FIOP II

ASSIGNMENT
Theories of Leadership

Name: Bareera Nadeem Husain

Class roll no: 19/2100
University roll no: 19075505007
Semester: Third year, 6th semester
Program: B.A. Applied psychology (hons.)
Title of the paper: Foundation of Industrial/Organizational Psychology-II
 Page|1

INDEX
1. Introduction............................................................................................. 2
2. Leadership in an organization...............................................................2-3
3. Importance of leadership in an organization.........................................3-4
4. Leadership theory paradigms
4.1. The Trait Theory Paradigm...............................................................4
4.2. The Behavioral Leadership Theory Paradigm...............................4-5
4.3. The Contingency Leadership Theory Paradigm...............................5
4.4. The Integrative Leadership...............................................................5
5. Fiedler’s Contingency Theory
5.1. Elements of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory...................................7-8
5.2. Examples of Fiedler’s Theory in action.........................................8-9
5.3. Advantages....................................................................................... 9
5.4. Criticism........................................................................................... 9
6. Ohio State and Michigan State Leadership Theory
6.1. Ohio State Studies...................................................................... 10-11
6.2. University of Michigan Studies..................................................11-12
6.3. Similarities between Leadership Models....................................12-13
6.4. Differences between Leadership Models.........................................13
7. Conclusion…......................................................................................... 13
8. References............................................................................................ 14
 Page|2

LEADERSHIP

Introduction. The word "leadership" can bring to mind a variety of images. For example, a
political leader (pursuing a passionate, personal cause) or an executive (developing her
company's strategy to beat the competition). Leaders help themselves and others to do the right
things. They set direction, build an inspiring vision, and create something new. Leadership is
about mapping out where you need to go to "win" as a team or an organization; and it is
dynamic, exciting, and inspiring. It is one of the most researched subjects and an interesting topic
of discussions around the world. Generally, leadership is defined as “the process of motivating
people to work together collaboratively to accomplish great things” with ‘great things’ defined in
the minds of the leaders and followers (Vroom & Jago, 2007). However, leadership means
different things to different people around the world and different things in different situations;
one such example is that of leadership in an organization.

Leadership in an organization. Organizations need strong leadership for optimum

effectiveness. Herein it is defined as “a management approach in which leaders help set strategic
goals for the organization while motivating individuals within the group to successfully carry out
assignments in service to those goals” (Tokar, 2020). Leadership, as we know, is a trait which is
both inbuilt and can be acquired also. Leadership in organization deals with both human
psychology as well as expert tactics. Organizational leadership emphasizes on developing
leadership skills and abilities that are relevant across the organizations. It clearly identifies and
distinguishes the leaders from the managers. It further means the potential of the individuals to
face the hard times in the industry and still grow during those times. Nevertheless, leadership in
an organization is a vital management function that helps to direct an organization's resources for
improved efficiency and the achievement of goals.

An organizational leader should not only lead others individually but also manage the actions of
the group. Individuals who are highly ambitious, have high energy levels, an urge to lead, self-
confidence, intelligence, have thorough knowledge of the job, are honest and flexible are more
likely to succeed as organizational leaders. Organizational leaders clearly communicate
organizational mission, vision and policies; build employees morale, ensure efficient business
 Page|3

operations; help employees grow professionally and contribute positively towards organization's
mission.

Importance of Leadership in an organization

Traditional management has been

downplayed in recent years as
“maintaining” the status quo. With
innovation and disruption happening at
record speed, management doing things as
they’ve always been done is not enough.
Organizational leadership is needed at every
level to consider how current practices can
be further improved or changed to meet
future needs.

Organizational leadership is important because it:

 Motivates team members. Team members respond in kind to the leader. They will be
motivated to mirror the growth mindset for their teams and themselves and consider how
they can personally contribute to the forward momentum of the organization as a whole.

 Allows for a problem-solving and decision-making mindset. In a psychologically safe

atmosphere where people are not afraid to speak up, great ideas can emerge. When a leader
entrusts the individuals hired into their roles to develop solutions and make decisions,
exponential growth is possible.

 Promotes communication, ethics, inclusion, and respect. The highly emotionally

intelligent organizational leader communicates in all ways that every employee's
contributions are respected, as every role is vital to the organization's forward movement as a
whole. The leader shares the organization's values and models the communication, ethics,
inclusion, and respect expected of each individual.
 Page|4

 Allows organizational leaders to remain goal-oriented. With individuals empowered to

fulfill their roles and develop innovative solutions, the organizational leader may focus on the
larger picture: moving the mission forward with an eye on navigating the challenges ahead.

