1

CHAPTER 6
Leadership

Leadership is another crucial aspect of the school context that sets the scene for effective supervision. The concept
of leadership is both fascinating and elusive. It has intrigued our imaginations and speculations for centuries, and
many still believe, as Aristotle did, that "from the hour of their birth, some are marked for subjection, others for
rule."' Although the systematic, empirical study of leadership by behavioral scientists did not begin until the
twentieth century, the last four decades have produced a voluminous amount of data, most of it attesting to the
complexity of the leadership phenomenon.

Unraveling the mystery of leadership has not been a simple task. Some contemporary scholars, in fact, question the
utility of the concept, 2 while others argue that the leaders of an organization are major determinants of its success or
failure. 3 Our view is consistent with the latter: the leadership of both principals and supervisors is imperative for an
effective program of supervision. Moreover, we know more about leadership effectiveness than is typically
acknowledged, and the purpose of this chapter is to review the leadership literature in order to identify the
propositions and concepts that will be most useful in our analysis of supervision of instruction.

THE NATURE AND MEANING OF LEADERSHIP

What is leadership? There are almost as many definitions as there are writers on the topic. Clearly, the term means
different things to different individuals; in fact, after a careful review of the literature Bennis cogently concluded,
"Always, it seems, the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its
slipperiness and complexity. 4

In describing the general nature of leadership, Katz and Kahn identify three basic meanings of the concept: (1) an
attribute of an office or position; (2) a characteristic of a person; and (3) a category of actual behavior. 5 Principals
occupy formal leadership positions, so do department heads and teachers. Principals have formal authority over
teachers, and teachers have legitimate power over students. Obviously, however, there are individuals in school
organizations, who are not in formal positions of power yet who do possess and wield considerable influence and
power. On the other hand, individuals who occupy leadership positions do not always use the concomitant power
and influence, and there are others who exercise leadership in one situation but not in others. Leadership also
implies followers; there can be no leaders without followers. However, the situations under which different groups
and individuals will follow vary considerably. Inevitably a contingency approach to leadership seems essential: the
leader must read the situation and then apply the correct mix of structure and consideration in his or her leadership
behavior.

Others have argued, however, that mastering a contingency approach to leadership is insufficient for long-term
improvement. They maintain that what a leader stands for is more important than what a leader does; that meanings
are more important than actions; and that leadership is a cultural expression that builds unity and order within an
organization by focusing on purposes, historical and philosophical traditions, and ideals and norms. 6 Leaders create
symbols to reduce uncertainty, to resolve confusion, and to provide direction. Hence, leaders are concerned with
helping followers find meaning in their work by developing a cohesive culture of shared values and beliefs, myths,
rituals, and ceremonies.

The concept of leadership remains elusive because it depends not only on position, behavior, and personality of the
leader but also on the nature of the situation as well as the interaction of the situation with the personality and
behavior of the leader. Moreover, leadership occurs in a cultural context in which symbols and meanings are
important. Although leadership is highly complex, there is considerable conceptual capital and a wealth of empirical
data that are valuable to students and practitioners of supervision and administration.

LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS

Like the concept of leadership, leader effectiveness is complex and has been defined in a variety of ways. Stogdill,
for example, has suggested that the effectiveness of a group be defined in terms of (1) the group's output, (2) the
satisfaction of its members, and (3) its morale. 7
 2

Outcomes of the group may include such diverse things as attainment of group goals, group development, group
survival, group adaptability, subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate commitment to goals, the
psychological growth and development of group members, and the leader's retention of status and position. 8 But the
most commonly used measure of leader effectiveness is the degree to which the group or organization performs its
task successfully and accomplishes its goal.9 Fiedler, for example, evaluates leader effectiveness entirely in terms of
the group's performance of its primary task, even though the group's outcome is not entirely a function of the
leader's skills.10 In some cases, objective measures of group performance are available-net profit, cost per unit,
percentage of wins, and number of problems solved. In other cases, the evaluation of task accomplishment is more
subjective: ratings of effectiveness from subordinates and superiors are used.

The satisfaction of followers with their leader is another common indicator of effectiveness. How well does the
leader satisfy the needs and expectations of followers? How loyal are followers to the leader? To what extent are
followers willing to accept without question the directives of the letter? How content are followers with the leader?
To what extent is -there role-personality conflict? How much trust do followers have in the leader? Although
satisfaction is often measured with questionnaires and interviews, a number of objective measures of behavior such
as absenteeism, turnover rate, grievances, slowdowns, and wildcat strikes also serve as indirect indications of
dissatisfaction, 11

Morale is typically used to refer to a sense of group belongingness and identification with group goals. 12 Group
members need to feel that their needs are consistent with expectations that the expectations are appropriate to
accomplish the task, and that goals are worth accomplishing. Hence, leadership effectiveness is sometimes measured
by the leader's contribution to the quality of group processes. Does the leader enhance group belongingness,
cohesiveness, cooperation, problem solving, decision making, and identification with the task? Morale is a global
concept that taps a general feeling that members have about the group and their confidence and commitment to the
task at hand. Measures of morale, usually determined by perceptions of members or by outside observers, provide
another index of the leader's effectiveness.

