FACULTATEA DE PSIHOLOGIE ȘI ȘTIINȚELE EDUCAȚIEI

ȘCOALA MASTERALĂ

M.E.O.PE.

MANAGEMENT EDUCAȚIONAL

Prof. univ. dr. ION NEGREȚ-DOBRIDOR

MANAGEMENTUL
ORGANIZAȚIEI EDUCAȚIONALE
- DOCUMENTAR –

1. Ce este managementul?
2. Macromanagementul
3. Middle-Management
4. Micromanagementul
5. Organizational Behavior Management (OBM)
6. Project management
7. Leadership
8. Fiedler Contigency Model
9. Victor Vroom
10. The Path-Goal Theory
 1. CE ESTE

MANAGEMENTUL?
Management in all business and human organization activity is simply the act of
getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. Management
comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading, directing, facilitating and
controlling or manipulating an organization (a group of one or more people or
entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Resourcing encompasses
the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources,
technological resources, and natural resources.

 Management can also refer to the person or people who perform the act(s) of
management.

Overview

The verb manage comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle — especially
a horse), which in turn derives from the Latin manus (hand). The French word
mesnagement (later ménagement) influenced the development in meaning of the
English word management in the 17th and 18th centuries.[1]

Some definitions of management are:

 Organization and coordination of the activities of an enterprise in accordance with

certain policies and in achievement of clearly defined objectives. Management is
often included as a factor of production along with machines, materials, and
money. According to the management guru Peter Drucker (1909–2005), the basic
task of a management is twofold: marketing and innovation.

 Directors and managers who have the power and responsibility to make decisions
to manage an enterprise. As a discipline, management comprises the interlocking
functions of formulating corporate policy and organizing, planning, controlling,
and directing the firm's resources to achieve the policy's objectives. The size of
management can range from one person in a small firm to hundreds or thousands
of managers in multinational companies. In large firms the board of directors
formulates the policy which is implemented by the chief executive officer.

Theoretical scope

Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), who wrote on the topic in the early
twentieth century, defined management as "the art of getting things done through
people". She also described management as philosophy.[2] One can also think of
management functionally, as the action of measuring a quantity on a regular basis
and of adjusting some initial plan; or as the actions taken to reach one's intended
goal. This applies even in situations where planning does not take place. From this
perspective, Frenchman Henri Fayol[3] considers management to consist of seven
functions:

1. planning
2. organizing

3. leading

4. co-ordinating

5. controlling

6. staffing

7. motivating

Some people, however, find this definition, while useful, far too narrow. The
phrase "management is what managers do" occurs widely, suggesting the difficulty
of defining management, the shifting nature of definitions, and the connection of
managerial practices with the existence of a managerial cadre or class.

One habit of thought regards management as equivalent to "business

administration" and thus excludes management in places outside commerce, as for
example in charities and in the public sector. More realistically, however, every
organization must manage its work, people, processes, technology, etc. in order to
maximize its effectiveness. Nonetheless, many people refer to university
departments which teach management as "business schools." Some institutions
(such as the Harvard Business School) use that name while others (such as the Yale
School of Management) employ the more inclusive term "management."

English speakers may also use the term "management" or "the management"
as a collective word describing the managers of an organization, for example of a
corporation. Historically this use of the term was often contrasted with the term
"Labor" referring to those being managed.

Nature of managerial work

In for-profit work, management has as its primary function the satisfaction of a

range of stakeholders. This typically involves making a profit (for the
shareholders), creating valued products at a reasonable cost (for customers), and
providing rewarding employment opportunities (for employees). In nonprofit
management, add the importance of keeping the faith of donors. In most models of
management/governance, shareholders vote for the board of directors, and the
board then hires senior management. Some organizations have experimented with
other methods (such as employee-voting models) of selecting or reviewing
managers; but this occurs only very rarely.
In the public sector of countries constituted as representative democracies, voters
elect politicians to public office. Such politicians hire many managers and
administrators, and in some countries like the United States political appointees
lose their jobs on the election of a new president/governor/mayor.

Public, private, and voluntary sectors place different demands on managers, but all
must retain the faith of those who select them (if they wish to retain their jobs),
retain the faith of those people that fund the organization, and retain the faith of
those who work for the organization. If they fail to convince employees of the
advantages of staying rather than leaving, they may tip the organization into a
downward spiral of hiring, training, firing, and recruiting. Management also has the
task of innovating and of improving the functioning of organizations.

Historical development

Difficulties arise in tracing the history of management. Some see it (by

definition) as a late modern (in the sense of late modernity) conceptualization. On
those terms it cannot have a pre-modern history, only harbingers (such as stewards).
Others, however, detect management-like-thought back to Sumerian traders and to
the builders of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. Slave-owners through the centuries
faced the problems of exploiting/motivating a dependent but sometimes
unenthusiastic or recalcitrant workforce, but many pre-industrial enterprises, given
their small scale, did not feel compelled to face the issues of management
systematically. However, innovations such as the spread of Arabic numerals (5th to
15th centuries) and the codification of double-entry book-keeping (1494) provided
tools for management assessment, planning and control.

Given the scale of most commercial operations and the lack of mechanized
record-keeping and recording before the industrial revolution, it made sense for
most owners of enterprises in those times to carry out management functions by
and for themselves. But with growing size and complexity of organizations, the
split between owners (individuals, industrial dynasties or groups of shareholders)
and day-to-day managers (independent specialists in planning and control)
gradually became more common.

Early writing

While management has been present for millennia, several writers have
created a background of works that assisted in modern management theories.[4]

Sun Tzu's The Art of War

Written by Chinese general Sun Tzu in the 6th century BC, The Art of War is
a military strategy book that, for managerial purposes, recommends being aware of
and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager's organization and a
foe's.[4]
Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince

Believing that people were motivated by self-interest, Niccolò Machiavelli

wrote The Prince in 1513 as advice for the leadership of Florence, Italy.[5]
Machiavelli recommended that leaders use fear—but not hatred—to maintain
control.

Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations

Written in 1776 by Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher, The Wealth

of Nations aims for efficient organization of work through Specialization of labor.[5]
Smith described how changes in processes could boost productivity in the
manufacture of pins. While individuals could produce 200 pins per day, Smith
analyzed the steps involved in manufacturing and, with merely 10 specialists, was
able to produce 48,000 pins per day.[5]

19th century

Classical economists such as Adam Smith (1723 - 1790) and John Stuart Mill
(1806 - 1873) provided a theoretical background to resource-allocation, production,
and pricing issues. About the same time, innovators like Eli Whitney (1765 - 1825),
James Watt (1736 - 1819), and Matthew Boulton (1728 - 1809) developed elements
of technical production such as standardization, quality-control procedures, cost-
accounting, interchangeability of parts, and work-planning. Many of these aspects
of management existed in the pre-1861 slave-based sector of the US economy. That
environment saw 4 million people, as the contemporary usages had it, "managed" in
profitable quasi-mass production.

By the late 19th century, marginal economists Alfred Marshall (1842 - 1924),
Léon Walras (1834 - 1910), and others introduced a new layer of complexity to the
theoretical underpinnings of management. Joseph Wharton offered the first tertiary-
level course in management in 1881.

20th century

By about 1900 one finds managers trying to place their theories on what they
regarded as a thoroughly scientific basis (see scientism for perceived limitations of
this belief). Examples include Henry R. Towne's Science of management in the
1890s, Frederick Winslow Taylor's The Principles of Scientific Management (1911),
Frank and Lillian Gilbreth's Applied motion study (1917), and Henry L. Gantt's
charts (1910s). J. Duncan wrote the first college management textbook in 1911. In
1912 Yoichi Ueno introduced Taylorism to Japan and became first management
consultant of the "Japanese-management style". His son Ichiro Ueno pioneered
Japanese quality assurance.

The first comprehensive theories of management appeared around 1920. The

Harvard Business School invented the Master of Business Administration degree
(MBA) in 1921. People like Henri Fayol (1841 - 1925) and Alexander Church
described the various branches of management and their inter-relationships. In the
early 20th century, people like Ordway Tead (1891 - 1973), Walter Scott and J.
Mooney applied the principles of psychology to management, while other writers,
such as Elton Mayo (1880 - 1949), Mary Parker Follett (1868 - 1933), Chester
Barnard (1886 - 1961), Max Weber (1864 - 1920), Rensis Likert (1903 - 1981), and
Chris Argyris (1923 - ) approached the phenomenon of management from a
sociological perspective.

Peter Drucker (1909 – 2005) wrote one of the earliest books on applied
management: Concept of the Corporation (published in 1946). It resulted from
Alfred Sloan (chairman of General Motors until 1956) commissioning a study of
the organisation. Drucker went on to write 39 books, many in the same vein.

H. Dodge, Ronald Fisher (1890 - 1962), and Thornton C. Fry introduced

statistical techniques into management-studies. In the 1940s, Patrick Blackett
combined these statistical theories with microeconomic theory and gave birth to the
science of operations research. Operations research, sometimes known as
"management science" (but distinct from Taylor's scientific management), attempts
to take a scientific approach to solving management problems, particularly in the
areas of logistics and operations.

Some of the more recent developments include the Theory of Constraints,

management by objectives, reengineering, Six Sigma and various information-
technology-driven theories such as agile software development, as well as group
management theories such as Cog's Ladder.

As the general recognition of managers as a class solidified during the 20th

century and gave perceived practitioners of the art/science of management a certain
amount of prestige, so the way opened for popularised systems of management
ideas to peddle their wares. In this context many management fads may have had
more to do with pop psychology than with scientific theories of management.

Towards the end of the 20th century, business management came to consist of
six separate branches, namely:

 Human resource management

 Operations management or production management

 Strategic management

 Marketing management

 Financial management

 Information technology management responsible for management information

systems

21st century

In the 21st century observers find it increasingly difficult to subdivide

management into functional categories in this way. More and more processes
simultaneously involve several categories. Instead, one tends to think in terms of
the various processes, tasks, and objects subject to management.
 Branches of management theory also exist relating to nonprofits and to
government: such as public administration, public management, and educational
management. Further, management programs related to civil-society organizations
have also spawned programs in nonprofit management and social entrepreneurship.

Note that many of the assumptions made by management have come under
attack from business ethics viewpoints, critical management studies, and anti-
corporate activism.

As one consequence, workplace democracy has become both more common,

and more advocated, in some places distributing all management functions among
the workers, each of whom takes on a portion of the work. However, these models
predate any current political issue, and may occur more naturally than does a
command hierarchy. All management to some degree embraces democratic
principles in that in the long term workers must give majority support to
management; otherwise they leave to find other work, or go on strike. Despite the
move toward workplace democracy, command-and-control organization structures
remain commonplace and the de facto organization structure. Indeed, the
entrenched nature of command-and-control can be seen in the way that recent
layoffs have been conducted with management ranks affected far less than
employees at the lower levels of organizations. In some cases, management has
even rewarded itself with bonuses when lower level employees have been laid off.[6]

Management topics
Basic functions of management

Management operates through various functions, often classified as planning,

organizing, leading/motivating, and controlling.

 Planning: Planning is the conscious determination of future course of action. This

involves why in action, how to take action, and when to take action. Thus,
planning includes determination of specific objectives, determining projects and
programs, setting policies and strategies, setting rules and procedures, and
preparing budgets. Based on the futurity involved in the planning process, plans
may be prepared for long-term period, usually five years or more, intermediate-
term period usually 2-5 years, or short-term period usually one year. Plans for
these three periods are coordinated and a longer-term plan provides basis for
shorter-term plan.
 Organizing: (Implementation) making optimum use of the resources required to
enable the successful carrying out of plans.

 Leading: Determining what needs to be done in a situation and getting people to

do it.

 Controlling: Monitoring, checking progress against plans, which may need

modification based on feedback.
Formation of the business policy
 The mission of the business is its most obvious purpose—which may be, for
example, to make soap.
 The vision of the business reflects its aspirations and specifies its intended
direction or future destination.

 The objectives of the business refers to the ends or activity at which a certain task
is aimed.

 The business's policy is a guide that stipulates rules, regulations and objectives,
and may be used in the managers' decision-making. It must be flexible and easily
interpreted and understood by all employees.

 The business's strategy refers to the coordinated plan of action that it is going to
take, as well as the resources that it will use, to realize its vision and long-term
objectives. It is a guideline to managers, stipulating how they ought to allocate
and utilize the factors of production to the business's advantage. Initially, it could
help the managers decide on what type of business they want to form.

How to implement policies and strategies

 All policies and strategies must be discussed with all managerial personnel and
staff.
 Managers must understand where and how they can implement their policies and
strategies.

 A plan of action must be devised for each department.

 Policies and strategies must be reviewed regularly.

 Contingency plans must be devised in case the environment changes.

 Assessments of progress ought to be carried out regularly by top-level managers.

 A good environment and team spirit is required within the business.

 The missions, objectives, strengths and weaknesses of each department must be

analysed to determine their roles in achieving the business's mission.

 The forecasting method develops a reliable picture of the business's future

environment.

 A planning unit must be created to ensure that all plans are consistent and that
policies and strategies are aimed at achieving the same mission and objectives.

 Contingency plans must be developed, just in case.

All policies must be discussed with all managerial personnel and staff that is
required in the execution of any departmental policy.

Organizational change is strategically achieved through the implementation of the

eight-step plan of action established by John P. Kotter:

1. Increase urgency,
2. get the vision right,
 3. communicate the buy-in,

4. empower action,

5. create short-term wins,

6. don't let up, and

7. make change stick.

Where policies and strategies fit into the planning process

 They give mid- and lower-level managers a good idea of the future plans for each
department.
 A framework is created whereby plans and decisions are made.

 Mid- and lower-level management may add their own plans to the business's
strategic ones.

Hierarchy

The management of a large organization may have three levels:

1. Senior management (or "top management" or "upper management")

2. Middle management

3. Low-level management, such as supervisors or team-leaders

4. Foreman

5. Rank and File

TOP-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
 Require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills.
 They have to be very aware of external factors such as markets.

 Their decisions are generally of a long-term nature

 Their decisions are made using analytic, directive, conceptual and/or

behavioral/participative processes

 They are responsible for setting targets and objectives.

 They have to chalk out the plan and see that plan may be effective in the future.

 They are executive in nature.

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT
 Mid-level managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks.
 They are responsible for carrying out the decisions made by top-level
management.

LOWER MANAGEMENT
  This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans taken by the other
two are carried out.
 Lower-level managers' decisions are generally short-term ones.

FOREMAN / LEAD HAND ( șeful /„ mâna grea” )

 They are people who have direct supervision over the working force in office
factory, sales field or other workgroup or areas of activity.

RANK AND FILE

 The responsibilities of the persons belonging to this group are even more
restricted and more specific than those of the foreman.

Areas and categories and

implementations of
management

 Accounting  Human resources  Performance

management management management

 Agile management  Hospital management  Product

management
 Architectural  Information
management technology  Public
management administration
 Association
management  Innovation  Public management
management
 Capability  Quality management
Management  Interim management
 Records
 Change management  Inventory management
management
 Conflict management  Relationship
 Knowledge management
 Commercial management
operations  Research
management  Land management management

 Communication  Leadership  Resource

management management management

 Constraint  Logistics management  Risk management

management
 Lifecycle management  Rural management
 Cost management
 Management on  Skills management
 Crisis management demand
 Social
 Critical management  Marine fuel entrepreneurship
studies management
 Customer  Marketing  Spend management
relationship management
management  Spiritual
 Materials management
 Decision making management
styles  Strategic
 Office management management
 Design management
 Operations  Stress management
 Disaster management management
 Supply chain
 Distributed  Organization management
management development
 Systems
 Earned value  Perception management
management management
 Talent management
 Educational  Practice management
management  Time management
 Program management
 Environmental  Technological
management  Project management Management

 Facility management  Process management  Visual management

 Financial
management

 Forecasting

References

1. ^ Oxford English Dictionary

2. ^ Vocational Business: Training, Developing and Motivating People by Richard
Barrett - Business & Economics - 2003. - Page 51.

