and person-oriented leader behavior.

Favorability is determined by (1) the respect and trust that followers have for the leader;

(2) the extent to which subordinates' responsibilities can be structured and performance

measured; and (3) the control the leader has over subordinates' rewards. The situation is

most favorable when followers respect and trust the leader, the task is highly structured,

and the leader has control over rewards and punishments.

Fiedler's research indicated that task-oriented leaders were more effective when the

situation was either highly favorable or highly unfavorable, but that person-oriented

leaders were more effective in the moderately favorable or unfavorable situations. The

theory did not necessarily propose that leaders could adapt their leadership styles to

different situations, but that leaders with different leadership styles would be more

effective when placed in situations that matched their preferred style.

Fiedler's contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological

grounds. However, empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions

of the theory, and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership

effectiveness.

Path-goal theory was first presented in a 1971Administrative Science Quarterly article

by Robert House. Path-goal theory proposes that subordinates' characteristics and

characteristics of the work environment determine which leader behaviors will be more

effective. Key characteristics of subordinates identified by the theory are locus of

control, work experience, ability, and the need for affiliation. Important environmental

characteristics named by the theory are the nature of the task, the formal authority

system, and the nature of the work group. The theory includes four different leader

behaviors, which include directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative

leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership.

According to the theory, leader behavior should reduce barriers to subordinates' goal

attainment, strengthen subordinates' expectancies that improved performance will lead

to valued rewards, and provide coaching to make the path to payoffs easier for

subordinates. Path-goal theory suggests that the leader behavior that will accomplish

these tasks depends upon the subordinate and environmental contingency factors.

Path-goal theory has been criticized because it does not consider interactions among the

contingency factors and also because of the complexity of its underlying theoretical

model, expectancy theory. Empirical research has provided some support for the theory's

propositions, primarily as they relate to directive and supportive leader behaviors.

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model was introduced by Victor Vroom and

Phillip Yetton in 1973 and revised by Vroom and Jago in 1988. The theory focuses

primarily on the degree of subordinate participation that is appropriate in different

situations. Thus, it emphasizes the decision-making style of the leader.

There are five types of leader decision-making styles, which are labeled AI, AII, CI, CII,

and G. These styles range from strongly autocratic (AI), to strongly democratic (G).

According to the theory, the appropriate style is determined by answers to up to eight

diagnostic questions, which relate to such contingency factors as the importance of

decision quality, the structure of the problem, whether subordinates have enough

information to make a quality decision, and the importance of subordinate commitment

to the decision.

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model has been criticized for its complexity, for its assumption

that the decision makers' goals are consistent with organizational goals, and for ignoring

the skills needed to arrive at group decisions to difficult problems. Empirical research

has supported some of the prescriptions of the theory.

The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by

Hersey and Blanchard. The theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting

leaders' choice of leadership style is the task-related maturity of the subordinates.

Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept

responsibility for their own task-related behavior. The theory classifies leader behaviors

into the two broad classes of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors. The

major proposition of situational leadership theory is that the effectiveness of task and

relationship-oriented leadership depends upon the maturity of a leader's subordinates.

Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological

grounds. However, it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of

leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability

and leadership style.

Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social

scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as

Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce

the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations

call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal

psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual

actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of

the situation in which he functions."

Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon

the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of

leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations

each style works better in.

The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails

to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic

leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally,

the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but

as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or

thorny organizational problems.

Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is

sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appear

more prominently in recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision

model, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.

The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler

called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and

situational favorability (later called situational control). The theory defined two types of

leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the

group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out

the task itself (task-oriented).[31] According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader.

Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership

orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly

structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable

situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely

favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best

in situations with intermediate favorability.

Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973)and later with Arthur Jago

(1988), developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which was used in a

normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational

variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. This approach

was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different

group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This

model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.

The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was

based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom. According to House, the essence of

the theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that

complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for

deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit

performance".

The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive,

participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower

characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states

that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four

depending on what the situation demands.

The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the

circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the

reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.

The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggests four

leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model

posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of follower-

development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the

characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.

Functional theory

Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a

particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute

to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leader's main job is to

see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said

to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and

cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton,

1986).

While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership

(Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader

organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on

functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and

Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert,

Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs when

promoting organization's effectiveness. These functions include environmental

monitoring, organizing subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates,

motivating others, and intervening actively in the group's work.

A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial

work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates

perceived their supervisors' behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as

consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved in

fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing

concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating

structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment.