The choice of leader-effectiveness criteria depends on many factors, including the values of the evaluator, the
leadership theory, and the time perspective. For example, Fiedler argues that turnover rate, job satisfaction, morale,
and personal adjustment may contribute to group performance, but they are not themselves criteria of performance.
13
But House proposes a path goal theory in which leader behavior is effective to the extent that it improves
subordinate job satisfaction, enhances the acceptance of the leader, and increases subordinate motivation. 14
Moreover, what is effective leadership over the short run-for instance, in terms of profits or cognitive mastery of
content-may have long-term negative consequences in terms of turnover, absenteeism, or satisfaction. Since many of
the criteria of leadership effectiveness are not correlated and some are even negatively related, multiple criteria of
leader effectiveness seem desirable. We now turn our attention to three different perspectives that have been used to
study and analyze leadership-the trait approach, the behavioral approach, and the contingency approach.

TRAIT APPROACH

The maxim that "leaders are born, not made" was the basis for early systematic studies of leadership; hence,
attention was focused on natural traits of individuals-physical attributes, personality traits, and general ability
characteristics. From 1920 to 1950, psychological researchers tried to isolate the specific traits that endow leaders
with unique qualities that differentiate- them from followers. Their efforts were largely unsuccessful.

Comprehensive reviews of early trait studies of leadership by Bird, Jenkins, Stogdill, and Mann 15 demonstrate the
inability of researchers to find a consistent set of general leadership traits. Many of the traits isolated as crucial in
one study were contradicted in others; that is, in some groups, effective leaders were assertive and aggressive, in
others, mild-mannered and restrained; in some, quick and decisive, in others, reflective and diplomatic. Although
Stogdill tentatively identifies above-average intelligence, scholarship, dependability, participation, and status as
qualities enhancing leadership, he hastens to add, "A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of
some combination of traits.... The pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant
relationship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of the followers." 16 The literature clearly shows that
leadership does not merely result from individual traits of leaders. Leaders with one set of traits may be successful in
 3

one situation but not in others. Moreover, leaders with different combinations of traits can be successful in the same
or similar situations.

Notwithstanding the lack of success in identifying general leadership traits, such studies have persisted. More recent
trait studies, however, use a greater variety of measurement procedures, including projective tests; and they focus on
managers and administrators rather than other kinds of leaders. Gary YukI explains:

One reason for this trend is that the 1948 literature review by Stogdill greatly discouraged many leadership
researchers from studying leader traits, whereas industrial psychologists interested in improving managerial
selection continued to conduct trait research. The emphasis on selection focused trait research on the
relation of leader traits to leader effectiveness, rather than on the comparison of leaders 17 and non-leaders
[emphasis added] .

YukI Is distinction is a significant one. Predicting who will become a leader and predicting who will be more
effective are quite different tasks. Hence, the so called trait studies continue, but they now explore the relationship
between traits and leadership effectiveness of administrators.

This second generation of studies has produced a more consistent set of findings; in fact, in 1970, after reviewing
another 163 new trait studies, Stogdill concluded:

The leader is characterized by a strong drive for responsibility and task completion, vigor and persistence in
pursuit of goals, venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social
situations, self-confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept consequences of decision
and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to
influence other persons' behavior, and capacity to structure interaction systems to the purpose at hand.18

'Acceptance that personality is an important factor in leadership does not represent a return to the original trait
assumption that "leaders are born, not made." Rather, it is a more sensible and balanced view, one that
acknowledges
the influence of both traits and situations. Reaction, or perhaps more appropriately overreaction, to the trait approach
was so intense during the late 1940s and 1950s that for a time it seemed that both psychologists and sociologists had
substituted a strictly situational approach to leadership for the then questionable trait approach. Indeed, there was an
overemphasis on the determinative effects of a specific situation on a given leader. The jump from "leaders are born,
not made" to "leaders are made by the situation, not born" was short-lived. Both of these extreme positions are
unduly
restrictive and counterproductive. It now seems clear that although certain traits enhance the likelihood of leadership
effectiveness, none guarantee it.

BEHAVIORAL APPROACH

Another way to study leadership is to describe the behavior of leaders. How does the leader exert influence? Here
the emphasis is not on traits but rather on performance. Behavior is described directly through observation. Once the
descriptions of leader behavior are established, then comparisons of the behavior of effective and ineffective leaders,
using a variety of criteria, can be made. Hence, the critical elements of leadership can be identified and their
relations to important organizational outcomes can be explored.

Dimensions of Leader Behavior

The literature on leadership is surprisingly consistent in its description of the major aspects of leader behavior.
Almost all of the various conceptualizations support a multidimensional view, with at least two distinct patterns of
leader behavior. Moreover, when more than two dimensions are proposed, they usually collapse into two basic
patterns at the next higher level of abstraction. Finally, there is consistency in the frameworks regardless of whether
the analysis is a theoretical, empirical, or practical one.