3. ^ Administration industrielle et générale - prévoyance organisation -

commandement, coordination – contrôle, Paris : Dunod, 1966

4. ^ a b Gomez-Mejia, Luis R.; David B. Balkin and Robert L. Cardy (2008).

Management: People, Performance, Change, 3rd edition. New York, New York
USA: McGraw-Hill. pp. 19. ISBN 978-0-07-302743-2.

5. ^ a b c Gomez-Mejia, Luis R.; David B. Balkin and Robert L. Cardy (2008).

Management: People, Performance, Change, 3rd edition. New York, New York
USA: McGraw-Hill. pp. 20. ISBN 978-0-07-302743-2.

6. ^ Craig, S. (2009, January 29). Merrill Bonus Case Widens as Deal Struggles. Wall
Street Journal. [1]

7. ^ Kotter, John P. and Dan S. Cohen. The Heart of Change. Boston: Harvard Business
School Publishing
 2. MACROMANAGEMENT
UL

Macromanagement is the act of leading decision makers or managing the

managers. Macromanagement is a close concept to the economic concept of
mechanism design.

When a macromanager directs a system, first he will focus on the system's

entities (such as constraints, rules, information architecture, etc.) and thereafter he
will change them so that the system spontaneously moves to the defined aim, i.e. to
the new lower potentials which a macromanager has tuned.

Therefore, to manage a system, a macromanager begins by evaluating the

potential of different elements of the system to determine the most appropriate
route. Then, instead of driving toward objectives or impeding anomalies, he works
on the metasystem, rules, potential coefficients, categorizations, information
architectures, etc.

After a while, the system naturally and spontaneously proceeds to well-

defined aims with a selected pace. Because it is spontaneous, opposing the system
seems to be an irregular manner. Meanwhile, because of the nature of the
mentioned process, no one would consider the presence of macromanager...

In computer gaming

In computer games, especially strategy games, macromanagement refers to

the general economy aspect of the game. This includes constructing buildings,
conducting research, and producing units, among other things involving the intake
and expending of resources. This is in contrast with micromanagement, which
involves small-scale management of individual units.

In turn-based games, macromanagement is a style of play where the player

manages the overall strategy of the game, such as the overall economy or armed
forces. In real-time games, macromanagement refers to a player's management of
the overall game or the management of large groups of units rather than individual
ones, whether those units are involved in resource-gathering or combat.

3.MIDDLE MANAGEMENT
 Middle management is a layer of management in an organization whose
primary job responsibility is to monitor activities of subordinates while reporting to
upper management.

In pre-computer times, middle management would collect information from

junior management and reassemble it for senior management. With the advent of
inexpensive PCs this function has been taken over by e-business systems. During
the 1980s and 1990s thousands of middle managers were made redundant for this
reason.

4.MICROMANAGEMENTU
L
In business management, micromanagement is a management style where a
manager closely observes or controls the work of his or her subordinates or
employees. Micromanagement is generally used as a negative term.[1][2]

Definition

Webster's Dictionary defines micromanage as: "to manage with great or

excessive control, or attention to details".

Dictionary.com defines micromanage as: "to manage or control with

excessive attention to minor details".[3]

Encarta online dictionary defines micromanage as: "attend to small details in

management: to control a person or a situation by paying extreme attention to small
details".[4]

Micromanagement was defined by Michael Scott on The Office (a satirical

comedy) as "management on a more personal level," also known as 'microgement.'

Micromanagement " management style where a manager doesn't trust his

subordinate staff and wants to check and control each and every aspect of tasks
resulting in decrease of productivity"

In contrast to giving general instructions on smaller tasks while supervising

larger concerns, the micromanager monitors and assesses every step and avoids
delegation of decisions.[5] Micromanagement is often easily recognized by
employees, but micromanagers rarely view themselves as such. Micromanagers
will also refute such claims by citing their management style as structured or
organizational; this is part of the denial process.
 The notion of micromanagement can be extended to any social context where
one person takes an inappropriate level of control and influence over the members
of a group.[1] Continued micromanagement can result in disengagement. A
disengaged employee puts in time but little else, and their apathy affects not only
their own productivity but that of his/her colleagues. Because a consistent pattern of
micromanagement tells an employee you don’t trust their work or judgment, it is a
major factor in triggering disengagement.[6]

Extreme cases represent dangerous management pathology. The latter is

characterized by an obsessive style of management and is closely related to
workplace bullies, narcissists and other management pathologies. Micromanagers,
like many addicts, are the last ones to recognize that they are addicted to controlling
others.[1]

Micromanagement may arise from internal sources, such as concern for

details, incompetence or insecurity. While the main drivers are internal and are
related to the personality of the manager, they can also be partially attributed to
external pressures such as organizational culture, severe time pressure, increased
performance pressure, instability of manager position, etc. Severe forms of
micromanagement may be related to obsessive-compulsive disorder. In other cases
of excessive micromanagement, the manager may feel that by implementing
processes and procedures to execute orders and instructions, this enables the
manager to feel and be able to demonstrate his or her usefulness and a valuable role
in the overall business activity. This type of manager may actually lack the
competencies and creative capabilities necessary for the job, and therefore 'creates'
the environment by which to demonstrate self-worth.

Less frequently, perhaps, it can also be seen as a tactic used by managers to

eliminate unwanted employees, either by creating standards employees cannot meet
leading to termination, or by creating a stressful workplace causing the employee to
leave. Regardless of the motivation the effect can create resentment, damage trust,
and usually inhibits efficient teamwork.

Micromanagement can also be distinguished from the tendency of the

manager to perform duties assigned to the subordinate. Benign forms arise when
the manager can perform a worker's job with more efficiency. In severe forms, the
manager does not have the required competencies of efficiency but still tries to
dictate to the subordinate not only what to do, but how to do a particular task; he
delegates responsibility, but not authority. It is also connected with requests for
unnecessary and too detailed reports ("reportomania"). Typical examples include
but are not limited to the area of performance feedback. A micromanager tends to
require constant and detailed feedback and tends to be excessively focused on
procedural trivia rather than on overall performance, quality and results. Frequently,
a micromanager would accept much more detailed and trivial information from
employees than he can actually process. At the same time, decisions may be
delayed, overall goals and objectives are often not clear, information flow between
employees may be restricted, and the direction of a project may be changed several
times in opposed directions; the outcome of a project might be less important than
retaining a feeling of control.
 Micromanagers are usually irritated when a subordinate makes decisions
without consulting them, even if the decisions are totally within the subordinate's
level of authority.

Severe forms of micromanagement usually completely eliminate trust and can

provoke anti-social behavior. They often rely on inducing fear in the employees to
achieve more control and can severely affect self-esteem of employees as well as
their mental and physical health. Because manager-employee relationships usually
include a difference in power and age, psychological structures in
micromanagement relationships can replicate issues in parent-child relationships,
such as double binds, or having critical parents which inhibit development of
adequate self-esteem[1]. Micromanagement makes it extremely difficult for
employees to develop their skills and to grow and learn. In many cases it may be
the best option for them to change their employment as soon as possible.

The tendency to Micromanage can often intensify during times of economic

hardship. Pressure to return a company to full health can often manifest itself in
negative and damaging behaviour. A change in culture requires full commitment,
from the top down. It needs a CEO who will loosen the reins at the precise point
when the temptation to maintain control is at its highest. Professor Adrian Furnham
from University College London's Department of Psychology says that recessionary
pressures often go hand in hand with a command-and-control approach - a
leadership style that the younger generation of employees find difficult to stomach.
"When people are under pressure, dark-side characteristics emerge," he says. "If a
person has a tendency towards authoritarianism, then when stressed that nature
comes out."

The switch to authoritarianism, says generation Y expert Sue Honore, can

disrupt otherwise collaborative company structures, because younger employees
aren't prepared for it. "In the UK, the school system has led them to believe they are
a success and that they can always succeed — that they are in control of their
destiny. Micromanagement doesn't fit in with that."[7]

Literature

Harry Chambers: "My Way or the Highway: The Micromanagement Survival

Guide", Berrett-Koehler Publishers (2004).

References

1. ^ a b c d Chambers, Harry (2004). My Way or the Highway. Berrett Koehler

Publishers, San Francisco. Retrieved on 20 June 2008
2. ^ Small Business Resource Centre (2006). Also known as Paul.Micromanagement.
Retrieved on 20 June 2008. Broken link!

3. ^ Dictionary.com (2008). Definition of micromanage. Retrieved on 21 June 2008.

4. ^ Encarta Dictionary (2008). Definition of micromanage. Retrieved on 21 June

2008.
 5. ^ McConnell, Charles (2006). Micromanagement is Mismanagement. National
Federation of Independent Business. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.

6. ^ Bielaszka-DuVernay, Christina (2008). Micromanage at Your Peril. Harvard

Business School Publishing Corporation. Retrieved on 23 June 2008.

7. ^ Woodward, David (2009). Generation next. Director magazine. Retrieved on 01

March 2009.

5. ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR
MANAGEMENT
Organizational Behavior Management (OBM) is the result of applying the
psychological principles of Applied behavior analysis and the Experimental
analysis of behavior to organizations to promote worker safety and other benefits.

The areas of application may include systems analysis, management, training,

and performance improvement.

What is Organizational
Behavior Management
(OBM)?

The field of OBM consists of the development and evaluation of performance

improvement procedures which are based on the principles of behavior discovered
through the science of behavior analysis. These procedures are considered to be
within the scope of OBM when they focus on improving individual or group
performance within an organizational setting, whether that organization be a
business, industrial setting, or human service setting, and whether that organization
was established for profit or not.

The goal of the field of OBM is to establish a technology of broad-scale

performance improvement and organizational change so that employees will be
more productive and happy, and so that an organizations and institutions will be
more effective and efficient in achieving their goals.[1]

Some of the technology that the field of OBM uses are Behavioral Systems
Analysis and Performance Management. Another related field is Behavior-based
safety. Due to the nature of the field being involved in business and using the
principles of behavior analysis, it is both related to Psychology and Industrial
engineering.

History Of OBM

The history of this field is under some debate. Dr.Alyce Dickinson published
an article in 2000 detailing the history of the field. The article states that the field
emerged from within the field of behavior analysis. The first organized application
of behavioral principles in business and industry was Programmed instruction,
however this application was before OBM emerged as a field. Although OBM is
related to I/O psychology, because it is a behavioral field the historical precursors
of I/O psychology are only chronological precursors and not causal precursors. The
first university to offer a graduate program in OBM and systems analysis was
Western Michigan University. The first teacher to teach the course was Dr.Dick
Malott.

Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management
(JOBM)

The first journal was published in 1977. The first editor was Aubrey Daniels.
The name of the field originates from this journal publication.The field of OBM
publishes a quarterly journal. This journal was ranked the third most influential of
its kind in a 2003 study.[2]

Upon a review of the articles by Nolan et al. (1999), It showed that: 1. The
top three topics are Productivity and Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Training
and development. 2. 95% of the articles published were experimental and 5% were
correlation. 3. 80% of the articles published were done in the field and 20% were
done in the laboratory. 4. The research question was theoretical 57% and applied
45% The research method used most is a within subjects design.
Industrial/Organizational Psychology have yet to view small number within subject
designs as legitimate experimental designs.

Scientific Management

OBM might be seen as one of the distant branchs of Scientific Management,

originally inspired by Taylor [3]. The principle difference between scientific
management and OBM might be on the conceptual underpinnings: OBM is based
on B.F. Skinner's science of human behavior.[4]

References
 1. ^ http://www.behavior.org/performanceMgmt_new/index.cfm
2. ^ "JOBM Takes the Bronze!". obmnetwork.com.
http://www.obmnetwork.com/resources/articles/main/Hantula_Bronze/.

3. ^ For example, Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management is listed on the OBM

Network recommended books page [1]

4. ^ Bucklin, B. R., Alvero, A. M, Dickinson, A. M., Austin, J., & Jackson, A. K. (2000).
"Industrial-organizational psychology and organizational behavior management:
An objective comparison". Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 20
(2): 27–75. doi:10.1300/J075v20n02_03.

6. PROJECT
MANAGEMENT

Project management is the discipline[1] of planning, organizing, and

managing resources to bring about the successful completion of specific project
goals and objectives. It is often closely related to and sometimes conflated with
program management.

A project is a temporary endeavor, having a defined beginning and end

(usually constrained by date, but can be by funding or deliverables [2]), undertaken to
meet particular goals and objectives[3], usually to bring about beneficial change or
added value. The temporary nature of projects stands in contrast to business as
usual (or operations)[4], which are repetitive, permanent or semi-permanent
functional work to produce products or services. In practice, the management of
these two systems is often found to be quite different, and as such requires the
development of distinct technical skills and the adoption of separate management.

The primary challenge of project management is to achieve all of the project

goals[5] and objectives while honoring the preconceived project constraints.[6]
Typical constraints are scope, time, and budget.[2] The secondary—and more
ambitious—challenge is to optimize the allocation and integration of inputs
necessary to meet pre-defined objectives.

History

of project management
Project management has been practiced since early civilization. Until 1900 civil
engineering projects were generally managed by creative architects and engineers
themselves, among those for example Vitruvius (1st century BC), Christopher Wren
(1632–1723) , Thomas Telford (1757-1834) and Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806–
1859) [7] It was in the 1950s that organizations started to systematically apply
project management tools and techniques to complex projects.[8]

Henry Gantt (1861-1919), the father of planning and control techniques.

As a discipline, Project Management developed from several fields of

application including construction, engineering, and defense activity.[9] Two
forefathers of project management are Henry Gantt, called the father of planning
and control techniques[10], who is famous for his use of the Gantt chart as a project
management tool; and Henri Fayol for his creation of the 5 management functions
which form the foundation of the body of knowledge associated with project and
program management.[11] Both Gantt and Fayol were students of Frederick Winslow
Taylor's theories of scientific management. His work is the forerunner to modern
project management tools including work breakdown structure (WBS) and resource
allocation.

The 1950s marked the beginning of the modern Project Management era.
Project management was formally recognized as a distinct discipline arising from
the management discipline.[1] In the United States, prior to the 1950s, projects were
managed on an ad hoc basis using mostly Gantt Charts, and informal techniques
and tools. At that time, two mathematical project-scheduling models were
developed. The "Critical Path Method" (CPM) was developed as a joint venture
between DuPont Corporation and Remington Rand Corporation for managing plant
maintenance projects. And the "Program Evaluation and Review Technique" or
PERT, was developed by Booz-Allen & Hamilton as part of the United States
Navy's (in conjunction with the Lockheed Corporation) Polaris missile submarine
program;[12] These mathematical techniques quickly spread into many private
enterprises.
 PERT network chart for a seven-month project with five milestones

At the same time, as project-scheduling models were being developed,

technology for project cost estimating, cost management, and engineering
economics was evolving, with pioneering work by Hans Lang and others. In 1956,
the American Association of Cost Engineers (now AACE International; the
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering) was formed by early
practitioners of project management and the associated specialties of planning and
scheduling, cost estimating, and cost/schedule control (project control). AACE
continued its pioneering work and in 2006 released the first integrated process for
portfolio, program and project management (Total Cost Management Framework).

In 1969, the Project Management Institute (PMI) was formed to serve the
interests of the project management industry.[13] The premise of PMI is that the tools
and techniques of project management are common even among the widespread
application of projects from the software industry to the construction industry. In
1981, the PMI Board of Directors authorized the development of what has become
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide),
containing the standards and guidelines of practice that are widely used throughout
the profession.