This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding

subordinates accountable to those standards.

Transactional and transformational theories

Eric Berne first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of

transactional analysis.

The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform certain tasks and

reward or punish for the team's performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to

lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined

goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct,

and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward

effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. Idiosyncrasy Credits, first posited by

Edward Hollander (1971) is one example of a concept closely related to transactional

leadership.

Emotions and leadership

Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions

entwined with the social influence process. In an organization, the leader's mood has

some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels:

1. The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a

positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with

leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group

members through the mechanism of emotional contagion. Mood contagion may be

one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence

followers.

2. The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or

homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an

aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood

at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more

positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.

3. Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public

expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people

experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their

goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example,

expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward

goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and

behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.

In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the

leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were other

findings.

Beyond the leader's mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and

negative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead to

emotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during interactions with their

employees are the sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affective

events. Examples – feedback giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since

employee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is

imperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational leaders.

Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the

self and others, contributes to effective leadership within organizations.

Neo-emergent theory

The Neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses

that leadership is created through the emergence of information by the leader or other

stakeholders, not through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the

reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by

the majority. It is well known that the great naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his own

versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in England he

would receive a true hero's welcome.

In modern society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own views of a leader,

which may be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a

payment, or an inherent interest of the author, media, or leader. Therefore, it can be

contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their

true leadership qualities at all.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Although trait, behavioral, and contingency approaches have each contributed to the

understanding of leadership, none of the approaches have provided a completely

satisfactory explanation of leadership and leadership effectiveness. Since the 1970s,

several alternative theoretical frameworks for the study of leadership have been

advanced. Among the more important of these are leader-member exchange theory,

transformational leadership theory, the substitutes for leadership approach, and the

philosophy of servant leadership.

LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory was initially called the vertical dyad linkage

theory. The theory was introduced by George Graen and various colleagues in the 1970s

and has been revised and refined in the years since. LMX theory emphasizes the dyadic

(i.e., one-on-one) relationships between leaders and individual subordinates, instead of

the traits or behaviors of leaders or situational characteristics.

The theory's focus is determining the type of leader-subordinate relationships that

promote effective outcomes and the factors that determine whether leaders and

subordinates will be able to develop high-quality relationships.

According to LMX theory, leaders do not treat all subordinates in the same manner, but

establish close relationships with some (the in-group) while remaining aloof from others

(the out-group). Those in the in-group enjoy relationships with the leader that is marked

by trust and mutual respect. They tend to be involved in important activities and

decisions. Conversely, those in the out-group are excluded from important activities and

decisions.

LMX theory suggests that high-quality relationships between a leader-subordinate dyad

will lead to positive outcomes such as better performance, lower turnover, job

satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Empirical research supports many of the

proposed relationships.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES

Beginning in the 1970s, a number of leadership theories emerged that focused on the

importance of a leader's charisma to leadership effectiveness. Included within this class

of theories are House's theory of charismatic leadership, Bass's transformational

leadership theory, and Conger and Kanungo's charismatic leadership theory.

These theories have much in common. They all focus on attempting to explain how

leaders can accomplish extraordinary things against the odds, such as turning around a

failing company, founding a successful company, or achieving great military success

against incredible odds. The theories also emphasize the importance of leaders' inspiring

subordinates' admiration, dedication, and unquestioned loyalty through articulating a

clear and compelling vision.

Tranformational leadership theory differentiates between the transactional and the

transformational leader. Transactional leadership focuses on role and task requirements

and utilizes rewards contingent on performance. By contrast, transformational leadership

focuses on developing mutual trust, fostering the leadership abilities of others, and

setting goals that go beyond the short-term needs of the work group.

Bass's transformational leadership theory identifies four aspects of effective leadership,

which include charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and consideration. A leader

who exhibits these qualities will inspire subordinates to be high achievers and put the

long-term interest of the organization ahead of their own short-term interest, according

to the theory. Empirical research has supported many of the theory's propositions.

SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP THEORY

Kerr and Jermier introduced the substitutes for leadership theory in 1978. The theory's

focus is concerned with providing an explanation for the lack of stronger empirical

support for a relationship between leader traits or leader behaviors and subordinates'

satisfaction and performance. The substitutes for leadership theory suggests that

characteristics of the organization, the task, and subordinates may substitute for or

negate the effects of leadership, thus weakening observed relationships between leader

behaviors and important organizational outcomes.