Chester Barnard in his early, classic analysis of administration was one of the first to distinguish between the
effectiveness and efficiency of behavior.
 4

The persistence of cooperation depends upon two conditions: (a) its effectiveness; and (b) its efficiency.
Effectiveness relates to the accomplishment of the cooperative purpose which is social and non-personal in
character. Efficiency relates to the satisfaction of individual motives, and is personal in character. The test
of effectiveness is the accomplishment of common purpose or purposes; ... the test of efficiency is the
eliciting of sufficient individual wills to cooperate.19

Similarly, in their study of the dynamics of small groups, Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander discovered two sets
of group functions that are critical to the group: (1) goal achievement-attainment of some specific group goal and (2)
group maintenance-a-maintenance or strengthening of the group itself. 20 These two basic elements of interpersonal
relations have often been identified in diverse settings and given a variety of names: "instrumental and expressive
activities,"21 - control and cathectic dimensions,"22 "task and social activities," 23 "idiographic and nomothetic
dimensions,24 production orientation and employee orientation, 25 , initiating structure and consideration," 26 and
system orientation and person orientation. "27

In one of the most comprehensive attempts to identify and measure the key elements of leader behavior, Ralph
Stogdill and his colleagues at Ohio State have proposed twelve dimensions of leadership. 28 The dimensions and
their meanings are presented in Table 6.1. Note that these twelve aspects of leadership can be divided into two
familiar categories. System-oriented behavior is concerned with production emphasis, initiation of structure,
representation, rule assumption, and persuasion, while person-oriented behavior emphasizes tolerance of freedom,
tolerance of uncertainty, consideration, demand reconciliation, predictive accuracy, and integration. In fact, Alan
Brown's study of 170 principals provides empirical support for these two higher-order dimensions of leadership. 29

The purpose of this brief review was not to summarize all the conceptualizations of leadership but rather to
demonstrate that in spite of the diversity of settings and approaches, two general and distinct categories of leader
behavior emerge—one concerned with people and interpersonal relations and the other with production and task
achievement. We prefer to name the dimensions concern for organizational tasks and concern for individual
relationships.

Table 6.1 Stogdill's Leadership Dimensions

System-Oriented Dimension
Production emphasis : applies pressure for productive output.
Initiation of structure : clearly defines own role and lets followers know what is expected.
Representation : speaks and acts as the representative of the group.
Role assumption : actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others.
Persuasion : uses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions.
Superior orientation : maintains cordial relations with superiors, has influence with them, and strives for
higher
status.

Person-Oriented Dimension
Tolerance of uncertainty : is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset.
Tolerance of freedom : allows staff members scope for initiative, decision, and action.
Consideration : regards the comfort, well-being, status, and contributions of fellows.
Demand reconciliation : reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorder to the system.
Integration : maintains close-knit organization and resolves inter-member conflict.
Predictive accuracy : exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately.

Table 6.2 Dimensions of Leadership: Summary and Comparison

Theorist Concern for organizational tasks Concern for individual

relationships
Barnard Effectiveness Efficiency
Etzioni and Parsons Instrumental activities Expressive activities
 5

Cartwright and Zander Goal achievement Group maintenance

Getzels and Guba Nomothetic Idiographic consideration
Halpin Initiating structure
Kahn Production orientation Employee orientation
Bales Task leader Social leader
Brown System orientation Person orientation
Stogdill Production emphasis Tolerance of freedom
Initiating structure Tolerance of uncertainty
Representation Consideration
Role assumption Demand reconciliation
Persuasion Predictive accuracy
Superior orientation Integration

The Ohio State Leadership Studies

Studies of leader behavior in organizations are typically done using questionnaires, and by far the most frequent
instrument used in schools is the well known Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). The LBDQ
emerged from a systematic program of research on leadership organized by -Carroll Shartle in 1945 at Ohio State
University. In their attempt to identify leadership behavior that was necessary for the achievement of organizational
tasks, the Ohio State group compiled a list of approximately 1,800 examples of different aspects of leader behavior,
which was then reduced to 150 items as the researchers forced consensus on the critical aspects of leadership
behavior.
The early work by John Hemphill and Alvin Coons 3l and later the refinement by Andrew Halpin and B. J. Winer 32
produced a thirty-item LBDQ that measures two basic dimensions of leader behavior-initiating structure and
consideration.

Both dimensions are broad categories of behavior that comprise a variety of specific activities. Consideration
describes behavior concerned with establishing and maintaining sound personal relationships with subordinates;
such leader behavior indicates friendship, trust, warmth, interest, supportiveness, and respect. Initiating the work
group; such leader behavior defines patterns of organization, clarifies subordinate roles, directs activities, criticizes
poor work, presses subordinates to work harder, and structures the task. Both consideration and initiating structure
deal with influencing the behavior of members of a work group.

Early studies using the LBDQ provided evidence that the two dimensions were relatively independent of each other;
that is, initiating structure and consideration are distinct concepts, not opposite ends of the same continuum. This
two-factor conceptualization is often used to generate four leadership styles by cross-partitioning initiating structure
and consideration (see Figure 6.1).

Halpin summarizes the major findings of early LBDQ studies as follows: 33

1. Initiating structure and consideration as measured by the LBDQ are fundamental dimensions of leader
behavior.
2. Effective leader behavior tends most often to be associated with high performance on both dimensions.
3. Superiors and subordinates tend to evaluate the contributions of the leader behavior dimensions oppositely
in assessing effectiveness. Superiors tend to emphasize initiating structure, whereas subordinates are more
concerned with consideration. Hence, the leader is often involved in some degree of role conflict.
4. The leadership style characterized as high on both dimensions is associated with such group characteristics
as harmony, intimacy, and procedural clarity, and with favorable changes in group attitude.
5. Only a slight relationship exists between how leaders say they should behave and how subordinates
describe how they do behave.
6. Different institutional settings tend to foster different leadership styles.