The International Project Management Association (IPMA), founded in

Europe in 1967,[14] has undergone a similar development and instituted the IPMA
Competence Baseline (ICB). The focus of the ICB also begins with knowledge as a
foundation, but adds considerations about relevant experience, interpersonal skills,
and competence to the description. Both organizations are now participating in the
development of an ISO project management standard.

Project management

approaches

There are a number of approaches to managing project activities including

agile, interactive, incremental, and phased approaches.
 Regardless of the methodology employed, careful consideration must be
given to the overalll project objectives, timeline, and cost, as well as the roles and
responsibilities of all participants and stakeholders.

The traditional approach

A traditional phased approach identifies a sequence of steps to be completed.

In the "traditional approach", we can distinguish 5 components of a project (4
stages plus control) in the development of a project:

Typical development phases of a project

 Project initiation stage;

 Project planning or design stage;

 Project execution or production stage;

 Project monitoring and controlling systems;

 Project completion stage.

Not all the projects will visit every stage as projects can be terminated before
they reach completion. Some projects do not follow a structured planning and/or
monitoring stages. Some projects will go through steps 2, 3 and 4 multiple times.

Many industries use variations on these project stages. For example, when
working on a brick and mortar design and construction, projects will typically
progress through stages like Pre-Planning, Conceptual Design, Schematic Design,
Design Development, Construction Drawings (or Contract Documents), and
Construction Administration. In software development, this approach is often
known as the waterfall model[15], i.e., one series of tasks after another in linear
sequence. In software development many organizations have adapted the Rational
Unified Process (RUP) to fit this methodology, although RUP does not require or
explicitly recommend this practice. Waterfall development works well for small,
well defined projects, but often fails in larger projects of undefined and ambiguous
nature. The Cone of Uncertainty explains some of this as the planning made on the
initial phase of the project suffers from a high degree of uncertainty. This becomes
especially true as software development is often the realization of a new or novel
product. This method has been widely accepted as ineffective for software projects
where requirements have not been finalized and can change. While the terms may
differ from industry to industry, the actual stages typically follow common steps to
problem solving — "defining the problem, weighing options, choosing a path,
implementation and evaluation."

Critical Chain Project Management

Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) is a method of planning and

managing projects that puts more emphasis on the resources (physical and human)
needed in order to execute project tasks. It is an application of the Theory of
Constraints (TOC) to projects. The goal is to increase the rate of throughput (or
completion rates) of projects in an organization. Applying the first three of the five
focusing steps of TOC, the system constraint for all projects is identified as are the
resources. To exploit the constraint, tasks on the critical chain are given priority
over all other activities. Finally, projects are planned and managed to ensure that the
resources are ready when the critical chain tasks must start, subordinating all other
resources to the critical chain.

Regardless of project type, the project plan should undergo Resource

Leveling, and the longest sequence of resource-constrained tasks should be
identified as the critical chain. In multi-project environments, resource leveling
should be performed across projects. However, it is often enough to identify (or
simply select) a single "drum" resource—a resource that acts as a constraint across
projects—and stagger projects based on the availability of that single resource.

Planning and feedback loops in Extreme Programming (XP) with the time frames of the
multiple loops.

Extreme Project Management

In critical studies of Project Management, it has been noted that several of

these fundamentally PERT-based models are not well suited for the multi-project
company environment of today. Most of them are aimed at very large-scale, one-
time, non-routine projects, and nowadays all kinds of management are expressed in
terms of projects.

Using complex models for "projects" (or rather "tasks") spanning a few
weeks has been proven to cause unnecessary costs and low maneuverability in
several cases. Instead, project management experts try to identify different
"lightweight" models, such as Agile Project Management methods including
Extreme Programming for software development and Scrum techniques.

The generalization of Extreme Programming to other kinds of projects is

extreme project management, which may be used in combination with the process
modeling and management principles of human interaction management.

Event chain methodology

Event chain methodology is another method that complements critical path

method and critical chain project management methodologies.

Event chain methodology is an uncertainty modeling and schedule network

analysis technique that is focused on identifying and managing events and event
chains that affect project schedules. Event chain methodology helps to mitigate the
negative impact of psychological heuristics and biases, as well as to allow for easy
modeling of uncertainties in the project schedules. Event chain methodology is
based on the following principles.

 Probabilistic moment of risk: An activity (task) in most real life processes is not a
continuous uniform process. Tasks are affected by external events, which can
occur at some point in the middle of the task.
 Event chains: Events can cause other events, which will create event chains. These
event chains can significantly affect the course of the project. Quantitative analysis
is used to determine a cumulative effect of these event chains on the project
schedule.

 Critical events or event chains: The single events or the event chains that have
the most potential to affect the projects are the “critical events” or “critical chains
of events.” They can be determined by the analysis.

 Project tracking with events: Even if a project is partially completed and data
about the project duration, cost, and events occurred is available, it is still possible
to refine information about future potential events and helps to forecast future
project performance.

 Event chain visualization: Events and event chains can be visualized using event
chain diagrams on a Gantt chart.

PRINCE2
 The PRINCE2 process model

PRINCE2 is a structured approach to project management, released in 1996

as a generic project management method. [16] It combined the original PRINCE
methodology with IBM's MITP (managing the implementation of the total project)
methodology. PRINCE2 provides a method for managing projects within a clearly
defined framework. PRINCE2 describes procedures to coordinate people and
activities in a project, how to design and supervise the project, and what to do if the
project has to be adjusted if it does not develop as planned.

In the method, each process is specified with its key inputs and outputs and
with specific goals and activities to be carried out. This allows for automatic control
of any deviations from the plan. Divided into manageable stages, the method
enables an efficient control of resources. On the basis of close monitoring, the
project can be carried out in a controlled and organized way.

PRINCE2 provides a common language for all participants in the project. The
various management roles and responsibilities involved in a project are fully
described and are adaptable to suit the complexity of the project and skills of the
organization.

Process-based management

Capability Maturity Model, predecessor of the CMMI Model

Also furthering the concept of project control is the incorporation of process-

based management. This area has been driven by the use of Maturity models such
as the CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) and ISO/IEC15504 (SPICE -
Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination).

Agile Project Management approaches based on the principles of human

interaction management are founded on a process view of human collaboration.
This contrasts sharply with the traditional approach. In the agile software
development or flexible product development approach, the project is seen as a
series of relatively small tasks conceived and executed as the situation demands in
an adaptive manner, rather than as a completely pre-planned process.

Project development
 stages

Traditionally, project development includes a number of elements: four to five

stages, and a control system. Regardless of the methodology used, the project
development process will have the same major stages.

The project development stages[17]

Major stages generally include:

 Initiation
 Planning or development

 Production or execution

 Monitoring and controlling

 Closing

In project environments with a significant exploratory element (e.g., Research and

development), these stages may be supplemented with decision points (go/no go
decisions) at which the project's continuation is debated and decided. An example is
the Stage-Gate model.

Initiation

Initiating Process Group Processes[17]

The initiation stage determines the nature and scope of the development. If
this stage is not performed well, it is unlikely that the project will be successful in
meeting the business’s needs. The key project controls needed here are an
understanding of the business environment and making sure that all necessary
controls are incorporated into the project. Any deficiencies should be reported and a
recommendation should be made to fix them.

The initiation stage should include a plan that encompasses the following
areas:

 Analyzing the business needs/requirements in measurable goals

 Reviewing of the current operations

 Conceptual design of the operation of the final product

 Equipment and contracting requirements including an assessment of long lead

time items

 Financial analysis of the costs and benefits including a budget

 Stakeholder analysis, including users, and support personnel for the project

 Project charter including costs, tasks, deliverables, and schedule

Planning and design

Planning Process Group Activities[17]

After the initiation stage, the system is designed. Occasionally, a small

prototype of the final product is built and tested. Testing is generally performed by
a combination of testers and end users, and can occur after the prototype is built or
concurrently. Controls should be in place that ensure that the final product will meet
the specifications of the project charter. The results of the design stage should
include a product design that:

 Satisfies the project sponsor, end user, and business requirements

 Functions as it was intended

 Can be produced within acceptable quality standards

 Can be produced within time and budget constraints

Executing

Executing Process Group Processes[17]

Executing consists of the processes used to complete the work defined in the
project management plan to accomplish the project's requirements. Execution
process involves coordinating people and resources, as well as integrating and
performing the activities of the project in accordance with the project management
plan. The deliverables are produced as outputs from the processes performed as
defined in the project management plan.

Monitoring and Controlling

Monitoring and Controlling consists of those processes performed to observe

project execution so that potential problems can be identified in a timely manner
and corrective action can be taken, when necessary, to control the execution of the
project. The key benefit is that project performance is observed and measured
regularly to identify variances from the project management plan.

Monitoring and Controlling Process Group Processes [17]

Monitoring and Controlling includes:

 Measuring the ongoing project activities (where we are);

 Monitoring the project variables (cost, effort, scope, etc.) against the project
management plan and the project performance baseline (where we should be);

 Identify corrective actions to address issues and risks properly (How can we get on
track again);

 Influencing the factors that could circumvent integrated change control so only
approved changes are implemented
 In multi-phase projects, the Monitoring and Controlling process also provides
feedback between project phases, in order to implement corrective or preventive
actions to bring the project into compliance with the project management plan.

Project Maintenance is an ongoing process, and it includes:

 Continuing support of end users

 Correction of errors

 Updates of the software over time

Monitoring and Controlling cycle

In this stage, auditors should pay attention to how effectively and quickly
user problems are resolved.

Over the course of any construction project, the work scope may change.
Change is a normal and expected part of the construction process. Changes can be
the result of necessary design modifications, differing site conditions, material
availability, contractor-requested changes, value engineering and impacts from third
parties, to name a few. Beyond executing the change in the field, the change
normally needs to be documented to show what was actually constructed. This is
referred to as Change Management. Hence, the owner usually requires a final
record to show all changes or, more specifically, any change that modifies the
tangible portions of the finished work. The record is made on the contract
documents – usually, but not necessarily limited to, the design drawings. The end
product of this effort is what the industry terms as-built drawings, or more simply,
“as built.” The requirement for providing them is a norm in construction contracts.

When changes are introduced to the project, the viability of the project has to
be re-assessed. It is important not to lose sight of the initial goals and targets of the
projects. When the changes accumulate, the forecasted result may not justify the
original proposed investment in the project.

Closing
 Closing Process Group Processes.[17]

Closing includes the formal acceptance of the project and the ending thereof.
Administrative activities include the archiving of the files and documenting lessons
learned.

This phase consists of:

 Project close: Finalize all activities across all of the process groups to formally
close the project or a project phase
 Contract closure: Complete and settle each contract (including the resolution of
any open items) and close each contract applicable to the project or project phase

Project control systems

Project control is that element of a project that keeps it on-track, on-time and
within budget. Project control begins early in the project with planning and ends
late in the project with post-implementation review, having a thorough involvement
of each step in the process. Each project should be assessed for the appropriate
level of control needed: too much control is too time consuming, too little control is
very risky. If project control is not implemented correctly, the cost to the business
should be clarified in terms of errors, fixes, and additional audit fees.

Control systems are needed for cost, risk, quality, communication, time,
change, procurement, and human resources. In addition, auditors should consider
how important the projects are to the financial statements, how reliant the
stakeholders are on controls, and how many controls exist. Auditors should review
the development process and procedures for how they are implemented. The
process of development and the quality of the final product may also be assessed if
needed or requested. A business may want the auditing firm to be involved
throughout the process to catch problems earlier on so that they can be fixed more
easily. An auditor can serve as a controls consultant as part of the development team
or as an independent auditor as part of an audit.

Businesses sometimes use formal systems development processes. These help

assure that systems are developed successfully. A formal process is more effective
in creating strong controls, and auditors should review this process to confirm that
it is well designed and is followed in practice.

A good formal systems development plan outlines:

 A strategy to align development with the organization’s broader objectives

 Standards for new systems

 Project management policies for timing and budgeting

 Procedures describing the process

Project management
 topics
Project managers

A project manager is a professional in the field of project management.

Project managers can have the responsibility of the planning, execution, and closing
of any project, typically relating to construction industry, architecture, computer
networking, telecommunications or software development. Many other fields in the
production, design and service industries also have project managers.

A project manager is the person accountable for accomplishing the stated

project objectives. Key project management responsibilities include creating clear
and attainable project objectives, building the project requirements, and managing
the triple constraint for projects, which is cost, time, and scope.

A project manager is often a client representative and has to determine and

implement the exact needs of the client, based on knowledge of the firm they are
representing. The ability to adapt to the various internal procedures of the
contracting party, and to form close links with the nominated representatives, is
essential in ensuring that the key issues of cost, time, quality and above all, client
satisfaction, can be realized.

Project Management Triangle

The Project Management Triangle.

Like any human undertaking, projects need to be performed and delivered

under certain constraints. Traditionally, these constraints have been listed as
"scope," "time," and "cost".[2] These are also referred to as the "Project
Management Triangle," where each side represents a constraint. One side of the
triangle cannot be changed without affecting the others. A further refinement of the
constraints separates product "quality" or "performance" from scope, and turns
quality into a fourth constraint.

The time constraint refers to the amount of time available to complete a

project. The cost constraint refers to the budgeted amount available for the project.
The scope constraint refers to what must be done to produce the project's end result.
These three constraints are often competing constraints: increased scope typically
means increased time and increased cost, a tight time constraint could mean
increased costs and reduced scope, and a tight budget could mean increased time
and reduced scope.

The discipline of Project Management is about providing the tools and

techniques that enable the project team (not just the project manager) to organize
their work to meet these constraints.

Work Breakdown Structure

Example of a Work breakdown structure applied in a NASA reporting structure.[18]

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a tree structure, which shows a

subdivision of effort required to achieve an objective; for example a program,
project, and contract. The WBS may be hardware, product, service, or process
oriented.

A WBS can be developed by starting with the end objective and successively
subdividing it into manageable components in terms of size, duration, and
responsibility (e.g., systems, subsystems, components, tasks, subtasks, and work
packages), which include all steps necessary to achieve the objective.

The Work Breakdown Structure provides a common framework for the natural
development of the overall planning and control of a contract and is the basis for
dividing work into definable increments from which the statement of work can be
developed and technical, schedule, cost, and labor hour reporting can be
established.[18]
Project Management Framework

Example of an IT Project Management Framework. [17]

The Program (Investment) Life Cycle integrates the project management and
system development life cycles with the activities directly associated with system
deployment and operation. By design, system operation management and related
activities occur after the project is complete and are not documented within this
guide.[17]

For example, see figure, in the US United States Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) the program management life cycle is depicted and describe in the
overall VA IT Project Management Framework to address the integration of OMB
Exhibit 300 project (investment) management activities and the overall project
budgeting process. The VA IT Project Management Framework diagram illustrates
Milestone 4 which occurs following the deployment of a system and the closing of
the project. The project closing phase activities at the VA continues through system
deployment and into system operation for the purpose of illustrating and describing
the system activities the VA considers part of the project. The figure illustrates the
actions and associated artifacts of the VA IT Project and Program Management
process.[17]

International standards

There have been several attempts to develop Project Management standards,

such as:

 Capability Maturity Model from the Software Engineering Institute.

 GAPPS, Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards- an open source
standard describing COMPETENCIES for project and program managers. [19]

 A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

 HERMES method, Swiss general project management method, selected for use in
Luxembourg and international organisations.

 The ISO standards ISO 9000, a family of standards for quality management
systems, and the ISO 10006:2003, for Quality management systems and guidelines
for quality management in projects.

 PRINCE2, PRojects IN Controlled Environments.

 Team Software Process (TSP) from the Software Engineering Institute.