Substitutes for leadership make leader behaviors such as task-oriented or relationship-

oriented unnecessary. Characteristics of the organization that may substitute for

leadership include formalization, group cohesiveness, inflexible rules, and

organizational rewards not under the control of the leader. Characteristics of the task that

may substitute for leadership include routine and repetitive tasks or tasks that are

satisfying. Characteristics of subordinates that may substitute for leadership include

ability, experience, training, and job-related knowledge.

The substitutes for leadership theory has generated a considerable amount of interest

because it offers an intuitively appealing explanation for why leader behavior impacts

subordinates in some situations but not in others. However, some of its theoretical

propositions have not been adequately tested. The theory continues to generate empirical

research.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP

This approach to leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. It

suggests that leaders must place the needs of subordinates, customers, and the

community ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. Characteristics of

servant leaders include empathy, stewardship, and commitment to the personal,

professional, and spiritual growth of their subordinates. Servant leadership has not been

subjected to extensive empirical testing but has generated considerable interest among

both leadership scholars and practitioners.

Leadership continues to be one of the most written about topics in the social sciences.

Although much has been learned about leadership since the 1930s, many avenues of

research still remain to be explored as we enter the twenty-first century.

Leadership Styles

Leadership style refers to a leader's behavior. It is the result of the philosophy,

personality, and experience of the leader. Rhetoric specialists have also developed

models for understanding leadership (Robert Hariman, Political Style,Philippe-Joseph

Salazar, L'Hyperpolitique. Technologies politiques De La Domination).

Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is

little time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has

significantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic

leadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team

with a homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be

more effective.

The style adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the

group while balancing the interests of its individual members.

Autocratic or authoritarian style

Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the

leader, as with dictators.

Leaders do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic

management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It

permits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group and

keeps each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to be shared with the rest of

the group.

In an autocratic leadership style, the person in charge has total authority and control over

decision making. By virtue of their position and job responsibilities, they not only

control the efforts of the team, but monitor them for completion –often under close

scrutiny

This style is reminiscent of the earliest tribes and empires. Obviously, our historical

movement toward democracy brings a negative connotation to autocracy, but in some

situations, it is the most appropriate type of leadership. That, of course, doesn’t mean a

blank check to ignore the wellbeing of his subordinate.

When is it used?

The autocratic leadership style is best used in situations where control is necessary, often

where there is little margin for error. When conditions are dangerous, rigid rules can

keep people out of harm’s way. Many times, the subordinate staff is inexperienced or

unfamiliar with the type of work and heavy oversight is necessary.

Rigid organizations often use this style. It has been known to be very paternalistic, and

in highly-professional, independent minded teams, it can lead to resentment and strained

morale.

Good fits for Autocratic Leadership:

• Military

• Manufacturing

• Construction

How to be effective with this position

It’s easy to see the immediate goal of this type of leadership: use your expertise to get

the job done. Make sure that everyone is exactly where they need to be and doing their

job, while the important tasks are handled quickly and correctly.

In many ways this is the oldest leadership style, dating back to the early empires. It’s

very intuitive to tell people what needs to be done by when.

It is difficult balancing the use of authority with the morale of the team. Too much direct

scrutiny will make your subordinates miserable, and being too heavy handed will

squelch all group input. Being an effective autocratic leader means being very

intentional about when and how demands are made of the team.

Here are some things to keep in mind to be an effective when acting as an autocratic

leader:

• Respect your Subordinates: It’s easy to end up as rigid as the rules you are

trying to enforce. It’s important that you stay fair and acknowledge that everyone

brings something to the table, even if they don’t call the shots. Making

subordinates realize they are respected keeps moral up and resentment low; every

functional team is built on a foundation of mutual respect.

• Explain the rules: Your people know they have to follow procedure, but it helps

them do a better job if they know why.

• Be consistent: If your role in the team is to enforce the company line, you have to

make sure you do so consistently and fairly. It’s easy to respect someone

objective, but hard to trust someone who applies policy differently in similar

circumstances.

• Educate before you enforce: Having everyone understand your expectations up

front will mean less surprises down the road. Being above board from the outset

prevents a lot of miscommunications and misunderstandings.

• Listen, even if you don’t change: We all want to feel like our opinions are

appreciated, even if they aren’t going to lead to immediate change and being a

leader means that your team will want to bring their opinions to you. It’s

important to be clear that they are heard, no matter the outcome.

Participative or democratic style

The democratic leadership style consists of the leader sharing the decision-making

abilities with group members by promoting the interests of the group members and by

practicing social equality.