More recent LBDQ studies of schools generally support the original results and expand the knowledge about the
relationship of leader behavior of principals and other school variables. For example, B. T. Keeler and John
Andrews reported that both consideration and initiation of structure by principals, as described by teachers, were
 6

positively related to student scores on a province wide examination in Canadian schools; and likewise, Brown found
that effective principals were higher on both dimensions of leadership. 34 After an extensive LBDQ study, however,
Brown suggests that although strength on both structure and consideration is desirable (Style 1) principals
committed to developing effective organizational dynamics may compensate for limitations on one dimension by
extraordinary strength in the other; but he also cautions against falling prey to what he calls the "cognitive fallacy":

Consideration
Low High
II I
High Low consideration High consideration
Initiating and And
structure high structure High structure
III IV
Low Low consideration High consideration
And And
High structure Low structure

Figure 6.1 LBDQ Leadership Styles

Good leadership, in and of itself, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a high cognitive payoff at
the pupil level. The explanation lies in organizational, not educational terms. Good leadership, like other
healthy organizational dynamics, has a facilitating payoff; it facilitates the process of the organization, not
its product35

The point is that cognitive outputs like school achievement results are the teachers' output; organizational outputs
like morale and satisfaction are the administrators'. Principals are one step removed from the teaching-learning
process; hence, their effects on cognitive development are only reflected by such organizational outcomes as morale
and a healthy school climate (see Chapter 7).

Halpin suggests that effective leaders can initiate structure without sacrificing consideration. 36 Many principals may
hesitate to structure the situation and press for the task lest they be accused of authoritarianism, but research in
schools is increasingly demonstrating that initiating structure does not limit either consideration or participation. In
fact, initiating structure and consideration 37 are often highly correlated with each other. Moreover, both dimensions
of leadership are related to generating high trust in and loyalty to principal. 38 Almost without exception, however,
principals who are weak on both dimensions (Style III) are highly ineffective; that is, low morale, teacher
dissatisfaction, closed climates, and lack of trust among teachers are prevalent. In fact, general chaos typically
imbues the work environment led by such leaders.

More than three decades ago, Barnard recognized that effective leadership involves willing rather than forced
compliance; in fact, he argued that for each individual there exists a "zone of acceptance" in which directives are
accepted without question.39 School principals and supervisors are challenged to find ways to extend their scope of
authority beyond the rather narrow limits of power vested in their office. Leadership style is related to increasing the
teachers zone of acceptance; principals strong in both initiating structure and consideration (Style 1) enjoy the fruits
of effective leadership-teachers have a broader zone of acceptance; they willingly accept many more of the
principal's initiatives-a finding that is supported for both elementary and secondary schools. 40

A recent study of New Jersey elementary schools also demonstrated the value to principals of both initiating
structure and consideration for developing an atmosphere of trust. 41 Schools with principals strong on both
dimensions of leadership had faculty who were much more likely to trust the principals as well as each other. That
is, faculty members had confidence that such principals would keep their word and act in the best interests of
teachers.
 7

Even in difficult situations teachers had more confidence in the integrity of their colleagues and the school as well as
the principal. In brief, the research evidence continues to support the contention that both initiating structure and
consideration are important behaviors for supervisors and administrators.

Harvard Leadership Studies

While the Ohio State research studied the leadership patterns of administrators and supervisors in organizations, the
Laboratory of Social Relations at Harvard University under the direction of Robert F. Bales pursued a different
strategy of inquiry. Bales and his colleagues set up small groups of subjects under laboratory conditions and studied
their social behavior by direct observation. Perhaps the most startling finding of that research was "that the concept
of 'leader,' if it is taken too literally, can cause the man who thinks he is one to disregard a most important fact-
namely, that there is usually another leader in the group whom he can overlook only at his peril."42

The laboratory findings that emerged from the Harvard inquiries suggested a dual-leadership model. The individual
who was judged by other group members to have the best ideas in contributing to a decision typically was not the
best liked. There are generally two separate leadership roles in small task groups attempting to solve problems - the
task leader and the social leader. The task leader keeps the group engaged in work, but the pressure to work and the
work itself tends to provoke some irritation and conflict within the group. The social leader, on the other hand,
attempts to maintain unity and keeps group members aware of their importance as unique individuals whose special
needs and perspectives are respected. Both roles are essential for the effective operation of the group; yet apparently
only a few individuals can successfully perform both roles in the same group. 43

We note the Harvard studies briefly for several reasons. Unlike the Ohio State research, this experimental research
examined the face-to-face interactions of individuals in small groups. Moreover, most of the experimental groups
were composed of college students rather than of leaders in formal organizations. Despite the differences in the unit
of analysis, situation, and method, the findings are remarkably consistent with those of the Ohio State studies: two
relatively independent aspects of leadership develop in social groups and organizations.

CONTINGENCY APPROACH

Although the behavioral approaches developed at Ohio State University, the University of Michigan, and Harvard
University are consistent in describing two important dimensions of leadership behavior, the relationships between
leadership behavior and effectiveness have been much less conclusively established. 44 As a result, the prevailing
models guiding leadership research have turned to a contingency approach. According to this perspective, it is
necessary to specify the conditions, or situational variables, that moderate the relationship between leader traits and
performance criteria. The emerging evidence indicates that under one set of circumstances, one type of leader is
effective; under another set of circumstances, however, a different type of leader is needed. The intriguing question
of what kinds of leaders for what kinds of situations has no simple answer. There is no best leadership style; it
depends. The contingency approach attempts to predict which types of leaders will be effective in different types of
situations. The two most widely held contingency theories are Fiedler's contingency model and Paul Hersey and
Kenneth Blanchard's situational theory.