 Total Cost Management Framework, AACE International's Methodology for

Integrated Portfolio, Program and Project Management)

 V-Modell, an original systems development method.

References

1. ^ a b David I. Cleland, Roland Gareis (2006). Global project management handbook.

McGraw-Hill Professional, 2006. ISBN 0071460454. p.1-4": Project management
was formally recognized in the 1950s as a distinct discipline arising from the
management discipline.
2. ^ a b c Chatfield, Carl. "A short course in project management". Microsoft.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project/HA102354821033.aspx.

3. ^ *The Definitive Guide to Project Management. Nokes, Sebastian. 2nd Ed.n.

London (Financial Times / Prentice Hall): 2007. ISBN 978 0 273 71097 4

4. ^ Paul C. Dinsmore et al (2005) The right projects done right! John Wiley and Sons,
2005. ISBN 0787971138. p.35 and further.

5. ^ Lewis R. Ireland (2006) Project Management. McGraw-Hill Professional, 2006.

ISBN 007147160X. p.110.

6. ^ Joseph Phillips (2003). PMP Project Management Professional Study Guide.

McGraw-Hill Professional, 2003. ISBN 0072230622 p.354.

7. ^ Dennis Lock (2007) Project management (9e ed.) Gower Publishing, Ltd., 2007.
ISBN 0566087723

8. ^ Young-Hoon Kwak (2005). "A brief history of Project Management". In: The story
of managing projects. Elias G. Carayannis et al. 9eds), Greenwood Publishing
Group, 2005. ISBN 1567205062

9. ^ David I. Cleland, Roland Gareis (2006). Global project management handbook.

"Chapter 1: "The evolution of project management". McGraw-Hill Professional,
2006. ISBN 0071460454

10. ^ Martin Stevens (2002). Project Management Pathways. Association for Project
Management. APM Publishing Limited, 2002 ISBN 190349401X p.xxii

11. ^ Morgen Witzel (2003). Fifty key figures in management. Routledge, 2003. ISBN
0415369770. p. 96-101.
 12. ^ Booz Allen Hamilton - History of Booz Allen 1950s

13. ^ F. L. Harrison, Dennis Lock (2004). Advanced project management: a structured

approach. Gower Publishing, Ltd., 2004. ISBN 0566078228. p.34.

14. ^ Bjarne Kousholt (2007). Project Management –. Theory and practice.. Nyt
Teknisk Forlag. ISBN 8757126038. p.59.

15. ^ Winston W. Royce (1970). "Managing the Development of Large Software

Systems" in: In: Technical Papers of Western Electronic Show and Convention
(WesCon) August 25-28, 1970, Los Angeles, USA.

16. ^ OGC - PRINCE2 - Background

17. ^ a b c d e f g h i VA Office of Information and Technology (2003) Project Management

Guide US DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. March 3, 2005.

18. ^ a b NASA (2001). NASA NPR 9501.2D. May 23, 2001.

19. ^ [1]

7.LEADERSHIP
Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in which
one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a
common task”.[1] A definition more inclusive of followers comes from Alan Keith
of Genentech who said "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to
contribute to making something extraordinary happen." [2] According to Ken
Ogbonnia (2007), "effective leadership is the ability to successfully integrate and
maximize available resources within the internal and external environment for the
attainment of organizational or societal goals." Ogbonnia defines an effective leader
"as an individual with the capacity to consistently succeed in a given condition and
be recognized as meeting the expectations of an organization or society."

Leadership is one of the most relevant aspects of the organizational context.

However, defining leadership has been challenging. The following sections discuss
several important aspects of leadership including a description of what leadership is
and a description of several popular theories and styles of leadership. This article
also discusses topics such as the role of emotions and vision, as well as leadership
effectiveness and performance, leadership in different contexts, how it may differ
from related concepts (i.e., management), and some critiques of leadership as
generally conceived.

Theories of leadership
 Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits [3], situational
interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values [4], charisma, and
intelligence among others.

Trait theory

Trait theory tries to describe the types of behavior and personality tendencies
associated with effective leadership. This is probably the first academic theory of
leadership. Thomas Carlyle (1841) can be considered one of the pioneers of the trait
theory, using such approach to identify the talents, skills and physical
characteristics of men who arose to power.[5] Ronald Heifetz (1994) traces the trait
theory approach back to the nineteenth-century tradition of associating the history
of society to the history of great men.[6]

Proponents of the trait approach usually list leadership qualities, assuming certain
traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. Shelley Kirkpatrick
and Edwin A. Locke (1991) exemplify the trait theory. They argue that "key leader
traits include: drive (a broad term which includes achievement, motivation,
ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership motivation (the desire to lead
but not to seek power as an end in itself), honesty, integrity, self-confidence (which
is associated with emotional stability), cognitive ability, and knowledge of the
business. According to their research, "there is less clear evidence for traits such as
charisma, creativity and flexibility".[3]

Criticism to trait theory

Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties may arise in proving
its tenets, and opponents frequently challenge this approach. The "strongest"
versions of trait theory see these "leadership characteristics" as innate, and
accordingly labels some people as "born leaders" due to their psychological
makeup. On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves identifying
and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential leaders from non-leaders,
then training those with potential.{{Citation needed|date=December 2008

Behavioral and style theories

Managerial grid model

( modelul grilei de conducere)

 A graphical representation of the Managerial Grid

The managerial grid model (1964) is a behavioral leadership model

developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. This model originally identified five
different leadership styles based on the concern for people and the concern for
production. The optimal leadership style in this model is based on Theory Y.

The grid theory has continued to evolve and develop. Robert Blake updated it
with (?) in (?) (Daft, 2008). The theory was updated with two additional leadership
styles and with a new element, resilience. In 1999, the grid managerial seminar
began using a new text, The Power to Change.

The model

The model is represented as a grid with concern for production as the X-axis and
concern for people as the Y-axis; each axis ranges from 1 (Low) to 9 (High).

The resulting leadership styles are as follows:

 THE INDIFFERENT (previously called impoverished) style (1,1): evade and elude. In
this style, managers have low concern for both people and production. Managers
use this style to preserve job and job seniority, protecting themselves by avoiding
getting into trouble. The main concern for the manager is not to be held
responsible for any mistakes, which results in less innovative decisions.

 THE ACCOMMODATING (previously, country club) style (1,9): yield and comply.
This style has a high concern for people and a low concern for production.
Managers using this style pay much attention to the security and comfort of the
employees, in hopes that this will increase -performance. The resulting
atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily very productive.
  THE DICTATORIAL (previously, produce or perish) style (9,1): control and
dominate. With a high concern for production, and a low concern for people,
managers using this style find employee needs unimportant; they provide their
employees with money and expect performance in return. Managers using this
style also pressure their employees through rules and punishments to achieve the
company goals. This dictatorial style is based on Theory X of Douglas McGregor,
and is commonly applied by companies on the edge of real or perceived failure.
This style is often used in case of crisis management.

 THE STATUS QUO (previously, middle-of-the-road) style (5,5): balance and

compromise. Managers using this style try to balance between company goals and
workers' needs. By giving some concern to both people and production, managers
who use this style hope to achieve suitable performance but doing so gives away a
bit of each concern so that neither production nor people needs are met.

 THE SOUND (previously, team) style (9,9): contribute and commit. In this style,
high concern is paid both to people and production. As suggested by the
propositions of Theory Y, managers choosing to use this style encourage teamwork
and commitment among employees. This method relies heavily on making
employees feel themselves to be constructive parts of the company.

 THE OPPORTUNISTIC style: exploit and manipulate. Individuals using this style,
which was added to the grid theory before 1999, do not have a fixed location on
the grid. They adopt whichever behaviour offers the greatest personal benefit.

 THE PATERNALISTIC style: prescribe and guide. This style was added to the grid
theory before 1999. In The Power to Change, it was redefined to alternate
between the (1,9) and (9,1) locations on the grid. Managers using this style praise
and support, but discourage challenges to their thinking.

Behavioural Elements

Grid theory breaks behaviour down into seven key elements:

Element Description

INITIATIVE Taking action, driving and supporting

INQUIRY Questioning, researching and verifying understanding

ADVOCACY Expressing convictions and championing ideas

DECISION MAKING Evaluating resources, choices and consequences

CONFLICT RESOLUTION Confronting and resolving disagreements

RESILIENCE Dealing with problems, setbacks and failures

CRITIQUE Delivering objective, candid feedback

 In response to the criticism 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.[7] David
McClelland, for example, saw leadership skills, not so much as a set of traits, but as
a pattern of motives. He claimed that successful leaders will tend to have a high
need for power, a low need for affiliation, and a high level of what he called
activity inhibition (one might call it self-control).[citation needed]

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: (1) authoritarian, (2)
democratic and (3) laissez-faire.[8] Authoritarian climates were characterized by
leaders who make decisions alone, demand strict compliance to his orders, and
dictate each step taken; future steps were uncertain to a large degree. The leader is
not necessarily hostile but is aloof from participation in work and commonly offers
personal praise and criticism for the work done. Democratic climates were
characterized by collective decision processes, assisted by the leader. Before
accomplishing tasks, perspectives are gained from group discussion and technical
advice from a leader. Members are given choices and collectively decide the
division of labor. Praise and criticism in such an environment are objective, fact
minded and given by a group member without necessarily having participated
extensively in the actual work. Laissez faire climates gave freedom to the group for
policy determination without any participation from the leader. The leader remains
uninvolved in work decisions unless asked, does not participate in the division of
labor, and very infrequently gives praise.[8] The results seemed to confirm that the
democratic climate was preferred.[9]

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.[10]
Situational and contingency theories

 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) said that the
times produce the person and not the other way around. [11] 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."[12]
 Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches.
Building upon the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normatize the
descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and
identifying in which situations each style works better. The authoritarian
leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the
"hearts and minds" of their followers in the 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 by the degree of
freedom it provides, but as the leader does not "take charge", he can be perceived as
a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.[13] 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 the 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 favorableness (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).[14]
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 favourable or
unfavourable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in
situations with intermediate favourability.

 Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973)[15] and later with
Arthur Jago (1988),[16] developed a TAXONOMY FOR DESCRIBING
LEADERSHIP SITUATIONS, taxonomy that was used in a normative decision
model where leadership styles where connected to situational variables, defining
which approach was more suitable to which situation.[17] 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 as situational contingency theory.[18]

 The PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP was developed by Robert

House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom.[19]
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. [20] 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, but also
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 followership-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.[21]

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 organisation's effectiveness.
These functions include: (1) environmental monitoring, (2) organizing subordinate
activities, (3) teaching and coaching subordinates, (4) motivating others, and (5)
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 (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

The transactional leader (Burns, 1978)[22] 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.

The transformational leader (Burns, 1978)[22] motivates its team to be

effective and efficient. Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing
the group on the final desired outcome or goal attainment. This leader is highly
visible and uses chain of command to get the job done. Transformational leaders
focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by people who take care of the
details. The leader is always looking for ideas that move the organization to reach
the company’s vision.

Leadership and emotions

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

emotions entwined with the social influence process[23]. In an organization, the
leaders’ mood has some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in
3 levels[24]:

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[24].Mood contagion may be one of the
psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers[25].
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 [24].

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 [24].

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[26].

Beyond the leader’s mood, 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[27]. Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and
manage moods and emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective
leadership in organizations[26]. Leadership is about being responsible.

Environmental leadership theory

The Environmental leadership model (Carmazzi) describes leadership from a

Group dynamics perspective incorporating group psychology and self awareness to
nurture “Environments” that promote self sustaining group leadership based on
personal emotional gratification from the activities of the group. The Environmental
Leader creates the psychological structure by which employees can find and attain
this gratification through work or activity.

It stems from the idea that each individual has various environments that
bring out different facets from their own Identity, and each facet is driven by
emotionally charged perceptions within each environment… The Environmental
Leader creates a platform through education and awareness where individuals fill
each others emotional needs and become more conscious of when, and how they
affect personal and team emotional gratifications. This is accomplished by knowing
why people “react” to their environment instead of act intelligently.

“Environmental Leadership is not about changing the mindset of the group

or individual, but in the cultivation of an environment that brings out the
best and inspires the individuals in that group. It is not the ability to
influence others to do something they are not committed to, but rather to
nurture a culture that motivates and even excites individuals to do what is
required for the benefit of all. It is not carrying others to the end result, but
setting the surrounding for developing qualities in them to so they may
carry each other.” Carmazzi

The role of an Environmental Leader is to instill passion and direction to a

group and the dynamics of that group. This leader implements a psychological
support system within a group that fills the emotional and developmental needs of
the group.

Leadership styles

Leadership styles refer to a leader’s behaviour. It is the result of the philosophy,

personality and experience of the leader.

Kurt Lewin's Leadership styles

Kurt Lewin and colleagues identified different styles of leadership [28]:

 DICTATOR
 AUTOCRATIC
  PARTICIPATIVE

 LAISSEZ FAIRE

Dictator Leaders

A leader who uses fear and threats to get the jobs done. As similar with a leader
who uses an autocratic style of leadership, this style of leader also makes all the
decisions.

Autocratic or Authoritarian Leaders

Under the autocratic leadership styles, all decision-making powers are centralized
in the leader as shown such leaders are dictators.

They do not entertain any suggestions or initiative from subordinates. The

autocratic management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the
manger. It permits quick decision-making as only one person decides for the whole
group, and keeps it to themselves until they feel it is needed by the rest of the
group. An autocratic leader does not trust anybody.

Participative or Democratic Leaders

The democratic leadership style favors decision-making by the group as shown,

such as leader gives instruction after consulting the group.

He can win the cooperation of his group and can motivate them effectively and
positively. The decisions of the democratic leader are not unilateral as with the
autocrat because they arise from consultation with the group members and
participation by them.

Laissez Faire or Free Rein Leaders

A free rein leader does not lead, but leaves the group entirely to itself as shown;
such a leader allows maximum freedom to subordinates.

They are given a freehand in deciding their own policies and methods. Free rein
leadership style is considered better than the authoritarian style. But it is not as
effective as the democratic style]

Leadership performance

In the past, some researchers have argued that the actual influence of leaders
on organizational outcomes is overrated and romanticized as a result of biased
attributions about leaders (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). Despite these assertions
however, it is largely recognized and accepted by practitioners and researchers that
leadership is important, and research supports the notion that leaders do contribute
to key organizational outcomes (Day & Lord, 1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008).
In order to facilitate successful performance it is important to understand and
accurately measure leadership performance.

Job performance generally refers to behavior that is expected to contribute to

organizational success (Campbell, 1990). Campbell identified a number of specific
types of performance dimensions; leadership was one of the dimensions that he
identified. There is no consistent, overall definition of leadership performance
(Yukl, 2006). Many distinct conceptualizations are often lumped together under the
umbrella of leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader
effectiveness, leader advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et al., 2008). For
instance, leadership performance may be used to refer to the career success of the
individual leader, performance of the group or organization, or even leader
emergence. Each of these measures can be considered conceptually distinct. While
these aspects may be related, they are different outcomes and their inclusion should
depend on the applied/research focus.

Contexts of leadership
Leadership in organizations

An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving defined

objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how
goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions,
departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus,
the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to
relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition,
entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Each employee receives
a salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards him from the arbitrary
influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the
hierarchy, the greater his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may
arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is
this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or
chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the
authority attached to their position.[29]

In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges

within the context of the informal organization that underlies the formal structure.
The informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the
individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with
those of the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension
of the social structures that generally characterize human life — the spontaneous
emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.