A Participative Leader, rather than taking autocratic decisions, seeks to involve other

people in the process, possibly including subordinates, peers, superiors and other

stakeholders. Often, however, as it is within the managers' whim to give or deny control

to his or her subordinates, most participative activity is within the immediate team.

The question of how much influence others are given thus may vary on the manager's

preferences and beliefs, and a whole spectrum of participation is possible, as in the table

below.

< Not participative Highly participative >

Leader
Team
proposes Joint Full
proposes
Autocratic decision, decision with delegation of
decision,
decision by listens to team as decision to
leader has
leader feedback, equals team
final decision
then decides

There are many varieties on this spectrum, including stages where the leader sells the

idea to the team. Another variant is for the leader to describe the 'what' of objectives or

goals and let the team or individuals decide the 'how' of the process by which the 'how'

will be achieved (this is often called 'Management by Objectives').

The level of participation may also depend on the type of decision being made.

Decisions on how to implement goals may be highly participative, whilst decisions

during subordinate performance evaluations are more likely to be taken by the manager.

There are many potential benefits of participative leadership, as indicated in the

assumptions, above.

This approach is also known as consultation, empowerment, joint decision-making,

democratic leadership, Management By Objective (MBO) and power-sharing.

Participative Leadership can be a sham when managers ask for opinions and then ignore

them. This is likely to lead to cynicism and feelings of betrayal.

Laissez-faire or free rein style

A person may be in a leadership position without providing leadership, leaving the

group to fend for itself. Subordinates are given a free hand in deciding their own policies

and methods.

The Laissez Faire Leadership Style was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in

1938, along with the autocratic leadership and the democratic leadership styles. The

laissez faire style is sometimes described as a "hands off" leadership style because the

leader provides little or no direction to the followers.

The characteristics of the laissez faire style include:

• Allows followers to have complete freedom to make decisions concerning the

completion of their work or ask questions of the leader

• The leader provides the followers with the materials they need to accomplish their

goals and answers the follower's questions

In this type of leadership style,the leader totally trusts their employees/team to perform

the job themselves. He just concentrates on the intellectual/rational aspect of his work

and does not focus on the management aspect of his work.

The team/employees are welcomed to share their views and provide suggestions which

are best for organizational interests. This leadership style works only when the

employees are skilled, loyal, experienced and intellectual.

Narcissistic leadership

Various academics such as Kets de Vries, Maccoby, and Thomas have identified

narcissistic leadership as an important and common leadership style.

Narcissistic leadership is a common form of leadership. The narcissism may be healthy

or destructive although there is a continuum between the two. To critics, "narcissistic

leadership (preferably destructive) is driven by unyielding arrogance, self-absorption,

and a personal egotistic need for power and admiration."

here are four basic types of leader with narcissists most commonly in type 3 although

they may be in type 1:

1. authoritarian with task orientated decision making

2. democratic with task orientated decision making

3. authoritarian with emotional decision making

4. democratic with emotional decision making

Toxic leadership

A toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an

organization, and who abuses the leader-follower relationship by leaving the group or

organization in a worse-off condition than when he/she first found them.

The phrase was coined by Marcia Whicker in 1996 and is linked with a number of

dysfunctional leadership styles.Other names include the little Hitler, manager from hell

and boss from hell.

Basic traits of toxic leadership

The basic traits of a toxic leader are generally considered to be either/or

insular,intemperate, glib, operationally rigid, callous, inept, discriminatory, corrupt or

aggressive by scholars such as Barbara Kellerman.

These may occur as either:

• Oppositional behaviour. • Poor self-control and or restraint.

• Plays corporate power politics. • Physical and/or psychological

• An overcompetitive attitude to other bullying.

employees. • Procedural inflexibility.

• Perfectionistic attitudes. • Discriminatory attitudes (sexism,

• Abuse of the disciplinary system etc.).

(such as to remove a workplace rival). • Causes workplace division instead of

• A condescending/glib attitude. harmony.

• Use "divide and rule" tactics on their

employees.

The concept of interpersonal trust

On the basis of their review, Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) conceptually defined

trust as “a willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on

the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor,

irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that party.”

Interpersonal Trust is the perception you have that other person will not do anything

that harm your interest.

Interpersonal trust - a willingness to accept vulnerability or risk based on expectations

regarding another person’s behavior – is a vitally important concept for human behavior,

affecting our interactions both with adversaries and competitors as well as with allies

and friends. Indeed, interpersonal trust could be said to be responsible in part for

nudging competitors towards becoming allies, or – if betrayed – leading friends to

become adversaries.