Fiedler's Contingency Model

Fiedler's theory of leadership maintains that the effectiveness of a group is contingent upon the appropriate matching
of the leader and the group. 15 His contingency model is based upon the following two postulates:

1. Leadership style is determined by the motivational needs of the leader.

2. Group effectiveness is a function of the relationship between leadership style and favorableness of the
situation; more specifically, effective group performance is contingent upon the leader's motivations and
upon the leader's ability to exert influence in the situation.

Leadership Style and Behavior. It is important to differentiate Fiedler's definitions of the terms "Leadership style"
and "leadership behavior." Leadership behavior denotes the specific behavior of a leader while in the process of
directing and controlling the activities of a work unit. For instance, the leader can commend, make helpful
suggestions, and demonstrate consideration. In contrast, leadership style is the leader's underlying need-structure,
 8

which motivates behavior in a variety of interpersonal situations. In this model leadership style is a personality
characteristic; it is not a consistent type of behavior but rather a relatively enduring set of motivational needs that the
leader seeks to achieve in interactions with others. Fiedler underscores this critical distinction between leadership
style and leadership behavior for understanding his theory as follows: "Important leadership behaviors of the same
individual differ from situation to situation, while the need-structure which motivates these behaviors may be seen
as constant."46

There are two basic sets of needs that motivate leaders-the need for good interpersonal relations and the need to
accomplish the task. Although both sets of needs motivate behavior, one set is usually more potent than the other;
hence, leadership style is conceptualized according to the dominant set of motivational needs:

• Relationship-oriented leaders are first concerned with establishing good interpersonal relations with group
members and then with accomplishing the task.
• Task-oriented leaders derive their major satisfaction first from successful accomplishment of the task and
then from good interpersonal relations.

For both kinds of leaders, once the dominant set of needs has been met, then the secondary needs become important
motivators. For example, under relaxed, well-controlled situations where the group is moving toward the task, task-
oriented leaders may take the time to foster interpersonal relations. Moreover, it is not unusual in relaxed, well-
controlled situations for relationship oriented leaders to become more task conscious.

To identify leadership style, Fiedler developed a simple personality measure called the Least Preferred Co-worker
(LPC) scale. The LPC scale is a semantic differential consisting of sixteen bipolar items. The respondent is asked to
select the person with whom he or she works least well (least preferred coworker) and then describe that individual
on the scale (see Table 6.3). Each item is scored from 1 to 8; a high score reflects a favorable description.

A high scoring individual on the LPC scale describes his or her least preferred co-worker as pleasant, friendly,
efficient, cheerful, and so forth; hence, even a person with whom it is difficult to work is viewed in very favorable
terms. In contrast, a low-scoring person describes his or her least preferred coworker negatively-as unpleasant,
unfriendly, uncooperative, inefficient, frustrating, and so forth. Thus, a person who rates a least preferred co-worker
negatively rejects people with whom he or she cannot work.

Table 6.3 A Sample of Items from the Least Preferred Co-worker Scale

Directions. Think of the person with whom you can work least well. The person may be someone you work with
now, or the person may be someone you knew in the past. The person does not have to be the person you like least
well, but should be the person with whom you had the most difficulty in getting a job done. Describe the person as
he or she appears to you.

Pleasant 8 7 6 5 4 3 4 1 Unpleasant
Rejecting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Accepting
Cooperative 8 7 6 5 4 3 4 1 Uncooperative
Quarrelsome 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Harmonious
Helpful 8 7 6 5 4 3 4 1 Frustrating
Distant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Close
Efficient 8 7 6 5 4 3 4 1 Inefficient
gloomy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cheerful

SOURCE:
Adapted from Fred E. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 268. Copyright @ 1967 McGraw-Hill,
Inc. Used by permission of the publisher

In general, low-scoring LPC leaders are task-oriented. They have negative reactions toward their least preferred co-
worker because a co-worker with whom it is difficult to get the job done threatens the dominant motivational
orientation of the leader-succeeding at the task. High-scoring LPC leaders are relationship-oriented; they have
positive attitudes toward their, least preferred co-worker because an ineffective co-worker does not necessarily
 9

threaten the leader's orientation toward interpersonal success. 47 In elaborating on this interpretation, Fiedler
emphasizes that LPC scores reveal different leader motivations, not differences in leader behavior. The
accomplishment of a task, for example, might well call for considerate and pleasant interpersonal behaviors, while
the maintenance of close interpersonal relations might be facilitated by driving the group to success. In the latter
case the relationship-motivated leader (high LPC score) might be extremely task-oriented in behavior. Typically,
however, uncertain and stressful situations tend to make leaders with a low LPC scores focus on task, while those
with high LPC scores concentrate on interpersonal relationships with group members. The converse is true when
conditions give the leader security and control .48

Situation. A basic assumption of the contingency approach is that different kinds of situations require different
kinds of leadership; therefore, a second major component of the theory is the situation. To what extent does the
situation itself enable the leader to exert influence? Fiedler identifies three major aspects of the situation that
determine the favorableness of the situation: leader-member relations, task-structure, and position power of the
leader.

Leader-member relations make up the single most important aspect of the situation; this refers to the extent to
which the leader is accepted and respected by group members. Two factors are important in generating good leader-
member relations: the quality of interpersonal relations between the leader and group members and the level of
informal authority granted to the leader. In contrast to position power and task-structure, which are determined in
large part by the organization, the quality of leader-member relations is determined primarily by the leader's
personality and performance. Not having to worry about the loyalty of group members gives the leader considerable
control and influence over the situation.