In prehistoric times, man was preoccupied with his personal security, maintenance,
protection, and survival. Now man spends a major portion of his waking hours
working for organizations. His need to identify with a community that provides
security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging continues unchanged
from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its
emergent, or unofficial, leaders.[30]
Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization. Their
personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and other
factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or several overlay
structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an appointed head or chief,
the emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a person to
gain co-operation from others by means of persuasion or control over rewards.
Power is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to enforce
action through the control of a means of punishment.[30]

A leader is a person who influences a group of people towards a specific result. It is

not dependent on title or formal authority. (elevos, paraphrased from Leaders,
Bennis, and Leadership Presence, Halpern & Lubar). Leaders are recognized by
their capacity for caring for others, clear communication, and a commitment to
persist.[31] An individual who is appointed to a managerial position has the right to
command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his position.
However, he must possess adequate personal attributes to match his authority,
because authority is only potentially available to him. In the absence of sufficient
personal competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can
challenge his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However,
only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows that
whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this only by gaining a
formal position in the hierarchy, with commensurate authority. [30] Leadership can be
defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs
leaders at every level.[32]

Leadership versus management

Over the years the terms "management" and "leadership" have, in the organisational
context, been used both as synonyms and with clearly differentiated meanings.
Debate is fairly common about whether the use of these terms should be restricted,
and generally reflects an awareness of the distinction made by Burns (1978)
between "transactional" leadership (characterised by eg emphasis on procedures,
contingent reward, management by exception) and "transformational" leadership
(characterised by eg charisma, personal relationships, creativity). That those two
adjectives are in fact used equally well with the noun "management" as with the
noun "leadership" indicates that there is such a messy overlap between the two in
academic practice that attempts to pontificate about their differences are largely a
waste of time.

Leadership by a group

In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group

leadership. In this situation, more than one person provides direction to the group as
a whole. Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of increasing
creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the traditional leadership
of a boss as costing too much in team performance. In some situations, the
maintenance of the boss becomes too expensive - either by draining the resources
of the group as a whole, or by impeding the creativity within the team, even
unintentionally.

A common example of group leadership involves cross-functional teams. A

team of people with diverse skills and from all parts of an organization assembles to
lead a project. A team structure can involve sharing power equally on all issues, but
more commonly uses rotating leadership. The team member(s) best able to handle
any given phase of the project become(s) the temporary leader(s). Additionally, as
each team member has the opportunity to experience the elevated level of
empowerment, it energizes staff and feeds the cycle of success.[33]

Leaders who demonstrate persistence, tenacity, determination and synergistic

communication skills will bring out the same qualities in their groups. Good leaders
use their own inner mentors to energize their team and organizations and lead a
team to achieve success.[34]

According to the National School Boards Association (USA) [35]

These Group Leadership or Leadership Teams have specific characteristics:

Characteristics of a Team

 There must be an awareness of unity on the part of all its members.

 There must be interpersonal relationship. Members must have a chance to
contribute, learn from and work with others.

 The member must have the ability to act together toward a common goal.

Ten characteristics of well-functioning teams:

 Purpose: Members proudly share a sense of why the team exists and are invested
in accomplishing its mission and goals.
 Priorities: Members know what needs to be done next, by whom, and by when to
achieve team goals.

 Roles: Members know their roles in getting tasks done and when to allow a more
skillful member to do a certain task.

 Decisions: Authority and decision-making lines are clearly understood.

 Conflict: Conflict is dealt with openly and is considered important to decision-

making and personal growth.

 Personal traits: members feel their unique personalities are appreciated and well
utilized.

 Norms: Group norms for working together are set and seen as standards for every
one in the groups.

 Effectiveness: Members find team meetings efficient and productive and look
forward to this time together.
  Success: Members know clearly when the team has met with success and share in
this equally and proudly.

 Training: Opportunities for feedback and updating skills are provided and taken
advantage of by team members.

Leadership among primates

Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the
Origins of Human Violence present evidence that only humans and chimpanzees,
among all the animals living on earth, share a similar tendency for a cluster of
behaviors: violence, territoriality, and competition for uniting behind the one chief
male of the land.[36] This position is contentious. Many animals beyond apes are
territorial, compete, exhibit violence, and have a social structure controlled by a
dominant male (lions, wolves, etc.), suggesting Wrangham and Peterson's evidence
is not empirical. However, we must examine other species as well, including
elephants (which are undoubtedly matriarchal and follow an alpha female),
meerkats (who are likewise matriarchal), and many others.

It would be beneficial, to examine that most accounts of leadership over the

past few millennia (since the creation of Christian religions) are through the
perspective of a patriarchal society, founded on Christian literature. If one looks
before these times, it is noticed that Pagan and Earth-based tribes in fact had female
leaders. It is important also to note that the peculiarities of one tribe cannot
necessarily be ascribed to another, as even our modern-day customs differ. The
current day patrilineal custom is only a recent invention in human history and our
original method of familial practices were matrilineal (Dr. Christopher Shelley and
Bianca Rus, UBC). The fundamental assumption that has been built into 90% of the
world's countries is that patriarchy is the 'natural' biological predisposition of homo
sapiens. Unfortunately, this belief has led to the widespread oppression of women
in all of those countries, but in varying degrees. (Whole Earth Review, Winter, 1995
by Thomas Laird, Michael Victor). The Iroquoian First Nations tribes are an
example of a matrilineal tribe, along with Mayan tribes, and also the society of
Meghalaya, India. (Laird and Victor, 1995).

By comparison, bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of man, do not

unite behind the chief male of the land. The bonobos show deference to an alpha or
top-ranking female that, with the support of her coalition of other females, can
prove as strong as the strongest male in the land. Thus, if leadership amounts to
getting the greatest number of followers, then among the bonobos, a female almost
always exerts the strongest and most effective leadership. However, not all
scientists agree on the allegedly "peaceful" nature of the bonobo or its reputation as
a "hippie chimp".[1]

Historical views
 on leadership

Sanskrit literature identifies ten types of leaders. Defining characteristics of

the ten types of leaders are explained with examples from history and mythology.[37]

Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's blue

blood or genes: monarchy takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up
its assertions against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction: see
the divine right of kings. Contrariwise, more democratically-inclined theorists have
pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals
profiting from careers open to talent.

In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of

leadership of the Roman pater familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may
object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned,
responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated
with matriarchies.

Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism on "right

living" relate very much to the ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent
rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety.

Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and

discipline . . . Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of
humaneness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence
on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in
command result in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each appropriate
to its function, then one can be a leader. — Sun Tzu[38]

In the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole
concept of leadership into question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces
the word "leadership" in English only as far back as the 19th century.) One response
to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite group of
disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into
existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts

between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have
recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on
leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources -
human and material - and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan.
Compare servant leadership.

For a more general take on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the
statesman.
 Action Oriented Team
Leadership Skills

This is a unique approach to team leadership that is aimed at action oriented

environments where effective functional leadership is required to achieve critical or
reactive tasks by small teams deployed into the field. In other words leadership of
small groups often created to respond to a situation or critical incident.

In most cases these teams are tasked to operate in remote and changeable
environments with limited support or backup (action environments). Leadership of
people in these environments requires a different set of skills to that of front line
management. These leaders must effectively operate remotely and negotiate both
the needs of the individual, team and task within a changeable environment. This
has been termed Action Oriented Leadership. Some example action oriented
leadership is demonstrated in the following ways: extinguishing a rural fire,
locating a missing person, leading a team on an outdoor expedition or rescuing a
person from a potentially hazardous environment.

Titles emphasizing authority

At certain stages in their development, the hierarchies of social ranks implied

different degrees or ranks of leadership in society. Thus a knight led fewer men in
general than did a duke; a baronet might in theory control less land than an earl. See
peerage for a systematization of this hierarchy, and order of precedence for links to
various systems.

In the course of the 18th and 20th centuries, several political operators took
non-traditional paths to become dominant in their societies. They or their systems
often expressed a belief in strong individual leadership, but existing titles and labels
("King", "Emperor", "President" and so on) often seemed inappropriate, insufficient
or downright inaccurate in some circumstances. The formal or informal titles or
descriptions they or their flunkies employ express and foster a general veneration
for leadership of the inspired and autocratic variety. The definite article when used
as part of the title (in languages which use definite articles) emphasizes the
existence of a sole "true" leader.
 Criticism of the concept of
leadership

Noam Chomsky and others have criticized the very concept of leadership as
involving people abrogating their responsibility to think and will actions for
themselves. While the conventional view of leadership is rather satisfying to people
who "want to be told what to do", one should question why they are being subjected
to a will or intellect other than their own if the leader is not a Subject Matter Expert
(SME).

The fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the leadership principle is

challenged by the introduction of concepts such as autogestion, employeeship,
common civic virtue, etc, which stress individual responsibility and/or group
authority in the work place and elsewhere by focusing on the skills and attitudes
that a person needs in general rather than separating out leadership as the basis of a
special class of individuals.

Similarly various historical calamities are attributed to a misplaced reliance

on the principle of leadership.

References

Notes

1. ^ Chemers, M. M. (2002). Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of

transformational leadership: Efficacy and Effectiveness. In R. E. Riggio, S. E.
Murphy, F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership.}
2. ^ Kouzes, J., and Posner, B. (2007). The Leadership Challenge. CA: Jossey Bass.

3. ^ a b Locke et al. 1991

4. ^ (Richards & Engle, 1986, p.206)

5. ^ Carlyle (1841)

6. ^ Heifetz (1994), pp. 16

7. ^ Spillane (2004)

8. ^ a b Lewin et al. (1939)

9. ^ Miner (2005) pp. 39-40

10. ^ Blake et al. (1964)

11. ^ Spencer (1884), apud Heifetz (1994), pp. 16

12. ^ Hemphill (1949)

13. ^ Wormer et al. (2007), pp: 198

14. ^ Fiedler (1967)

15. ^ Vroom, Yetton (1973)

16. ^ Vroom, Jago (1988)

17. ^ Sternberg, Vroom (2002)

18. ^ Lorsch (1974)

19. ^ House (1971)

20. ^ House (1996)

21. ^ Hersey et al. (2008)

22. ^ a b Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc..

23. ^ George J.M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence,
Human Relations 53 (2000), pp. 1027–1055

24. ^ a b c d Sy, T.; Cote, S.; Saavedra, R. (2005). "The contagious leader: Impact of the
leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group
processes". Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (2): 295-305.
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~scote/SyetalJAP.pdf.

25. ^ Bono J.E. & Ilies R. 2006 Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The
Leadership Quarterly 17(4): pp. 317-334

26. ^ a b George J.M. 2006. Leader Positive Mood and Group Performance: The Case of
Customer Service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology :25(9) pp. 778 - 794

27. ^ Dasborough M.T. 2006.Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to

leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 17(2):pp. 163-178

28. ^ Lewin, K.; Lippitt, R.; White, R.K. (1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates". Journal of Social Psychology 10: 271-301.

29. ^ Cecil A Gibb (1970). Leadership (Handbook of Social Psychology). Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley. pp. 884–89. ISBN 0140805176 9780140805178. OCLC
174777513.

30. ^ a b c Henry P. Knowles; Borje O. Saxberg (1971). Personality and Leadership

Behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. pp. 884–89. ISBN 0140805176
9780140805178. OCLC 118832.

31. ^ Hoyle, John R. Leadership and Futuring: Making Visions Happen. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc., 1995.

32. ^ The Top 10 Leadership Qualities - HR World

33. ^ Ingrid Bens (2006). Facilitating to Lead. Jossey-Bass.

 34. ^ Dr. Bart Barthelemy (1997). The Sky Is Not The Limit - Breakthrough Leadership.
St. Lucie Press.

35. ^ National School Boards Association

36. ^ Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson (1996). Demonic Males. Apes and the
Origins of Human Violence. Mariner Books

37. ^ KSEEB. Sanskrit Text Book -9th Grade. Governament of Karnataka, India.

38. ^ THE 100 GREATEST LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES OF ALL TIME, EDITED BY LESLIE
POCKELL WITH ADRIENNE AVILA, 2007, Warner Books

Books

 Blake, R.; Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership
Excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co..
 Carlyle, Thomas (1841). On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic History. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.

 Fiedler, Fred E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill: Harper

and Row Publishers Inc..

 Heifetz, Ronald (1994). Leadership without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. ISBN 0-674-51858-6.

 Hemphill, John K. (1949). Situational Factors in Leadership. Columbus: Ohio State

University Bureau of Educational Research.

 Hersey, Paul; Blanchard, Ken; Johnson, D. (2008). Management of Organizational

Behavior: Leading Human Resources (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.

 Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Behavior 1: Essential Theories of

Motivation and Leadership. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

 Spencer, Herbert (1841). The Study of Sociology. New York: D. A. Appleton.

 Vroom, Victor H.; Yetton, Phillip W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making.

Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

 Vroom, Victor H.; Jago, Arthur G. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing
Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 Van Wormer, Katherine S.; Besthorn, Fred H.; Keefe, Thomas (2007). Human
Behavior and the Social Environment: Macro Level: Groups, Communities, and
Organizations. US: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195187547.

Journal articles
 House, Robert J. (1971). "A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness".
Administrative Science Quarterly Vol.16: 321–339. doi:10.2307/2391905.
  House, Robert J. (1996). "Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a
reformulated theory". Leadership Quarterly Vol.7 (3): 323–352.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7.

 Lewin, Kurt; Lippitt, Ronald; White, Ralph (1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior
in experimentally created social climates". Journal of Social Psychology: 271–301.

 "Leadership: Do traits matter?". Academy of Management Executive Vol. 5, No. 2.

1991.

 Lorsch, Jay W. (Spring 1974). "Review of Leadership and Decision Making". Sloan
Management Review.

 Ogbonnia, K.S.(2007). Political Party System and Effective Leadership in Nigeria:A

contingency Approach (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University,
2007).Dissertation Abstracts 3252463

 Spillane, James P.; et al. (2004). "Towards a theory of leadership practice". Journal
of Curriculum Studies Vol. 36, No. 1: 3-34.

 Vroom, Victor; Sternberg, Robert J. (2002). "Theoretical Letters: The person versus
the situation in leadership". The Leadership Quarterly Vol. 13: 301-323.

8.FIEDLER
CONTINGENCY MODEL
The Fiedler contingency model is a leadership theory of industrial and
organizational psychology developed by Fred Fiedler (born 1922), one of the
leading scientists who helped his field move from the research of traits and personal
characteristics of leaders to leadership styles and behaviours.

Two factors

The first management theorists, Taylorists, assumed there was one best style
of leadership. Fiedler’s contingency model postulates that the leader’s effectiveness
is based on ‘situational contingency’ which is a result of interaction of two factors:
leadership style and situational favourableness (later called situational control).
More than 400 studies have since investigated this relationship. Paola Marisol
Ramos Zaldivar

Least preferred co-worker (LPC)

The leadership style of the leader, thus, fixed and measured by what he calls
the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale, an instrument for measuring an
individual’s leadership orientation. The LPC scale asks a leader to think of all the
people with whom they have ever worked and then describe the person with whom
they have worked least well, using a series of bipolar scales of 1 to 8, such as the
following:

Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly

Uncooperative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cooperative

Hostile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Supportive

.... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ....

Guarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Open

The responses to these scales (usually 18-25 in total) are summed and
averaged: a high LPC score suggests that the leader has a human
relations orientation, while a low LPC score indicates a task
orientation. Fiedler assumes that everybody's least preferred coworker
in fact is on average about equally unpleasant. But people who are
indeed relationship motivated, tend to describe their least preferred
coworkers in a more positive manner, e.g., more pleasant and more
efficient. Therefore, they receive higher LPC scores. People who are
task motivated, on the other hand, tend to rate their least preferred
coworkers in a more negative manner. Therefore, they receive lower
LPC scores. So, the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale is actually
not about the least preferred worker at all, instead, it is about the
person who takes the test; it is about that person's motivation type. This
is so, because, individuals who rate their least preferred coworker in
relatively favorable light on these scales derive satisfaction out of
interpersonal relationship, and those who rate the coworker in a
relatively unfavorable light get satisfaction out of successful task
performance. This method reveals an individual's emotional reaction to
people they cannot work with. Critics point out that this is not always
an accurate measurement of leadership effectiveness.