IMPORTANCE OF INTERPERSONAL TRUST
Interpersonal trust is very important in organizational settings. It leads to:
• Team Spirit

• Cordial Environment

• Target Fulfillment

• Less Turnover Rate

• Enthusiasm Among Employees

• Sound Relationships

• Better Communication

• Delegation Of Authority And Responsibility

• Defensiveness

Effects of Interpersonal Trust

Cooperation

Cooperation is frequently associated with trust – particularly when cooperation puts

one at risk of being taken advantage of by a partner (Mayer et al., 1995). I propose that

trust will positively effect two components of cooperation: coordination and helping.

The ability to harmoniously combine actions (i.e., be coordinated) is likely to be

contingent upon the extent to which individuals can depend upon their partners and can

predict their partners' behaviors. Dependability and predictability are constituent

elements of trust. Helping behavior should also be greater in high-trust groups, as

individuals anticipate that their partners will not take advantage of their assistance.

Instead, in high-trust groups, individuals may expect their partner to respond in kind, as

they know their partners are taking their interests into account. Individuals in low-trust

groups would not tend to hold these expectations.

Group decision-making processes
Group members could be expected to be more likely to diagnose (critique) performance

of the group, express ideas for improving it, and commit to a plan if they feel that their

partners are taking the group’s interests into account and will be dependable. For

example, if an individual suspects that her partners will betray her by not carrying out

their ends of the bargain, she will be unlikely to agree to the plan. Hence, groups with

low levels of trust will be likely to experience less diagnosis of performance, fewer ideas

expressed, and fewer commitments to a decision.

Effort

Expectancy theory can be used to make predictions about the intensity of effort, as

related to trust, in cases where individuals are highly interdependent (e.g., see Sheppard,

1993). Using the latter assumption, when an individual thinks her group members are

undependable (i.e., she has low trust), she may perceive her effort as unrelated to group

performance – because the poor performance of her partners will limit the performance

of the group and make her efforts futile. In this case, the logic of expectancy theory

would predict that she put forth a low level of effort. Put differently, trust influences a

group member’s expectations about the extent to which her effort can be converted into

group performance.

Trust may also have a main effect on the direction of effort. In groups with high levels

of trust, individuals can feel comfortable directing their effort toward the group task,

because they are not afraid that their partners will take advantage of them or will be

undependable. If they are concerned about being taken advantage of by their partners, or

if they think that their partners are undependable, they may be more likely to direct their

efforts toward goals where they do not have to rely on the behavior of others.

Proposition

The relationship between interpersonal trust and work group performance will be

mediated by three group processes: cooperation (coordination, helping), decision-

making processes (diagnosing performance, expressing ideas, committing to a decision),

and effort (intensity, direction).

Interpersonal Trust as a Moderator

As indicated earlier, much of the research in organizational behavior appears to position

trust as a variable that has direct effects on work group process and performance. Trust

could, however, operate on group performance indirectly through a moderating role.

While this idea has been relatively unexamined in empirical research, it has been hinted

at in conceptual work.

For example, Hackman and Morris (1975) stated that team-building (e.g., trust-building)

activities are intended to “remove some of the emotional and interpersonal obstacles to

effective group functioning and thereby permit group members to devote a greater

proportion of their energies toward actual task work” (p. 48). In recent work, Yeatts and

Hyden (1998, p. 102) present a similar argument. Lastly, Hwang and Burger (1997)

proposed that trust is an important “condition” for cooperation.

In sum, the language used by these researchers suggests that trust operates by facilitating

the effects of other variable s on group process and performance.

This idea is theoretically appealing. Instead of thinking of trust as a variable that drives

behavior and performance (e.g., increasing trust leads to an increase in cooperation and

performance), trust may be better conceived of as a variable that influences how the

team members direct their energy (which is provided by the driver).

To be more specific about this model, theories of task motivation (e.g., Kanfer,

1990) suggest that behavior, and subsequently performance, are driven by needs, goals,

or rewards – not by beliefs about co-workers.

Under this model, trust would help channel the energy towards reaching alternative

objectives (e.g., personal versus group objectives) as it provides information about the

advisability of engaging in particular courses of action (e.g., cooperating).

Managerial Behaviors That Promote Interpersonal

Trust

Trustworthy behavior:

1.Acting with discretion .

2.Being consistent between words and deeds.

3.Ensuring frequent and rich communication.

4. Engaging in collaborative communication.

5. Ensuring that decisions are fair and transparent .

Organizational Factors :

6. Establishing and ensuring shared vision and language.

7. Holding people accountable for trust.

Relational Factors

8. Creating personal connections.

9. Giving away something of value.

Individual Factors

10.Disclosing your expertise and limitations.