LEADERSHIP THEORY PARADIGMS

A leadership paradigm is a shared mindset

that represents a fundamental way of
thinking about, perceiving, studying,
researching, and understanding leadership.
The leadership paradigm has changed in the
60 years during which it has been studied.
The four major classifications of leadership
theory all represent a change in leadership
paradigm as described below.

1. The Trait Theory Paradigm

Leadership trait theories attempt to explain distinctive characteristics accounting for leadership
effectiveness. Researchers analyzed physical and psychological traits, or qualities, such as high
energy level, appearance, aggressiveness, self-reliance, persuasiveness, and dominance in an
effort to identify a set of traits that all successful leaders possessed. However, no one has come
up with a universal list of traits that all successful leaders possess, or traits that will guarantee
leadership success. On the positive side, although there is no list of traits that guarantees
leadership success, traits that are related to leadership success have been identified.

2. The Behavioral Leadership Theory Paradigm

By the 1950s, most of the leadership research had changed its paradigm, going from trait theory
to focusing on what the leader actually did on the job (behavior). Thus, behavioral leadership
theories attempted to explain distinctive styles used by effective leaders, or to define the nature
of their work. Behavioral research focuses on finding ways to classify behavior that will
 Page|5

facilitate our understanding of leadership. Hundreds of studies examined the relationship

between leadership behavior and measures of leadership effectiveness. However, there was no
agreement on one best leadership style for all management situations. On the positive side,
Mintzberg’s leadership theory is widely used to train leaders. And other researchers did identify
two generic dimensions of leader behavior: task-and people-oriented leadership, which has
importance in accounting for leadership effectiveness.

3. The Contingency Leadership Theory Paradigm

Both the trait and behavioral leadership theories were attempts to find the one best leadership
style in all situations; thus they are called universal theories. In the 1960s, it became apparent
that there is no one best leadership style in all situations; the right answer often depends on the
situation. Thus, the leadership paradigm shifted to contingency theory. Contingency leadership
theories attempt to explain the appropriate leadership style based on the leader, followers, and
situation. The contingency theory paradigm emphasizes the importance of situational factors,
including the nature of the work performed, the external environment, and the characteristics of
followers. One aspect of this research is to discover the extent to which managerial work is the
same or different across different types of organizations, levels of management, and cultures.

4. The Integrative Leadership

Theory Paradigm In the mid-to-late 1970s, the paradigm began to shift to the integrative, to tie
the theories together or neo-charismatic theory. As the name implies, integrative leadership
theories attempt to combine the trait, behavioral, and contingency theories to explain successful,
influencing leader–follower relationships. Researchers try to explain why the followers of some
leaders are willing to work so hard and make personal sacrifices to achieve the group and
organizational objectives, or how effective leaders influence the behavior of their followers.
Theories identify behaviors and traits that facilitate the leader’s effectiveness, and explore why
the same behavior by the leader may have a different effect on followers, depending on the
situation.
 Page|6

FIEDLER’S CONTINGENCY THEORY

Under the contingency leadership theory paradigm falls the Fiedler’s Contingency Theory,
also known as Fiedler’s Contingency Model or Fiedler’s Theory of Leadership, states that there
is not one best style of leadership. Rather, the most effective leadership style for any g1iven
situation is one that aligns with the situation at hand.

The theory was developed in the 1960s by Austrian psychologist, Professor Fred Fiedler. He
studied leaders’ personalities and characteristics and came to the conclusion that leadership style,
since it is formed through one’s life experiences, is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to
change.

For this reason, Fiedler believed the right leader must be chosen for each job based on their skill
set and the requirements of the situation. In order to best match leaders with situations, each
leader must first understand their natural leadership style. Then, they need to evaluate whether
their leadership style is right for the situation. To put it simply, Fiedler determined that a leaders’
ability to succeed rests on two factors:

 Natural leadership style

 Situational favorableness
 Page|7

Elements of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory

There are two important factors in Fiedler’s Contingency Theory: situational favorableness and
leadership style.

1. Situational variables- Fiedler came up with three situational variables. Combined these three
variables produce either a favorable, moderate or unfavorable situation for leaders to be in. These
variables are:
 Leader-Member Relations: This is the level of trust and confidence that a team has in a
leader. A leader who is more trusted and has more influence within the group is in a more
favorable situation than a leader who is not trusted. Fiedler identifies leader-member
relations as either good or poor.
 Task Structure: This refers to the type of task followers are supposed to be doing. Tasks
can for example be clear and structured or vague and unstructured. There is an
unfavorable situation if tasks are unstructured or if the team and the leader have little
knowledge of how to achieve a certain task. Fiedler identifies task structure as either high
or low.
 Leader’s Position Power: This is the amount of power a leader has to direct the group
and provide reward or punishment. The more power a leader has, the more favorable the
situation. There are several sources of power such as coercive, expert or referent power
according to French and Raven’s bases of Power. Fiedler identifies a leader’s position
power as either strong or weak.