Situational favourableness

According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both low-LPC (task-oriented)

and high-LPC (relationship-oriented) leaders can be effective if their leadership
orientation fits the situation. The contingency theory allows for predicting the
characteristics of the appropriate situations for effectiveness. Three situational
components determine the favourableness or situational control:

1. Leader-Member Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and

confidence between the leader and the subordinates.
2. Task Structure, referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and
structured.
 3. Leader Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader's position
itself.

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 low-LPC leaders are more effective in extremely favourable or
unfavourable situations, whereas high-LPC leaders perform best in situations with
intermediate favourability.

Leader-situation match and

mismatch

Since personality is relatively stable, the contingency model suggests that

improving effectiveness requires changing the situation to fit the leader. This is
called "job engineering." The organization or the leader may increase or decrease
task structure and position power, also training and group development may
improve leader-member relations. In his 1976 book Improving Leadership
Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept Fiedler (with Martin Chemers and
Linda Mahar) offers a self paced leadership training programme designed to help
leaders alter the favourableness of the situation, or situational control.

Examples
 Task-oriented leadership would be advisable in natural disaster, like a flood or fire.
In an uncertain situation the leader-member relations are usually poor, the task is
unstructured, and the position power is weak. The one who emerges as a leader
to direct the group's activity usually does not know subordinates personally. The
task-oriented leader who gets things accomplished proves to be the most
successful. If the leader is considerate (relationship-oriented), they may waste so
much time in the disaster, that things get out of control and lives are lost.

 Blue-collar workers generally want to know exactly what they are supposed to do.
Therefore, their work environment is usually highly structured. The leader's
position power is strong if management backs their decision. Finally, even though
the leader may not be relationship-oriented, leader-member relations may be
extremely strong if they can gain promotions and salary increases for
subordinates. Under these situations the task-oriented style of leadership is
preferred over the (considerate) relationship-oriented style.

 The considerate (relationship-oriented) style of leadership can be appropriate in

an environment where the situation is moderately favorable or certain. For
example, when (1) leader-member relations are good, (2) the task is unstructured,
and (3) position power is weak. Situations like this exists with research scientists,
who do not like superiors to structure the task for them. They prefer to follow
their own creative leads in order to solve problems. In a situation like this a
considerate style of leadership is preferred over the task-oriented

Opposing views
  Researchers often find that Fiedler's contingency theory falls short on flexibility. [
 They also noticed that LPC scores can fail to reflect the personality traits they are
supposed to reflect.

 Fiedler’s contingency theory has drawn criticism because it implies that the only
alternative for an unalterable mismatch of leader orientation and an unfavorable
situation is changing the leader.

 The model’s validity has also been disputed, despite many supportive tests (Bass
1990).

 Other criticisms concern the methodology of measuring leadership style through

the LPC inventory and the nature of the supporting evidence (Ashour 1973;
Schriesheim and Kerr 1977a, 1977b; Vecchio 1977, 1983). Fiedler and his
associates have provided decades of research to support and refine the
contingency theory.

 Cognitive Resource Theory (CRT) modifies Fiedler’s basic contingency model by

adding traits of the leader (Fiedler and Garcia 1987). CRT tries to identify the
conditions under which leaders and group members will use their intellectual
resources, skills and knowledge effectively. While it has been generally assumed
that more intelligent and more experienced leaders will perform better than those
with less intelligence and experience, this assumption is not supported by
Fiedler’s research.

Summary

To Fiedler, stress is a key determinant of leader effectiveness (Fiedler and

Garcia 1987; Fiedler et al. 1994), and a distinction is made between stress related to
the leader’s superior, and stress related to subordinates or the situation itself. In
stressful situations, leaders dwell on the stressful relations with others and cannot
focus their intellectual abilities on the job. Thus, intelligence is more effective and
used more often in stress-free situations. Fiedler has found that experience impairs
performance in low-stress conditions but contributes to performance under high-
stress conditions. As with other situational factors, for stressful situations Fiedler
recommends altering or engineering the leadership situation to capitalize on the
leader’s strengths. Despite all the criticism, Fiedler's contingency theory is an
important theory because it established a brand new perspective for the study of
leadership. Many approaches after Fiedler's theory have adopted the contingency
perspective.

Fred Fiedler’s situational contingency theory holds that group effectiveness

depends on an appropriate match between a leader’s style (essentially a trait
measure) and the demands of the situation. Fiedler considers situational control the
extent to which a leader can determine what their group is going to do to be the
primary contingency factor in determining the effectiveness of leader behavior.

References
 Ashour, A.S. (1973) ‘The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: An
Evaluation’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 9(3): 339–55.
 Bass, B.M. (1990) ‘Leader March’, a Handbook of Leadership, New York: The Free
Press, 494–510, 651–2, 840–41.

 Fiedler, F.E. (1958) Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness, Urbana, IL: University
of Illinois Press.

 Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.

 Fiedler, F.E. (1971) Leadership, New York: General Learning Press.

 Fiedler, F.E. (1981) Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness, Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing Group.

 Fiedler, F.E. (1992) ‘Life in a Pretzel-shaped Universe’, in A.G. Bedeian (ed.),

Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays, Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press, vol. 1, 301–34.

 Fiedler, F.E. (1994) Leadership Experience and Leadership Performance, Alexandria,

VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

 Fiedler, F.E. (1997) Directory of the American Psychological Association, Chicago: St

James Press, 419.

 Fiedler, F.E. and Chemers, M.M. (1974) Leadership and Effective Management,
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.

 Fiedler, F.E. and Garcia, J.E. (1987) New Approaches to Leadership, Cognitive
Resources and Organizational Performance, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

 Fiedler, F.E., Chemers, M.M. and Mahar, L. (1976) Improving Leadership

Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

 Fiedler, F.E., Garcia, J.E. and Lewis, C.T. (1986) People Management, and
Productivity, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

 Fiedler, F.E., Gibson, F.W. and Barrett, K.M. (1993) ‘Stress, Babble, and the
Utilization of the Leader’s Intellectual Abilities’, Leadership Quarterly 4(2): 189–
208.

 Fiedler, F.E., Godfrey, E.P. and Hall, D.M. (1959) Boards, Management and
Company Success, Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers.

 Hooijberg, R. and Choi, J. (1999) "From Austria to the United States and from
Evaluating Therapists to Developing Cognitive Resources Theory: An Interview
with Fred Fiedler", Leadership Quarterly 10(4): 653–66.

 King, B., Streufert, S. and Fiedler, F.E. (1978) Managerial Control and
Organizational Democracy, Washington, DC: V.H. Winston and Sons.

 Schriesheim, C.A. and Kerr, S. (1977a) "Theories and Measures of Leadership", in

J.G. Hunt, and L.L. Larson (eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press, 9–45.
  Fiedler, F.E. 1977b) "R.I.P LPC: A Response to Fiedler", in J.G. Hunt, and L.L. Larson
(eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press, 51–6.

 Vecchio, R.P. (1977) "An Empirical Examination of the Validity of Fiedler’s Model of
Leadership Effectiveness", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 19:
180–206.

 Fiedler, F.E. (1983) ‘Assessing the Validity of Fiedler’s Contingency Model of

Leadership Effectiveness: A Closer look at Strube and Garcia’, Psychological
Bulletin 93: 404–8.

9. Victor Vroom
Victor Vroom is a business school professor at the Yale School of
Management, who was born on 9 August 1932 in Montreal, Canada. He holds a
PhD from University of Michigan.

Vroom's primary research was on the expectancy theory of motivation, which

attempts to explain why individuals choose to follow certain courses of action in
organizations, particularly in decision-making and leadership. His most well-known
books are Work and Motivation, Leadership and Decision Making and The New
Leadership. Vroom has also been a consultant to a number of corporations such as
GE and American Express.

Expectancy Theory

Vroom's theory assumes that behavior results from conscious choices among
alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The key
elements to this theory are referred to as Expectancy (E), Instrumentality (I), and
Valence (V). Critical to the understanding of the theory is the understanding that
each of these factors represents a belief.

The Expectancy Theory of Victor Vroom deals with motivation and

management. Vroom's theory assumes that behavior results from conscious choices
among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Together with Edward Lawler and Lyman Porter, Vroom suggested that the
relationship between people's behavior at work and their goals was not as simple as
was first imagined by other scientists. Vroom realized that an employee's
performance is based on individuals factors such as personality, skills, knowledge,
experience and abilities.

The expectancy theory says that individuals have different sets of goals and can be
motivated if they believe that:
  There is a positive correlation between efforts and performance,

 Favorable performance will result in a desirable reward,

 The reward will satisfy an important need,

 The desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort
worthwhile.

Vroom's Expectancy Theory is based upon the following three beliefs:

1. Valence (Valence refers to the emotional orientations people hold with respect to
outcomes [rewards]. The depth of the want of an employee for extrinsic [money,
promotion, time-off, benefits] or intrinsic [satisfaction] rewards). Management
must discover what employees value.
2. Expectancy (Employees have different expectations and levels of confidence
about what they are capable of doing). Management must discover what
resources, training, or supervision employees need.

3. Instrumentality (The perception of employees whether they will actually get what
they desire even if it has been promised by a manager). Management must ensure
that promises of rewards are fulfilled and that employees are aware of that.

Vroom suggests that an employee's beliefs about Expectancy, Instrumentality,

and Valence interact psychologically to create a motivational force such that the
employee acts in ways that bring pleasure and avoid pain. This force can be
'calculated' via the following formula: Motivation = Valance ×
Expectancy(Instrumentality). This formula can be used to indicate and predict
such things as job satisfaction, one's occupational choice, the likelihood of staying
in a job, and the effort one might expend at work.

Vroom's theory suggests that the individual will consider the outcomes
associated with various levels of performance (from an entire spectrum of
performance possibilities), and elect to pursue the level that generates the greatest
reward for him or her.

Expectancy refers to the strength of a person's belief about whether or not a

particular job performance is attainable. Assuming all other things are equal, an
employee will be motivated to try a task, if he or she believes that it can be done.
This expectancy of performance may be thought of in terms of probabilities ranging
from zero (a case of "I can't do it!") to 1.0 ("I have no doubt whatsoever that I can
do this job!")

A number of factors can contribute to an employee's expectancy perceptions:

 the level of confidence in the skills required for the task

 the amount of support that may be expected from superiors and
subordinates
  the quality of the materials and equipment

 the availability of pertinent information

Previous success at the task has also been shown to strengthen expectancy beliefs.

Instrumentality

eg.

"What's the probability that, if I do a good job, that

there will be some kind of outcome in it for me?"

If an employee believes that a high level of performance will be instrumental

for the acquisition of outcomes which may be gratifying, then the employee will
place a high value on performing well. Vroom defines Instrumentality as a
probability belief linking one outcome (a high level of performance, for example)
to another outcome (a reward).

Instrumentality may range from a probability of 1.0 (meaning that the

attainment of the second outcome — the reward — is certain if the first outcome —
excellent job performance — is attained) through zero (meaning there is no likely
relationship between the first outcome and the second). An example of zero
instrumentality would be exam grades that were distributed randomly (as opposed
to be awarded on the basis of excellent exam performance). Commission pay
schemes are designed to make employees perceive that performance is positively
instrumental for the acquisition of money.

For management to ensure high levels of performance, it must tie desired

outcomes (positive valence) to high performance, and ensure that the connection is
communicated to employees. The VIE theory holds that people have preferences
among various outcomes. These preferences tend to reflect a person's underlying
need state.

Valence

"Is the outcome I get of any value to me?"

The term Valence refers to the emotional orientations people hold with
respect to outcomes (rewards). An outcome is positively valent if an employee
would prefer having it to not having it. An outcome that the employee would rather
avoid ( fatigue, stress, noise, layoffs) is negatively valent. Outcomes towards which
the employee appears indifferent are said to have zero valence. Valences refer to the
level of satisfaction people expect to get from the outcome (as opposed to the actual
satisfaction they get once they have attained the reward).

Vroom suggests that an employee's beliefs about Expectancy, Instrumentality,

and Valence interact psychologically to create a motivational force such that the
employee acts in ways that bring pleasure and avoid pain.
 People elect to pursue levels of job performance that they believe will
maximize their overall best interests (their subjective expected utility).

There will be no motivational forces acting on an employee if any of these

three conditions hold:

 the person does not believe that he/she can successfully perform the
required task
 the person believes that successful task performance will not be
associated with positively valent outcomes

 the person believes that outcomes associated with successful task

completion will be negatively valent (have no value for that person)

Bibliography

Articles
 Vroom, Victor H.; Kenneth R. MacCrimmon (June 1968). "Toward a Stochastic
Model of Managerial Careers". Administrative Science Quarterly 13 (1): 26-46.

10. PATH-GOAL THEORY

The path-goal theory ( „teoria căii spre scop” ), also known as the path-
goal theory of leader effectiveness or the path-goal model, is a leadership theory
in the field of organizational studies developed by Robert House, an Ohio State
University graduate, in 1971 and revised in 1996. The theory states that a leader's
behavior is contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of his
subordinates. The revised version also argues that the leader engages in behaviors
that complement subordinate's abilities and compensate for deficiencies. The path-
goal model can be classified both as a contingency or as a transactional leadership
theory.

Origins

The theory was inspired by the work of Martin G. Evans (1970),[1] in which the
leadership behaviors and the follower perceptions of the degree to which following
a particular behavior (path) will lead to a particular outcome (goal). [2] The path-goal
theory was also influenced by the expectancy theory of motivation developed by
Victor Vroom in 1964.[3]
Original theory

According to the original theory, the manager’s job is viewed as guiding

workers to choose the best paths to reach their goals, as well as the organizational
goals. The theory argues that leaders will have to engage in different types of
leadership behavior depending on the nature and the demands of a particular
situation. It is the leader’s job to assist followers in attaining goals and to provide
the direction and support needed to ensure that their goals are compatible with the
organization’s goals. [4]

A leader’s behavior is acceptable to subordinates when viewed as a source of

satisfaction, and motivational when need satisfaction is contingent on performance,
and the leader facilitates, coaches, and rewards effective performance. The original
path-goal theory identifies achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and
supportive leader behaviors:

 The DIRECTIVE PATH-GOAL CLARIFYING LEADER BEHAVIOR refers to situations

where the leader lets followers know what is expected of them and tells them
how to perform their tasks. The theory argues that this behavior has the most
positive effect when the subordinates' role and task demands are ambiguous and
intrinsically satisfying.[5]

 The ACHIEVEMENT-ORIENTED LEADER BEHAVIOR refers to situations where the

leader sets challenging goals for followers, expects them to perform at their
highest level, and shows confidence in their ability to meet this expectation. [5]
Occupation in which the achievement motive were most predominant were
technical jobs, sales persons, scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. [2]

 The PARTICIPATIVE LEADER BEHAVIOR involves leaders consulting with followers

and asking for their suggestions before making a decision. This behavior is
predominant when subordinates are highly personally involved in their work. [2]

 The SUPPORTIVE LEADER BEHAVIOR is directed towards the satisfaction of

subordinates needs and preferences. The leader shows concern for the followers’
psychological well being.[5] This behavior is especially needed in situations in which
tasks or relationships are psychologically or physically distressing. [2]

Path-goal theory assumes that leaders are flexible and that they can change
their style, as situations require. The theory proposes two contingency variables,
such as environment and follower characteristics, that moderate the leader
behavior-outcome relationship. Environment is outside the control of the follower-
task structure, authority system, and work group. Environmental factors determine
the type of leader behavior required if the follower outcomes are to be maximized.
Follower characteristics are the locus of control, experience, and perceived ability.
Personal characteristics of subordinates determine how the environment and leader
are interpreted. Effective leaders clarify the path to help their followers achieve
goals and make the journey easier by reducing roadblocks and pitfalls. [1] [6]
Research demonstrates that employee performance and satisfaction are positively
influenced when the leader compensates for the shortcomings in either the
employee or the work setting.