Leadership and trust

Little attention has been given to leadership studies on the role of trust in influencing

follower’s behavioral outcomes. Trust is the building block of social exchange and role

relationship. Leader member relationship needs trust. Leadership is considered

trustworthy based on leadership’s conduct, integrity, use of control, ability to

communicate, and ability to express interest for members. When trust is broken it can

have serious adverse effects on a group’s performance.

Research indicates that trust, most specifically leadership trust, is a necessary and viable

component of organizational success. Leadership trust is literally defined as a leader-

member relationship based on mutual respect, cooperation, commitment, reliability and

equity. Effective leadership trust is also based in exchange theory, which proposes that

leaders and members create a mutual reciprocal relationship. When followers trust

leader, they are willing to be vulnerable to the leader’s action—confident that their

rights and interests will not be abused.

Leaders have a significant responsibility to increase member involvement to breed

leadership trust. Honesty, for instance, consistently ranks at the top of most people’s list

of characteristics they admire in their leaders. It is also important that leadership trust

only exists if leadership is aligned with organizational values, demonstrates fairness with

members, and does not exploit members. Furthermore, organizations that experience

greater trust in leadership can compete more effectively in economic markets and

maintain organizational viability.

Review of literature

Empirical research has examined the main effects of trust on a variety of dependent

variables including organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., McAllister, 1995;

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Robinson, 1996), effort (e.g.,

Williams & Karau, 1991), conflict (e.g., Ferrin & Shah, 1997), communication (e.g.,

Mellinger, 1959; O’Reilly and Roberts, 1974; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974), decision

making (e.g., Zand, 1972), and group performance (e.g., Friedlander, 1970; Klimoski &

Karol, 1976). Is there evidence from this research that would allow us to conclude that

trust exerts main effects on group performance? There are three factors that lead to a

negative answer to this question.

First, the results from the research cited above could be labeled as providing mild and/or

inconsistent empirical results. For example, in the study of the effects of trust on the

performance of groups, two studies reported finding support for a main effect (Hughes,

Rosenbach, & Clover, 1983; Klimoski & Karol, 1976); one study found support for an

indirect effect (Friedlander, 1970), and one study found no effect (Kimmel et al., 1980).

Studies of trust on behavioral dependent variables, with the possible exception of

communication, have also shown relatively inconsistent and/or weak results.

Second, the results from much of the work cited above are potentially inflated due to the

designs used.

For example, many of the studies collected cross-sectional data that limits our ability to

ascertain the

direction of causality. In addition, many of the studies collected all data with self-report

surveys, thus

potentially inflating the correlations.

Lastly, related research on the role of interpersonal relations in effecting group

performance has shown weak results. For example, reviews of the research on group

performance and on team-building tend to suggest that better interpersonal relationships

among team members does not necessarily result in higher team performance (McGrath

& Altman, 1966; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990; Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas,

1992; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980).

In sum, given the mild support in prior research, the methodological limitations of this

work, and research in related areas, we can not yet conclude that trust exerts main

(direct) effects on group process and performance. Clearly, this proposition needs to be

subjected to further careful empirical study before we could draw such a conclusion. As

indicated in the above critiques, careful empirical study should include (a) isolating the

effects of trust on behavior and performance, (b) measuring independent and dependent

variables at different points in time, and (c) measuring independent and dependent

variables using different methods and sources.

Theoretical Bases

Trust has been a frequently cited determinant of group performance (Golembiewski &

McConkie, 1988). In prior research, the argument for a main effect of trust on

performance is relatively straightforward. Put simply, trust increases the ability of group

members to work together. Since work groups require that individuals work together,

trust is expected to increase the performance of the group, both in terms of effectiveness

and efficiency. Effectiveness is expected to be positively related to trust, as the latter

may improve cooperation and the motivation to work jointly (Larson & LaFasto, 1989),

that in turn may improve the group’s execution of its task. Efficiency is expected to

increase, as trust reduces the need for controls (e.g., rules, monitoring) and increases the

ability to confront performance problems; both of these factors facilitate the maximal

utilization of the group’s resources (Bromiley & Cummings, 1995; Larson & LaFasto,

1989). In making this argument, as well as others this paper, moderate to high levels of

interdependence act as a boundary condition. Lacking a moderate level of

interdependence, trust becomes less meaningful as individuals do not need to rely upon

each other to reach their goals.