Task-structure is determined by the extent to which the task can be clearly delineated, verified, and programmed in
a step-by-step manner. With highly structured tasks, the leader and group know exactly what to do and how to do it.
Unstructured tasks with ambiguous goals, no clear-cut solutions, and a multiplicity of approaches make specific
action by the leader and group difficult. Thus, in terms of directing and controlling groups, the more structured the
task, the more favorable the situation for the leader.

Position power is the degree to which the position itself enables the leader to get others to comply with directives. In
organizations much power is formal; it is vested in the office. The organization provides the leader with power by
assigning him or her to a position that has certain rights and duties; therefore, position power determines the extent
to which a leader can reward and punish members, whether the group can depose the leader, whether the leader
enjoys special or official rank or status that sets him or her apart from group members, and the like. 49 Position power
tends to make the job of leader easier; however, it does not guarantee effectiveness.

Evidence to date indicates that the quality of leader-member relations is the most important factor affecting the
leader's influence over group members, followed by task-structure and position power. 50 Therefore, the leader has
the most control and influence when (1) the group is highly supportive (good leader-member relations), (2) the
leader and group know exactly what to do and how to do it (structured task), and (3) the organization gives the
leader the power and means to reward and punish group members (high position power).

Fiedler uses these three important aspects of the situation to identify eight situations, ordered in terms of their
favorableness. Each of the three factors are dichotomized into good or bad leader-member relations, structured-
unstructured tasks, and high-low position power. Table 6.4 summarizes the favorableness of the eight situations. The
most favorable situation is Octant 1, with good leader-member relations, structured task, and high position power;
while Octant VIII is most unfavorable, with all three components negative. Octant IV is only moderately favorable;
although the leader-member relations are good, the task is unstructured and ambiguous and the position power of the
leader is low.

Leader Effectiveness. Fiedler's definition of leadership effectiveness is simple and straightforward. Even though
the group's performance is not completely a function of the leader's skills, a leader's effectiveness is judged on how
well the group achieves its task. Many studies use objective measures of group effectiveness-net profit, cost per unit,
percentage of wins, and number of problems solved. But in other cases the evaluation of task accomplishment is
more subjective. In all cases, however, leader effectiveness is determined by the degree to which the task is
achieved.
 10

Table 6.4 Fiedler's Classification of Situational Favorableness

Degree of favorableness Leader – Member Relations Task Structure Position Power

of the Leader
Octant I Very Favorable Good Structured High
Octant II Good Structured Low
Octant III Good Unstructured High
Octant IV Moderate Good Unstructured Low
Octant V Poor Structured High
Octant VI Poor Structured Low
Octant VII Poor Unstructured High
Octant VIII Unfavorable Poor Unstructured Low

SOURCE: Adapted from Fred E. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 268. Copyright @ 1967
McGraw-Hill, Inc. Used by permission of the publisher.

Matching Style and Situation. The question still remains: Which leadership style is most effective in which kind of
situation? Using the results he collected from a wide variety of situations (more than 100 groups) over ten years,
Fiedler classified the type of situation (one of eight octants), determined the style of the leader, and analyzed which
groups performed their tasks successfully and unsuccessfully. From the analysis he developed three major-
propositions of his contingency theory. 51

1. In favorable situations, task-oriented leaders are more effective than relationship-oriented leaders.
2. In moderately favorable situations, relationship-oriented leaders are more effective than task-oriented
leaders.
3. In unfavorable situations, task-oriented leaders are more effective than relationship-oriented leaders.

The basic explanation for effectiveness emerging from Fiedler's research is that favorableness of the situation elicits
leader behavior consistent with the leader's motivational system. The primary motivational pattern of leaders
appears in situations in which the individual is threatened while pursuing secondary goals in situations in which
primary goals are either satisfied or appear secure. Hence, high LPC leaders will concern themselves with
relationships in unfavorable situations but with the task in favorable situations. Low LPC leaders will concern
themselves with the task in unfavorable situations, but in favorable situations they will be concerned with having
good interpersonal relations.52

According to the theory, task-oriented leaders (low LPQ are more effective in unfavorable situations because the
situation triggers directing and controlling behavior that is most likely to get the job done; anxious concern with
interpersonal relations does not produce effectiveness. In favorable situations, however, where teachers are secure
and confident that their directives will be followed and their decisions will have the intended consequences, task
oriented leaders are also more effective, but for different reasons. In such situations leaders have the luxury of
pursuing their secondary motivational goals. Consequently, task-oriented leaders display considerate behavior while
relations-oriented leaders exhibit task-relevant behavior. Since task-relevant behaviors are largely redundant and
 11

unnecessary in favorable situations, the considerate behavior of task-oriented leaders is more appropriate and
effective.