In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states that
the four leadership styles are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four
depending on what the situation demands.

References

1. ^ Evans, Martin G. (1970). "The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal

relationship". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance Vol.5: 277–298.
2. ^ a b c d House, Robert J. (1996). "Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy,
and a reformulated theory". Leadership Quarterly Vol.7 (3): 323–352.

3. ^ Vroom, Victor H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

4. ^ House, Robert J. (1971). "A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness".

Administrative Science Quarterly Vol.16: 321–339.

5. ^ a b c House, Robert J.; Mitchell, T.R. (1974). "Path-goal theory of leadership".

Journal of Contemporary Business Vol.3: l-97.

6. ^ "The basic idea behind path-goal theory." University of Maryland. 2009-04-27.

URL:http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~dbalon/EDCP317/notes/Path-Goal_Theory.pdf.
Accessed: 2009-04-27. (Archived by WebCite at
http://www.webcitation.org/5gLBry5Zs)

11. CLASSICAL
LEADERSHIP
What is leadership? Here Michele Erina Doyle and Mark
K. Smith explore some of the classical models of
leadership. In p a r ti c u l a r they look at earlier
a p p r o a c h e s t o s t u d y i n g t h e a r e a v i a t h e n o ti o n s o f
traits and behaviours, and to what has become
k n o w n a s c o n ti n g e n c y t h e o r y . F r o m t h e r e t h e y t u r n
to more recent, ‘ t r a n s f o r m a ti o n a l ’ theories and
s o m e i s s u e s o f p r a c ti c e .

I think there are particular people that others will follow, for whatever
reason. Perhaps they have a sense of humour, they like their style.
 When you look at organising events it's somebody who's got what is termed
as ‘leadership qualities’, they are people who are willing to tell other people
what to do but have the respect of other people as well, or gain that respect.

Many of the images associated with leadership have their roots in conflict. It is the
stuff of generals who outwit their opponents, politicians who convince and
channel groups into action, and people who take control of a crisis. We are
directed to special individuals like Gandhi or Joan of Arc; Napoleon or Hitler. The
stories around such people seem to show that there are moments of crisis or
decision where the actions of one person are pivotal. They have a vision of what
can, and should be, done and can communicate this to others. When these are
absent there can be trouble. Quality of leadership is, arguably, central to the
survival and success of groups and organizations. As The Art of War, the oldest
known military text (circa 400 BC), puts it, 'the leader of armies is the arbiter of the
people's fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace
or in peril' (Waging war [20]).

But what is leadership? It seems to be one of those qualities that you know when
you see it, but is difficult to describe. There are almost as many definitions as there
are commentators. Many associate leadership with one person leading. Four
things stand out in this respect. First, to lead involves influencing others. Second,
where there are leaders there are followers. Third, leaders seem to come to the
fore when there is a crisis or special problem. In other words, they often become
visible when an innovative response is needed. Fourth, leaders are people who
have a clear idea of what they want to achieve and why. Thus, leaders are people
who are able to think and act creatively in non-routine situations – and who set
out to influence the actions, beliefs and feelings of others. In this sense being a
‘leader’ is personal. It flows from an individual’s qualities and actions. However, it
is also often linked to some other role such as manager or expert. Here there can
be a lot of confusion. Not all managers, for example, are leaders; and not all
leaders are managers.

In the recent literature of leadership (that is over the last 80 years or so) there
have been four main ‘generations’ of theory:

· Trait theories.

· Behavioural theories.

· Contingency theories.

· Transformational theories.

It is important, as John van Maurik (2001: 2-3) has pointed out, to recognize that
none of the four ‘generations’ is mutually exclusive or totally time-bound.

Although it is true that the progression of thinking tends to follow a sequential

path, it is quite possible for elements of one generation to crop up much later in
the writings of someone who would not normally think of himself or herself as
being of that school. Consequently, it is fair to say that each generation has added
something to the overall debate on leadership and that the debate continues. (van
Maurik 2001: 3)

This fourfold division of ‘modern’ (management) leadership can go under different

titles (e.g. we might discuss charismatic rather than transformational leadership),
and there are other possible candidates e.g. skill-based approaches and self-
management or shared leadership (discussed elsewhere on these pages).
However, these four formations can be seen as sharing some common qualities –
and we can approach them as variations of the ‘classical’ model of leadership.

Traits

Leaders are people, who are able to express themselves fully, says Warren Bennis.
'They also know what they want', he continues, 'why they want it, and how to
communicate what they want to others, in order to gain their co-operation and
support.’ Lastly, ‘they know how to achieve their goals' (Bennis 1998: 3). But what
is it that makes someone exceptional in this respect? As soon as we study the lives
of people who have been labelled as great or effective leaders, it becomes clear
that they have very different qualities. We only have to think of political figures like
Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher and Mao Zedong to confirm this.

Instead of starting with exceptional individuals many turned to setting out the
general qualities or traits they believed should be present. Surveys of early trait
research by Stogdill (1948) and Mann (1959) reported that many studies identified
personality characteristics that appear to differentiate leaders from followers.
However, as Peter Wright (1996: 34) has commented, ‘others found no differences
between leaders and followers with respect to these characteristics, or even found
people who possessed them were less likely to become leaders’. Yet pick up
almost any of the popular books on the subject today and you will still find a list of
traits that are thought to be central to effective leadership. The basic idea remains
that if a person possesses these she or he will be able to take the lead in very
different situations. At first glance, the lists seem to be helpful (see, for example,
Exhibit 1). But spend any time around them and they can leave a lot to be desired.
Exhibit 1: Gardner’s leadership attributes

John Gardner studied a large number of North American organizations and leaders
and came to the conclusion that there were some qualities or attributes that did
appear to mean that a leader in one situation could lead in another. These
included:

· Physical vitality and stamina

· Intelligence and action-oriented judgement

· Eagerness to accept responsibility

· Task competence

· Understanding of followers and their needs

· Skill in dealing with people

· Need for achievement

· Capacity to motivate people

· Courage and resolution

· Trustworthiness

· Decisiveness

· Self-confidence

· Assertiveness

· Adaptability/flexibility

John Gardner (1989) On Leadership, New York: Free Press.

The first problem is that the early searchers after traits often assumed that there
was a definite set of characteristics that made a leader - whatever the situation. In
other words, they thought the same traits would work on a battlefield and in the
staff room of a school. They minimized the impact of the situation (Sadler 1997).
They, and later writers, also tended to mix some very different qualities. Some of
Gardner’s qualities, for example, are aspects of a person's behaviour, some are
skills, and others are to do with temperament and intellectual ability. Like other
lists of this nature it is quite long - so what happens when someone has some but
not all of the qualities? On the other hand, the list is not exhaustive and it is
possible that someone might have other ‘leadership qualities’. What of these?
More recently people have tried looking at what combinations of traits might be
good for a particular situation. There is some mileage in this. It appears possible to
link clusters of personality traits to success in different situations, as Stogdill has
subsequently suggested (Wright 1996: 35. Wright goes on to explore modern trait
theories in a separate chapter - 1996: 169-193). However, it remains an inexact
science!

One of the questions we hear most often around such lists concerns their apparent
‘maleness’ (e.g. Rosener 1997). When men and women are asked about each
others characteristics and leadership qualities, some significant patterns emerge.
Both tend to have difficulties in seeing women as leaders. The attributes
associated with leadership on these lists are often viewed as male. However,
whether the characteristics of leaders can be gendered is questionable. If it is next
to impossible to make a list of leadership traits that stands up to questioning, then
the same certainly applies to lists of gender specific leadership traits!

Behaviours

As the early researchers ran out of steam in their search for traits, they turned to
what leaders did - how they behaved (especially towards followers). They moved
from leaders to leadership - and this became the dominant way of approaching
leadership within organizations in the 1950s and early 1960s. Different patterns of
behaviour were grouped together and labelled as styles. This became a very
popular activity within management training – perhaps the best known being
Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (1964; 1978). Various schemes appeared,
designed to diagnose and develop people’s style of working. Despite different
names, the basic ideas were very similar. The four main styles that appear are:

· Concern for task. Here leaders emphasize the achievement of concrete

objectives. They look for high levels of productivity, and ways to organize
people and activities in order to meet those objectives.

· Concern for people. In this style, leaders look upon their followers as people -
their needs, interests, problems, development and so on. They are not simply
units of production or means to an end.

· Directive leadership. This style is characterized by leaders taking decisions for

others - and expecting followers or subordinates to follow instructions.

· Participative leadership. Here leaders try to share decision-making with

others.(Wright 1996: 36-7)

Often, we find two of these styles present in books and training materials. For
example, concern for task is set against concern for people (after Blake and
Mouton 1964); and directive is contrasted with participative leadership (for
example, McGregor’s [1960] portrayal of managers as ‘Theory X’ or ‘Theory Y’). If
you have been on a teamwork or leadership development course then it is likely
you will have come across some variant of this in an exercise or discussion.
Many of the early writers that looked to participative and people-centred
leadership, argued that it brought about greater satisfaction amongst followers
(subordinates). However, as Sadler (1997) reports, when researchers really got to
work on this it didn’t seem to stand up. There were lots of differences and
inconsistencies between studies. It was difficult to say style of leadership was
significant in enabling one group to work better than another. Perhaps the main
problem, though, was one shared with those who looked for traits (Wright 1996:
47). The researchers did not look properly at the context or setting in which the
style was used. Is it possible that the same style would work as well in a gang or
group of friends, and in a hospital emergency room? The styles that leaders can
adopt are far more affected by those they are working with, and the environment
they are operating within, than had been originally thought.

Situations

Researchers began to turn to the contexts in which leadership is exercised - and

the idea that what is needed changes from situation to situation. Some looked to
the processes by which leaders emerge in different circumstances - for example at
moments of great crisis or where there is a vacuum. Others turned to the ways in
which leaders and followers viewed each other in various contexts - for example in
the army, political parties and in companies. The most extreme view was that just
about everything was determined by the context. But most writers did not take
this route. They brought the idea of style with them, believing that the style
needed would change with the situation. Another way of putting this is that
particular contexts would demand particular forms of leadership. This placed a
premium on people who were able to develop an ability to work in different ways,
and could change their style to suit the situation.

What began to develop was a contingency approach. The central idea was that
effective leadership was dependent on a mix of factors. For example, Fred E.
Fiedler argued that effectiveness depends on two interacting factors: leadership
style and the degree to which the situation gives the leader control and influence.
Three things are important here:

· The relationship between the leaders and followers. If leaders are liked and
respected they are more likely to have the support of others.

· The structure of the task. If the task is clearly spelled out as to goals, methods
and standards of performance then it is more likely that leaders will be able to
exert influence.

· Position power. If an organization or group confers powers on the leader for

the purpose of getting the job done, then this may well increase the influence
of the leader. (Fiedler and Garcia 1987: 51 – 67. See, also, Fiedler 1997)

Models like this can help us to think about what we are doing in different situations.
For example, we may be more directive where a quick response is needed, and
where people are used to being told what to do, rather than having to work at it
themselves. They also found their way into various management training aids –
such as the development of Mouton and Blake’s managerial grid by Reddin (1970;
1987) that looked to the interaction of the characteristics of the leader, the
characteristics of the followers and the situation; and Hersey and Blanchard’s
(1977) very influential discussion of choosing the appropriate style for the
particular situation.

Exhibit 2: Hersey and Blanchard (1977) on leadership style and situation

Hersey and Blanchard identified four different leadership styles that could be
drawn upon to deal with contrasting situations:

Telling (high task/low relationship behaviour). This style or approach is

characterized by giving a great deal of direction to subordinates and by giving
considerable attention to defining roles and goals. The style was recommended for
dealing with new staff, or where the work was menial or repetitive, or where things
had to be completed within a short time span. Subordinates are viewed as being
unable and unwilling to ‘do a good job’.

Selling (high task/high relationship behaviour). Here, while most of the direction is
given by the leader, there is an attempt at encouraging people to ‘buy into’ the
task. Sometimes characterized as a ‘coaching’ approach, it is to be used when
people are willing and motivated but lack the required ‘maturity’ or ‘ability’.

Participating (high relationship/low task behaviour). Here decision-making is

shared between leaders and followers – the main role of the leader being to
facilitate and communicate. It entails high support and low direction and is used
when people are able, but are perhaps unwilling or insecure (they are of ‘moderate
to high maturity’ (Hersey 1984).

Delegating (low relationship/low task behaviour). The leader still identifies the
problem or issue, but the responsibility for carrying out the response is given to
followers. It entails having a high degree of competence and maturity (people
know what to do, and are motivated to do it).

Aside from their very general nature, there are some issues with such models.
First, much that has been written has a North American bias. There is a lot of
evidence to suggest cultural factors influence the way that people carry out, and
respond to, different leadership styles. For example, some cultures are more
individualistic, or value family as against bureaucratic models, or have very
different expectations about how people address and talk with each other. All this
impacts on the choice of style and approach.

Second, as we saw earlier, there may be different patterns of leadership linked

with men and women. Some have argued that women may have leadership styles
that are more nurturing, caring and sensitive. They look more to relationships.
Men are said to look to task. However, there is a lot of debate about this. We can
find plenty of examples of nurturing men and task-oriented women. Any contrasts
between the style of men and women may be down to the situation. In
management, for example, women are more likely to be in positions of authority in
people-oriented sectors – so this aspect of style is likely to be emphasized.

Third, as Bolman and Deal (1997: 302) comment, like Blake and Mouton before
them, writers like Hersey and Blanchard ‘focus mainly on the relationship between
managers and immediate subordinates, and say little about issues of structure,
politics or symbols’.

Transformations

Burns (1977) argued that it was possible to distinguish between transactional and
transforming leaders. The former, ‘approach their followers with an eye to trading
one thing for another (1977: 4), while the latter are visionary leaders who seek to
appeal to their followers ‘better nature and move them toward higher and more
universal needs and purposes’ (Bolman and Deal 1997: 314). In other words, the
leader is seen as a change agent.

Exhibit 3: Transactional and transformational leadership

Transactional Transformational

The transactional leader: The transformational leader:

Recognizes what it is that we want to Raises our level of awareness, our level
get from work and tries to ensure that of consciousness about the significance
we get it if our performance merits it. and value of designated outcomes, and
ways of reaching them.
Exchanges rewards and promises for
our effort. Gets us transcend our own self-interest
for the sake of the team, organization
Is responsive to our immediate self or larger polity.
interests if they can be met by getting
the work done. Alters our need level (after Maslow)
and expands our range of wants and
needs.

(Based on Bass 1985 - Wright 1996:

213)

Bass (1985) was concerned that Burns (1977) set transactional and transforming
leaders as polar opposites. Instead, he suggests we should be looking at the way in
which transactional forms can be drawn upon and transformed. The resulting
transformational leadership is said to be necessary because of the more
sophisticated demands made of leaders. van Maurik (2001: 75) argues that such
demands ‘centre around the high levels of uncertainty experienced by leaders,
their staff and, indeed, the whole organization… today’. He goes on to identify
three broad bodies of writers in this orientation. Those concerned with:

· Team leadership e.g. Meredith Belbin.

· The leader as a catalyst of change e.g. Warren Bennis, James Kouzes and Barry
Posner, and Stephen R. Covey.