In a study on Authentic Leadership, Trust and Work Engagement by Arif Hassan and

Forbis Ahmed,it was found that Interpersonal trust between leaders and members of the

work group is central to their effective functioning. Though leaders play the primary role

in establishing and developing trust, little research has examined the specific leadership

practices which engender trust towards them. There are some evidences, however, to

suggest that some leaders, such as authentic and transformational, seem to be more

effective than others in promoting a trusting relationship with their followers .

They found in their study that trust in leaders is particularly important for effective

functioning in organizations such as banks where tasks are complex and require high

levels of interdependence, cooperation, information sharing and above all trust.

Rationale/objectives of study

The rationale of this study is to-

1.Identify the different types of leadership styles.

2.Understand the importance of each leadership style in specific situations.

3.Explain the concept of Interpersonal trust.

4.Identify the antecedents,consequences and importance of interpersonal trust in

organizations.

5.Understand the relationship between leadership styles and interpersonal trust.

6.Identify effective ways to adapt appropriate leadership styles (in order to increase

interpersonal trust and to improve the performance of employees).

This study will help us understand-

1. To what extent authentic leaders promote subordinates trust in them and their work

engagement?

2. How does subordinates’ trust in leaders facilitate employees work engagement?

3. How does trust mediate the relationship between leadership authenticity and

employees work engagement?

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

Leadership style ,adopted by the leader,affects the Interpersonal trust between leader

and employees/subordinates.

Hypothesis 2

Transformational and transactional leadership styles Positively affect the interpersonal

trust between bosses and subordinates.

Methodology

Sample

This study was done on NTPC employees. A random sample of 50 people was taken

from different departments of the organization,including human relations department,

department of information and technology etc.

This study was made irrespective of gender. Participants were asked to fill a

questionnaire which contained items measuring leadership styles of the leaders,as

perceived by the employees, and the level of interpersonal trust among the employees.

For measuring leadership styles,Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used and for

the purpose of measuring interpersonal trust,Interpersonal Trust Scale by

Christopher,K.J.was applied.

About the questionnaires

Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire

The most widely used measure of transformational leadership is the MLQ. An earlier

version of the MLQ was originally developed by Bass (1985), based on a series of

interviews he and his associates conducted with 70 senior executives in South Africa.

These executives were asked to recall leaders within their experiences who had raised

their awareness to broader goals, moved them to higher motives, or inspired them to put

others' interests ahead of their own. The executives were then asked to describe how

these leaders behaved-what they did to effect change. From these descriptions and from

numerous other interviews with both junior and senior executives, Bass constructed the

questions that make up the MLQ. Since it was first designed, the MLQ has gone through

many revisions, and it continues to be refined to strengthen its reliability and validity

(Bass & Avolio, 1993).

The MLQ is made up of questions that measure followers' perceptions of a leader's

behavior for each of the seven factors in the transformational and transactional

leadership model (see Figure 8.2), and it also has items that measure extra effort,

effectiveness, and satisfaction.

Based on a summary analysis of a series of studies that used the MLQ to predict how

transformational leadership relates to outcomes such as effectiveness, Bryman (1992)

and Bass and Avolio (1994) have suggested that the charisma and motivation factors on

the MLQ are the most likely to be related to positive effects. Individualized

consideration, intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward are the next most

important factors. Management-by-exception in its passive form has been found to be

somewhat related to outcomes, and in its active form it has been found to be negatively

related to outcomes. Generally, laissez-faire leadership has been found to be negatively

related to outcomes such as effectiveness and satisfaction in organizations.

Bass and Avolio (1992) have developed an abbreviated version of the MLQ, called the

MLQ-6S. We present it in this section so that you can assess your own transformational,

transactional, and non-transactional leadership style. At the end of the questionnaire, we

provide information you can use to interpret your scores.

These seven factors can be divided into three groups. The first group includes the scores

on Factors I through 4, which represent items that directly assess the degree to which the

leadership is transformational. Higher scores on these factors indicate more frequently

displayed transformational leadership. The second group includes scores on Factors 5

and 6. These factors represent the transactional dimensions of one's leadership. Higher

scores on these factors suggest the leader uses reward systems and/or corrective

structures in his/her leadership style. The last factor, laissez-faire leadership, assesses the

degree to which the leader employs hands-off leadership, or nonleadership. On this

factor, higher scores indicate that s/he tends to provide little structure or guidance to

subordinates.

The MLQ-6S covers a number of dimensions of leadership, or what Bass and Avolio

(1994) have called a full range of leadership styles.