The intermediate situation frequently produces interpersonal friction and stress; therefore, task-oriented leaders
respond with task-focused and controlling behavior and relations-oriented leaders with considerate, open, and
participative behavior. Here the situation calls for good, interpersonal relations because the leader is not well-liked
or the task is unstructured. Hence, the group members must be motivated to contribute to defining and solving the
problem, or the leader has low position power and to be successful he or she must control and influence the group by
virtue of personal attraction.53

Support for Fiedler's Theory. Since the contingency model was inductively developed in 1962, the theory has
been used to predict group performance in a large variety of social settings. 54 Most of the studies do not test the
entire theory-that is, the predicted effectiveness relations in all octants; and the results of the research have been
mixed-many studies support the theory but others do not. 55

In applying the model to school principals, the criterion of effectiveness is the most difficult conceptual and
measurement problem to solve. Because of the disagreement about what constitutes effective educational outcomes,
defining and operationalizing effectiveness are difficult tasks at best. Interestingly, three tests of the contingency
model in elementary schools employed different criteria of effectiveness, yet all three studies support the
contingency theory. Vincent McNamara and Frederick Enns used a rating scheme in which school officials were
asked to rate the schools (not the principals) on effectiveness index of performance based on the perceived level of
effective characteristics displayed by teachers. 57 Yvonne M. Martin and her colleagues measured group
effectiveness as the perceived assistance that the group supplied to new probationary teachers. 58 In all three cases, in
schools whose principals are well-supported by their teachers (a favorable situation), a task-oriented style is
significantly associated with group effectiveness. In schools whose principals are less well-supported (a moderately
favorable situation), there is some tendency for a relationship-oriented style to be associated with school
effectiveness.

Clearly these studies do not "prove" the theory. Yet, although they were limited to elementary schools and used
different criterion measures of effectiveness, the results are remarkably similar-and in large part consistent with the
contingency model. Moreover, the results support a more general proposition of the contingency approach: it is
likely that one type of leadership behavior is not appropriate for all elementary schools. School performance will
most likely be improved by matching the leadership style and the school situation.

Some Implications. The theory provides not only a conceptual base for analyzing and understanding the
motivations, behavior, and effectiveness of the principal; it also provides supervisors with a guide to structuring
their own situations and behaviors to maximize their effectiveness as they interact with groups of teachers -
especially groups of teachers working jointly on a common task such as curriculum development.

The contingency theory strongly suggests that leaders with one type of motivational style tend to perform well in
one situation but not in another. If we attempt to improve performance by matching the leadership style with the
appropriate situation, two alternative strategies are possible. We can try to train people to change their leadership
style to match the situation, or we can attempt to change the situation to match the style.

Fiedler argues that it is usually a lot easier to change the situation by engineering the job than to modify a person's
leadership style, because the latter involves changing the underlying need-structure that motivates behavior.
Moreover, changes in the leadership situation may not be as difficult as they seem at first blush. The favorableness
of the situation can be modified by changing the leader's position power, changing the task-structure, or changing
the leader-member relations. For example, structuring the task a group is to accomplish improves the favorableness
of the situation. Similarly, position power can be regulated by giving a leader sole authority or requiring frequent
consultation with superiors. In the same vein, the superior can communicate only with the leader of the group to
increase the leader's status and prestige or directly with group members, thus weakening the leader's position power.
Groups can also be developed that are relatively homogeneous and congenial or heterogeneous and hostile; thus,
changing the composition of a group can substantially alter its leader-member relations. Some individuals are able to
handle troublemakers while others are not. Moreover, some leaders can be assigned stressful and challenging tasks,
 12

and others routine assignments. Again, some people perform well under stress but not in routine jobs, while others
perform well in situations that call for crisis reactions.59

The supervisor who knows Fiedler's contingency model and who can diagnose situations and leadership styles has a
guide for success in his or her own leadership activities as well as those of colleagues and subordinates. Individuals
can be taught to diagnose the conditions under which they will be effective and those under which they are likely to
be unsuccessful. The supervisor who is able to avoid situations in which he or she is bound to fail is likely to be a
success. Furthermore, the ability to recognize the situational factors that lead to good performance will also enable
the supervisor to modify his or her own job or the assignments of others to provide a leadership situation compatible
with the personality and motivational pattern of the leader. Common experience tells us this is done all the time. The
saying "I'll show them who is boss" is typically an attempt to establish one's position power and contrasts with the
feeling that the leader has to be one of the group. Likewise, getting to know one's group is one way of promoting
closer leader-member relations, while not wanting to get too close to subordinates is a way of preventing close
leader member relations. Finally, the leader who meticulously prepares the task assignments in effect structures the
task, while the task is left unstructured when the group is asked to define the task and contribute ideas on how to
tackle it. Supervisors can use the model to modify their own or their subordinates' jobs to achieve organizational
effectiveness. 60

Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Theory

Another theoretical framework that is useful for analyzing leadership and supervisory behavior is situational theory.
Unlike the contingency theories of Fiedler and House, however, situational theory has been designed primarily as a
vehicle for management training rather than as a guide for research. Consequently, there is little systematic,
empirical research that tests the theory. Nevertheless, the model provides some valuable insights into leader-
follower behavior; it helps leaders diagnose the situation and develop strategies to adapt their leader behavior to
meet the demands of the situation. Edgar Schein capture's the intent of the theory when he observes that leaders
must have the personal flexibility and range of skills necessary to vary their own behavior according to the needs
and drives of subordinates. If teachers' needs and motives are different, they must be treated differently. 62

Situational theory is an attempt to provide a leader with some understanding of the relationships between effective
styles of leadership and the level of maturity of followers. Simply stated, the basic assumption of the theory is that
leader effectiveness depends on the appropriate machine of leader behavior with the maturity of the group or
individual. Although Hersey and Blanchard recognize the importance of many situational variables (e.g., position
power, task, time, and so forth), they emphasize maturity of the group or followers as the critical situational variable
that moderates the relationship between leader behavior and effectiveness. Two other important characteristics of the
theory are noteworthy. First, it applies to both individuals and groups. Second, the theory addresses both hierarchical
relationships and relationships among colleagues; therefore, it should have application whether one is attempting to
influence the behavior of a subordinate, a superior, or a colleague.