2. Leadership Style- By combining the aforementioned situational variables, one can create a
variety of leadership situations ranging from highly favorable to highly unfavorable. A favorable
situation would typically be one where the leader-member relations are good, the tasks are clear
and well-structured, and the leader has a strong power position. While examining the relationship
between different situations and leadership styles, Fiedler found a certain pattern. The two
leadership styles that Fiedler looked at are:

 Task-oriented leadership style: These leaders’ direct followers towards goals, give
instructions, spend time planning, emphasize deadlines and provide explicit schedules of
work activities. They simply want to get the job done.
 Page|8

 Relationship-oriented leadership style: These leaders are mindful of followers, respect

their ideas and feelings, establish mutual trust, are friendly, provide open communication,
develop teamwork, and are oriented toward their followers’ welfare.

Examples of Fiedler’s theory in action

Following provides a look at some real-world scenarios that will help clarify what Fiedler theory
might looks like in an organizational setting.

Example 1: PizzaHut Restaurant Manager

In this example, we’re going to imagine that we have been newly appointed the manager of a
PizzaHut restaurant.

In this scenario we might expect the following situational factors:

 Trust will be low. This is because you are new to the job so your team won’t trust you.
Secondly, staff turnover is high so it’s going to be difficult to build strong relationships.
 Task structure is high. This is because there are extremely clear operating procedures to
follow covering everything from how to make each pizza, to how to welcome customers
to the restaurant.
 Position power is high. You have the ability to hire and fire and reward and punish as is
required.

According to Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership, a relationship-oriented leader is best

suited to this type of role.

Example 2: Software Development Manager

In this example, we’re going to imagine that you’ve just been promoted to be the manager of a
software development team you’ve been working in for two years.

In this scenario, the situational factors might look something like this:
 Page|9

 Trust will be high. You’ve already worked with the team for two years, know each of the
team members well, and they trust you.
 Task structure is high. Even though software development is complex, task structure is
high as the team knows what they have to do each week.
 Position power is low. Although you’ve been promoted to manage the team’s day to day
work, you are not responsible for line managing any of them. Thus, you don’t hold much
formal authority over any of them.

According to Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership, a task-oriented leader is best suited to

this type of role.

Advantages

 It provides a simple way to determine when a leader’s skills are most and least impactful.
 It encourages leaders to practice self-awareness, an essential quality for making decisions
for a team.
 It takes the situation into account, branching beyond many leadership theories that solely
focus on the leader themself.
 It’s straightforward—LPC and situational favorableness are both relatively easy to
calculate.

Criticism

 It’s far too rigid. If you can’t change the situation at hand, the theory states that the only
option you have is to give up leadership.
 It’s unclear what leaders who fall in the middle range of the LPC test should do. The
theory essentially just says to “figure it out.”
 Self-assessment isn’t always reliable. Even when we try to be self-aware when completing
the LPC test, our egos and biases have a way of interfering, even subconsciously.
 The theory may discourage leaders who are doing a fine job, especially if they perceive
their leadership style and situation to be at odds when they actually aren’t.
 P a g e | 10

Ohio State and Michigan State Leadership Theory

Under the contingency leadership theory paradigm falls the Ohio State studies and
University of Michigan studies as discussed as follows:

Ohio State Studies

One of the foremost studies that emanated on behavioral theories was the study made by Ohio
State University in 1945 by E.A. Fleishman, E.F. Harris and H.E. Burtt to identify observable
behaviors of leaders instead of focusing on their traits. The study found two critical
characteristics of leadership either of which could be high or low or independent of one another.
The research was based on questionnaires to leaders and subordinates of the organizations. These
are known as the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LDBQ) and the Supervisor
Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ). Ultimately, these studies narrowed the description
of leader behavior into two dimensions:

1. Initiating Structure: Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to
define and structure his or her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. It
includes behavior that attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals. A leader with
initiating structure is generally task oriented, with focus on performance of employees and
meeting of deadlines.

2. Consideration: As per “consideration” category, a leader pays more attention to the employee
of the organization rather than the task and shows concern for the well-being, comfort and
satisfaction of employees. That is, a leader focuses on the relationships that are characterized by
mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings.