Idealized influence _____ Factor 1

Inspirational motivation _____ Factor 2

Intellectual stimulation _____ Factor 3

Individualized consideration _____ Factor 4

Contingent reward _____ Factor 5

Management-by-exception _____ Factor 6

Laissez-faire Leadership _____ Factor 7

Score range: High = 9-12, Moderate = 5-8, Low = 0-4

Factor 1

Idealized influence indicates whether the leader holds subordinates' trust, maintain their

faith and respect, shows dedication to them, appeals to their hopes and dreams, and acts

as their role model.

Factor 2

Inspirational motivation measures the degree to which your leader provides a vision,

uses appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on their work, and tries to

make others feel their work is significant.

Factor 3

Intellectual stimulation shows the degree to which your leader encourages others to be

creative in looking at old problems in new ways, creates an environment that is tolerant

of seemingly extreme positions, and nurtures people to question their own values and

beliefs and those of the organization.

Factor 4

Individualized consideration indicates the degree to which your leader shows interest in

others' well-being, assigns projects individually, and pays attention to those who seem

less involved in the group.

Factor 5

Contingent reward shows the degree to which your leader tells others what to do in order

to be rewarded, emphasizes what s/he expects from them, and recognizes their

accomplishments.

Factor 6

Management-by-exception assesses whether your leader tells others the job

requirements, is content with standard performance, and is a believer in "if it ain't broke,

don't fix it."

Factor 7

Laissez-faire measures whether your leader requires little of others, is content to let

things ride, and lets others do their own thing.

Interpersonal Trust Scale

Interpersonal Trust Scale consists of 20 items which measure the level of interpersonal

trust between employees and leaders. This scale was developed by Christopher,K.J. It

includes items such as ,''In important matters I never rely on others.” or “Most people

like taking responsibility.” This is a self rater scale. The respondent requires to respond

to each statement in “true” or “false”.

Statistical Analysis

After the data was collected,it's statistical analysis was done. First the items were scored

as per the scoring keys. Then the average scores were computed. For the statistical

analysis of MLQ the scores for all the seven factors were calculated separately to assess

the seven leadership factors. The average score was found to be 10.15 for Idealized

influence, 10.36 for Inspirational motivation, 9 for Intellectual stimulation, 9.45 for

Individual consideration, 9.43 for Contingent reward, 9.61 for management by exception

and 5.02 for laissez fair leadership. According to the scoring key,the average score of

the first six factors is High (9-12) and that of the seventh factor is moderate (5-8).

After computing the average scores of each factor,the average scores of

transactional,transformational and laissez fair leadership-styles were calculated. The

average score of transformational leadership style was found to be 9.74,which,as per the

scoring key,is high. The average score of transactional leadership style was found to be

9.52 which is also high according to the scoring key.

Finally the average score of laissez fair leadership style was found to be 5.02

which,according to the scoring key,is moderate.

Thus it can be concluded from the average scores that the employees of the organization

perceive their leaders to be high on idealized influence that means their leaders hold

subordinates' trust, maintain their faith and respect, show dedication to them, appeal to

their hopes and dreams, and act as their role model.

They believe that their leaders provide a vision, use appropriate symbols and images to

help them focus on their work, and try to make them feel their work is significant.

Employees also find their leaders as encouraging them to be creative in looking at old

problems in new ways, create an environment that is tolerant of seemingly extreme

positions, and nurture people to question their own values and beliefs and those of the

organization.

The leaders of the organization are also perceived as showing interest in others' well-

being, assigning projects individually, and paying attention to those who seem less

involved in the group. Thus they are high on individualized consideration also.

Employees also believe that their leaders tell them what to do in order to be rewarded,

emphasize what they expect from them, and recognize their accomplishments.

Scores also suggest that the leaders are perceived as being high on management by

exception as they tell the employees the job requirements, are content with standard

performance, and are a believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

FACTORS AVERAGE SCORES CATEGORY
Idealized influences 10.15 High
Inspirational motivation 10.36 High
Intellectual stimulation 9.00 High
Individualized consideration 9.45 High
Contingent reward 9.43 High
Management by exception 9.61 High
Laissez fair leadership-style 5.02 Moderate

LEADERSHIP STYLES AVERAGE SCORES CATEGORY
Transformational leadership 9.74 High
Transactional leadership 9.52 High
Laissez fair leadership-style 5.02 Moderate

the impact of leadership styles on interpersonal trust

the impact of leadership styles on interpersonal trust

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to the impact of leadership styles on interpersonal trust

Similar to the impact of leadership styles on interpersonal trust (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

the impact of leadership styles on interpersonal trust