· The leader as strategic visionary e.g. Peter Senge

The dividing lines between these is a matter for some debate; the sophistication of
the analysis offered by different writers variable; and some of the writers may not
recognize their placement but there would appear to be a body of material that
can be labelled transformational. There is strong emphasis in the contemporary
literature of management leadership on charismatic and related forms of
leadership. However, whether there is a solid body of evidence to support its
effectiveness is an open question. Indeed, Wright (1996: 221) concludes ‘it is
impossible to say how effective transformational leadership is with any degree of
certainty. We will return to some questions around charisma later – but first we
need to briefly examine the nature of authority in organizations (and the
relationship to leadership).

Authority

Frequently we confuse leadership with authority. To explore this we can turn to

Heifetz’s (1994) important discussion of the matter. Authority is often seen as the
possession of powers based on formal role. In organizations, for example, we tend
to focus on the manager or officer. They are seen as people who have the right to
direct us. We obey them because we see their exercise of power as legitimate. It
may also be that we fear the consequences of not following their orders or
‘requests’. The possibility of them sacking, demoting or disadvantaging us may well
secure our compliance. We may also follow them because they show leadership.
As we have seen, the latter is generally something more informal - the ability to
make sense of, and act in, situations that are out of the ordinary. In this way,
leaders don’t simply influence; they have to show that crises or unexpected events
and experiences do not faze them. Leaders may have formal authority, but they
rely in large part on informal authority. This flows from their personal qualities and
actions. They may be trusted, respected for their expertise, or followed because of
their ability to persuade.

Leaders have authority as part of an exchange: if they fail to deliver the goods, to
meet people’s expectations, they run the risk of authority being removed and
given to another.Those who have formal authority over them may take this action.
However, we also need to consider the other side. Followers, knowingly or
unknowingly, accept the right of the person to lead – and he or she is dependent
on this. The leader also relies on ‘followers’ for feedback and contributions.
Without these they will not have the information and resources to do their job.
Leaders and followers are interdependent.
People who do not have formal positions of power can also enjoy informal
authority. In a football team, for example, the manager may not be the most
influential person. It could be an established player who can read the game and
energise that colleagues turn to. In politics a classic example is Gandhi – who for
much of the time held no relevant formal position – but through his example and
his thinking became an inspiration for others.
Having formal authority is both a resource and a constraint. On the one hand it can
bring access to systems and resources. Handled well it can help people feel safe.
On the other hand, formal authority carries a set of expectations – and these can
be quite unrealistic in times of crisis. As Heifetz puts it, ‘raise hard questions and
one risks getting cut down, even if the questions are important for moving forward
on the problem’ (1994: 180). Being outside the formal power structure, but within
an organization, can be an advantage. You can have more freedom of movement,
the chance of focussing on what you see as the issue (rather than the
organization’s focus), and there is a stronger chance of being in touch with what
people are feeling ‘at the frontline’.

Charisma

Before moving on it is important to look at the question of charisma. It is so much

a part of how we look at leadership - but is such a difficult quality to tie down.
Charisma is, literally, a gift of grace or of God (Wright 1996: 194). Max Weber,
more than anyone, brought this idea into the realm of leadership. He used
‘charisma’ to talk about self-appointed leaders who are followed by those in
distress. Such leaders gain influence because they are seen as having special
talents or gifts that can help people escape the pain they are in (Gerth and Mills
1991: 51 – 55).

When thinking about charisma we often look to the qualities of particular

individuals - their skills, personality and presence. But this is only one side of
things. We need to explore the situations in which charisma arises. When strong
feelings of distress are around there does seem to be a tendency to turn to figures
who seem to have answers. To make our lives easier we may want to put the
burden of finding and making solutions on someone else. In this way we help to
make the role for ‘charismatic leaders’ to step into. They in turn will seek to
convince us of their special gifts and of their solution to the crisis or problem.
When these things come together something very powerful can happen. It doesn’t
necessarily mean that the problem is dealt with - but we can come to believe it is.
Regarding such leaders with awe, perhaps being inspired in different ways by
them, we can begin to feel safer and directed. This can be a great resource.
Someone like Martin Luther King used the belief that people had in him to take
forward civil rights in the United States. He was able to contain a lot of the stress
his supporters felt and give hope of renewal. He articulated a vision of what was
possible and worked with people to develop strategies. But there are also
considerable dangers.
Charisma involves dependency. It can mean giving up our responsibilities. Sadly, it
is all too easy to let others who seem to know what they are doing get on with
difficult matters. By placing people on a pedestal the distance between ‘us’ and
‘them’ widens. They seem so much more able or in control. Rather than facing up
to situations, and making our own solutions, we remain followers (and are often
encouraged to do so). There may well come a point when the lie implicit in this
confronts us. Just as we turned to charismatic leaders, we can turn against them. It
could be we recognize that the ‘solution’ we signed up to has not made things
better. It might be that some scandal or incident reveals the leader in what we see
as a bad light. Whatever, we can end up blaming, and even destroying, the leader.
Unfortunately, we may simply turn to another rather than looking to our own
capacities.

In conclusion

On this page we have tried to set out some of the elements of a ‘classical’ view of
leadership. We have seen how commentators have searched for special traits and
behaviours and looked at the different situations where leaders work and emerge.
Running through much of this is a set of beliefs that we can describe as a classical
view of leadership where leaders:

· Tend to be identified by position. They are part of the hierarchy.

· Become the focus for answers and solutions. We look to them when we don’t
know what to do, or when we can’t be bothered to work things out for
ourselves.

· Give direction and have vision.

· Have special qualities setting them apart. These help to create the gap
between leaders and followers.

This view of leadership sits quite comfortably with the forms of organization that
are common in business, the armed forces and government. Where the desire is to
get something done, to achieve a narrow range of objectives in a short period of
time, then it may make sense to think in this way. However, this has its dangers.
Whilst some ‘classical’ leaders may have a more participative style, it is still just a
style. A great deal of power remains in their hands and the opportunity for all to
take responsibility and face larger questions is curtailed. It can also feed into a
‘great-man’ model of leadership and minimize our readiness to question those
who present us with easy answers. As our awareness of our own place in the
making of leadership grows, we may be less ready to hand our responsibilities to
others. We may also come to realize our own power:

I don't think it's actually possible to lead somebody. I think you can allow yourself
to be led. It's a bit like other things - you can't teach, you can only learn - because
you can only control yourself.
More inclusive and informal understandings of leadership offer some interesting
possibilities, as we can see in our discussion of shared leadership.

Further reading and references

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1997) Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice and

leadership 2e, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 450 pages. The writers examine four
organizational frames (differing perspectives) related to structures, human
resources, politics and symbols. Good leaders are skilled at looking at the
organization through these differing frames - and developing their own according
to the situation.

Grint, K. (ed.) (1997) Leadership. Classical, contemporary and critical approaches,

Oxford: Oxford University Press. 385 + xvii pages. Excellent collection of key
discussions of classical, traditional, modern and alternative forms of leadership.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap

Press. 348 + xi pages. Just about the best of the more recent books on leadership.
Looks to bring back ethical questions to the centre of debates around leadership,
and turns to the leader as educator. A particular emphasis on the exploration of
leadership within authority and non-authority relationships. Good on
distinguishing between technical and adaptive situations.

Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (1995) The Leadership Challenge, San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. 390 pages. Revised edition of an established text that offers a
presentation of leadership set on a framework for leadership development.

Van Maurik, J. (2001) Writers on Leadership, London: Penguin. 248+vii pages.

Useful primer on key twentieth century writers on leadership.

Sadler, P. (1997) Leadership, London: Kogan Page. 157 pages. Produced as an MBA
primer, this book provides a quick but careful introduction to the area for people
with some background in management or the social sciences. Chapters look at the
nature of leadership; leadership and management; leadership qualities; leader
behaviour; styles of leadership; recruiting and selecting future leaders; the
developing process; cultural differences and diversity; role models; the new
leadership.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974) Handbook of Leadership. A survey of theory and research,

New York: Free Press. The Handbook was a major reference point concerning the
state of play in leadership research and has been subsequently updated by B. M.
Bass (1990 - Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, research and
managerial applications, New York: Free Press). However, Stogdill's earlier work
with the Ohio State Leadership Studies was an important attempt to set leadership
in an organizational context through proper research. Grint (1997) reproduces a
classic paper from 1950 - 'Leadership, membership and organization'.
Wright, P. (1996) Managerial Leadership, London: Routledge. 260 + x pages. More
of a traditional textbook approach (which may come as a relief to those over-
exposed to the racier, populist texts that dominate this area). A careful dissecting
of this 'elusive' notion. Chapters on the meaning and measurement of leadership;
management; early approaches - traits and styles; situational style theories of
leadership; situational style theories - some general issues; alternative approaches;
self-management; modern trait theories; charismatic and related forms of
leadership; conclusions.

References

Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, New York:

Free Press.

Bennis, W. (1998) On Becoming a Leader, London: Arrow.

Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1964) The Managerial Grid, Houston TX.: Gulf.

Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1978) The New Managerial Grid, Houston TX.: Gulf.

Burns, J. M. (1978) Leadership, New York: HarperCollins.

Covey, S. R. (1989) The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,

Fiedler, F. E. and Garcia, J. E. (1987) New Approaches to Effective Leadership, New

York: John Wiley.

Fiedler, F. E. (1997) ‘Situational control and a dynamic theory of leadership’ in K.

Grint (ed.) (1997) Leadership. Classical, contemporary and critical approaches,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gardner, J. (1989) On Leadership, New York: Free Press.

Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright (eds.) (1991) From Max Weber. Essays in
Sociology, London: Routledge.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: Belknap

Press.

Hersey, P. (1984) The Situational Leader, New York: Warner.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1977) The Management of Organizational

Behaviour 3e, Upper Saddle River N. J.: Prentice Hall.

McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw Hill.

Mann, R. D. (1959) ‘A review of the relationship between personality and

performance in small groups’, Psychological Bulletin 66(4): 241-70.
Nanus, B. (1992) Visionary Leadership. Creating a compelling sense of direction for
your organization, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reddin, W. J. (1970) Managerial Effectiveness, New York: McGraw Hill.

Reddin, W. J. (1987) How to Make Management Style More Effective, Maidenhead:

McGraw Hill.

Rosener, J. B. ‘Sexual static’ in K. Grint (ed.) (1997) Leadership. Classical,

contemporary and critical approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning
organization, London: Random House.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948) ‘Personal factors associated with leadership. A survey of the

literature��, Journal of Psychology 25: 35-71.

Sun Tzu, (undated) The Art of War, http://kappeli.ton.tut.fi/aow/main.html

Wright, P. (1996) Managerial Leadership, London: Routledge.

An earlier version of this piece first appeared as Chapter 1 of Doyle, M. E. and

Smith, M. K. (1999) Born and Bred? Leadership, heart and informal education,
London: YMCA George Williams College/The Rank Foundation.

Note: All the quotations printed in italic are taken from interviews with informal
educators youth workers, community educators and housing workers. Some of the
interviews form part of the Born and Bred? CD created by Peter Cutts. A further
eight workers were interviewed by Huw Blacker in March and April 1999.

Page reference: Doyle, M. E. and Smith, M. K. (2001) ‘Classical leadership’, the

encyclopedia of informal education,
http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htm

© Michele Erina Doyle and Mark K. Smith 1999, 2001

First published September 2001. Last update

12.SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
 School leadership is the process of enlisting and guiding the talents and
energies of teachers, pupils, and parents toward achieving common educational
aims. This term is often used synonymously with educational leadership in the
United States and has supplanted educational management in the United Kingdom.

The Term - School Leadership

The term school leadership came into currency in the late 20th century for
several reasons. Demands were made on schools for higher levels of pupil
achievement, and schools were expected to improve and reform. These expectations
were accompanied by calls for accountability at the school level. Maintenance of
the status quo was no longer considered acceptable. Administration and
management are terms that connote stability through the exercise of control and
supervision. The concept of leadership was favored because it conveys dynamism
and proactivity. The principal or school head is commonly thought to be the school
leader; however, school leadership may include other persons, such as members of
a formal leadership team and other persons who contribute toward the aims of the
school.

While school leadership or educational leadership have become popular as

replacements for educational administration in recent years, leadership arguably
presents only a partial picture of the work of school, division or district, and
ministerial or state education agency personnel, not to mention the areas of research
explored by university faculty in departments concerned with the operations of
schools and educational institutions. For this reason, there may be grounds to
question the merits of the term as a catch-all for the field. Rather, the etiology of its
use may be found in more generally and contemporarily experienced neo-liberal
social and economic governance models, especially in the United States and the
United Kingdom. On this view, the term is understood as having been borrowed
from business.

In the United States, the superintendency, or role of the chief school

administrator, has undergone many changes since the creation of the position which
is often attributed to the Buffalo Common Council that approved a superintendent
on June 9, 1837. If history serves us correctly, the superintendency is about 170
years old with four major role changes from the early 1800s through the first half of
the twentieth century and into the early years of the twenty-first century. Initially,
the superintendent's main function was clerical in nature and focused on assisting
the board of education with day-to-day details of running the school. At the turn of
the century, states began to develop common curriculum for public schools with
superintendents fulfilling the role of teacher-scholar or master educator who had
added an emphasis on curricular and instructional matters to school operations. In
the early 1900s, the Industrial Revolution affected the superintendent's role by
shifting the emphasis to expert manager with efficiency in handling non-
instructional tasks such as budget, facility, and transportation. The release of A
Nation at Risk in 1983 directly impacted public school accountability and,
ultimately, the superintendency. The early 1980s initiated the change that has
continued through today with the superintendent viewed as chief executive officer,
including the roles of professional advisor to the board, leader of reforms, manager
of resources, and communicator to the public.

The Term- Educational

Leadership

The term "educational leadership" is also used to describe programs beyond

schools. Leaders in community colleges, proprietary colleges, community-based
programs, and universities are also educational leaders.

Some United States university graduate masters and doctoral programs are
organized with higher education and adult education programs as a part of an
educational leadership department. In these cases, the entire department is charged
with educating educational leaders with specific specialization areas such as
university leadership, community college leadership, and community-based
leadership (as well as school leadership). Some United States graduate programs
with a tradition of graduate education in these areas of specialization have separate
departments for them. The area of higher education may include areas such as
student affairs leadership, academic affairs leadership, community college
leadership, community college and university teaching, vocational and adult
education, and university administration.

References

Carter, G.R. & Cunningham, W.G.(1997) The American school superintendent:

Leading in an age of pressure.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Waters, J. T. & Marzano, R.J. (2006) School district leadership that works. Denver,
CO: Mid-continental Research for Education and Learning.

Literature, Research and Policy

Educational leadership draws upon interdisciplinary literature, generally, but

ideally distinguishes itself through its focus on pedagogy, epistemology and human
development. In contemporary practice it borrows from political science and
business. Debate within the field relates to this tension.
 A number of publications and foundations are devoted to studying the
particular requirements of leadership in these settings, and educational leadership is
taught as an academic discipline at a number of universities.

Several countries now have explicit policies on school leadership, including

policies and budgets for the training and development of school leaders.

In the USA formal "Curriculum Audits" are becoming common, which allow
recognized educational leaders and trained auditors to evaluate school leadership
and the alignment of the curriculum with the goals and objectives of the school
district. Curriculum audits and curriculum mapping were developed by Fenwick W.
English in the late 1970s. The Educational leaders and auditors who conduct the
audits are certified by Phi Delta Kappa.

Further reading

Chance, P. L. & Chance, E.W. (2002). Introduction to Educational Leadership &

Organizational Behavior: Theory Into Practice. New York: Eye on Education.

Infusing Management Tasks with Instructional Leadership by Dr. Angie McQuaig