The Ohio State Leadership Studies also showed that initiating structure and consideration are
two distinct dimensions and not mutually exclusive. A low score on one does not require a high
score on the other. Hence, leadership behavior can be plotted on two separate axes rather than on
a single continuum, as shown in the following diagram:
 P a g e | 11

The 4 quadrants in the above figure show various considerations of initiating structure and
consideration. In each quadrant, there is a relative mixture of initiating structure and
consideration and a manager can adopt any one style. Although an early study, this is still often
referenced. Notably, the two factors correlate with the people task division that appears in other
studies and as preferences.

The findings of Ohio State Leadership Studies suggest that effective leaders possess a strong
ability to work with others and build a cohesive team that is balanced with the capability to
create structure within which activities can be accomplished.

University of Michigan Studies

Similar to the Ohio State University studies, research on leadership studies was also carried out
by the University of Michigan's Research centers, in 1946 by Rensis Likert and his associates.
The study made an analysis of the relationship between leadership behaviors and organizational
performances. Michigan Studies also identified a two factor component, viz. “employee-oriented
leader” and “production-oriented leader”.
 P a g e | 12

1. Employee-Oriented Leader: The concern of the employee-oriented leaders were more on the
interpersonal relations with the employees and such leaders paid more attention to the needs of
the employees and accepted the individual differences among members.

2. Production-Oriented Leader: The production oriented-leaders paid attention to the technical

aspects of the job or the tasks assigned to the employees, rather than on employees. Such leaders
gave least importance to the group members, and regarded the employees as only a means to
achieve the ends, that is, the goals of an organization.

As with most behavioral leadership approaches, the Michigan leadership studies suggest that
these two leadership behaviors are mutually exclusive, and a single leader cannot display both
types of behaviors. Thus, leaders are either employee-oriented or job-oriented (also referred to as
production-oriented in some sources), which is depicted above. Just as in the case of
transformational and transactional leadership, later studies concluded that the two leadership
styles did not have to be mutually exclusive, rendering the Michigan Studies continuum graph
less viable.

Similarities between Leadership Models and Their Contributions

 Both of the universities have developed a questionnaire and conducted a research that have
same objective which is to determine the behavior of effective leader
 Both researches are conducted in the same period, i.e., between 1940s to 1950s.
 P a g e | 13

 Both universities developed leadership models that emphasize the same definitions which are
on task-oriented and people-oriented style of leadership, even though the terms used are
different.

The two leadership models of both universities are proven due to strong research support and
repeatedly being tested.

Differences between Leadership Models and Their Contributions

 The Ohio State and University of Michigan leadership models are different in that the
University of Michigan places the two leadership behaviors at opposite ends of the same
continuum, making it one-dimensional. The Ohio State University Model considers the
two behaviors independent of one another, making it two-dimensional.
 University of Michigan’s one dimensional model proposed two leadership styles (1)
employee-centered and (2) job-centered while Ohio State leadership model has four
leadership styles as follows, (1) low initiating structure and high consideration, (2) high
initiating structure and high consideration, (3) low initiating structure and low
consideration, and (4) high initiating structure and low consideration.

CONCLUSION

People have long been interested in leadership throughout human history, but it has only been
relatively recently that a number of formal leadership theories have emerged. Interest in
leadership increased during the early part of the twentieth century. Early leadership theories
focused on what qualities distinguished between leaders and followers, while subsequent
theories looked at other variables such as situational factors and skill levels.

Nevertheless, there are many different ways of thinking about leadership, ranging from focusing
on the personality traits of great leadership to emphasizing aspects of the situation that help
determine how people lead. Like most things, leadership is a highly multi-faceted subject and it
is a mixture of many factors that help determine why some people become great leaders.
 P a g e | 14

REFERENCES

 Center for Creative Leadership. (2020, June 10). Retrieved from What Are the
Characteristics of a Good Leader?: https://www.ccl.org/blog/characteristics-good-
leader/

 Charles E. Notar, C. S. (2009). What Makes an “Effective” Leader: The Application of

Leadership.

 Michael Page. (n.d.). Retrieved from 8 Must-Have Qualities of an Effective Leader:

https://www.michaelpage.com/advice/management-advice/development-and-
retention/8-must-have-qualities-effective-leader

 Mind Tools. (n.d.). Retrieved from What Is Leadership?:

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newldr_41.htm#:~:text=The%20word%20%2
2leadership%22%20can%20bring,of%20his%20group%20to%20follow.

 Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved from What Makes a Good
Leader?: https://siyli.org/resources/what-is-leadership-and-what-makes-a-good-leader

 TroubleShooter. (n.d.). Retrieved from Leadership Myth #1: we are all leaders:
https://www.colin-beveridge.com/index.php/leadership-myth-1-we-are-all-leaders/