Leader Behavior. Situational theory is concerned with the behavior, not the personality, of the leader. In fact, the
term "leadership style," unlike Fiedler's definition, refers to one of four patterns of leader behavior; it does not refer
to the motivational needs of the individual.

Drawing from the Ohio State leadership studies and William Reddin's Tri-Dimensional Leadership Effectiveness
Model 63, two dimensions of leadership behavior-task behavior and relationship behavior-are cross-partitioned to
define four leadership styles. Leaders are classified as having a style high in task and low in relationship behaviors
(Q1), high in task and high in relationship behaviors (Q2), high in relationship and low in task behaviors (Q3) and
low in both relationship and task behaviors (Q4). The typology of styles is depicted in Figure 6.2. Each of these
styles can
be effective depending on the situation.

Situation. Situational theory uses only one variable to analyze the nature of the situation-maturity. Maturity is the
capacity to set high but attainable goals, the willingness and ability to take responsibility, and the experience of an
individual or group. 64 However, maturity is a relative concept. An individual or a group is not mature or immature
in any general sense. Rather, maturity is defined only in relation to a specific task. The question is not is the
 13

individual or group mature or immature? But rather on this specific job or task, what is the level of maturity of the
group or individual?

Individuals who have a high level of task-relevant maturity not only have the ability, knowledge, experience, and
motivation to do the job but also feelings of self-confidence and self-respect, On the other hand, individuals who
have a low level of task-relevant maturity lack the ability, motivation and knowledge to do the job as well as
psychological maturity.65 As shown in Figure 6.3, the situation can be conceived along a maturity-immaturity
continuum, which in turn can be used to identify four types of situations (A, M3, M2, MI) based on the level of
maturity.

High Style of leader

High relationship High task
And And
Relationship Low task High relationship
behavior Low relationship High task
And And
Low task Low relationship
Low High
Task behavior

Figure 6.2 Hersey and Blanchard's Leadership Styles

Adapted from Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior. Utilizing Human Resources, 3d ed. (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 103. Copyright @ 1977 Prentice-Hall, Inc. Used by permission of the publisher .

In addition to determining the level of maturity of individuals in a group, a leader may also have to determine the
maturity level of the group as a whole, especially if the group works together in the same area. Hersey and
Blanchard illustrate this situation with a classroom example, explaining that "a teacher may find that a class as a
group may be at one level of maturity in a particular area, but a student within that group may be at a different level.
When the teacher is one-to-one with that student, he or she may have to behave quite differently than when working
with the class as a group,66 So too with other groups. The maturity of both individuals and the work group
determines the appropriate supervisory or leader behavior.

Effectiveness. There is no concise definition of effectiveness in situational theory. Success in getting others to do a
job in a prescribed way does not guarantee effectiveness. According to Hersey and Blanchard, effectiveness is a
complex concept that involves not only objective performance but also human costs and psychological conditions.
Thus, the term is defined broadly; it includes the evaluation of how well the group achieves its task in addition to the
psychological state of individuals and the group. In brief, effectiveness is a function of productivity and
performance, the condition of the human resources, and the extent to which both long- and short-term goals are
attained 67.

MATURE IMMATURE

Sets realistic goals Sets unrealistics goals

or set no goals
Assume responsibility Avoid responsibility
Has ability and Lacks ability and
technical knowledge technical knowledge
Has self-respect and Lacks self-respect
self confidence and self-confidence

HIGH MODERATE LOW

M4 M3 M2 M1
 14

Figure 6.3 Maturity-Immaturity Continuum

Matching Style and Situation. According to situational theory, effectiveness is promoted by matching leader
behavior with the appropriate situation. The match of behavior depends on the level of maturity in the situation. The
guiding principle of matching is succinctly stated by Hersey and Blanchard as follows:

As the level of maturity of their followers continues to increase in terms of accomplishing a specific task,
leaders should begin to reduce their task behavior and increase relationship behavior until the individual or
group reaches a moderate level of maturity. As the individual or group begins to move into an above-
average level of maturity, it becomes appropriate for leaders to decrease not only task behavior but also
relationship behavior. 68

Hersey and Blanchard argue that when the group or individual reaches a high maturity level, little task and
relationship behavior is necessary from the leader; leadership emerges from the group. The delegation of leader
functions to a mature group is viewed as a positive demonstration of trust and confidence.

The theory is a dynamic one. Leadership behavior changes with the maturity of the group. The leader's goal is to
provide the necessary leader behavior while simultaneously helping the group to mature and assume more of the
leadership itself. This cycle is illustrated by the bell-shaped curve passing through the four leadership quadrants, as
shown in Figure 6.4.

The theory, as depicted graphically in Figure 6.4, is a matching of the four leadership patterns (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4)
with the four situations of maturity (Ml, M2, M3, M4). The appropriate leadership style for each level of follower
maturity is portrayed by the curvilinear relationship in each quadrant. The maturity level of followers is expressed
below the leadership style along a continuum from immature to mature. The bell-shaped curve means that as the
maturity level of one's followers increases along the continuum from immature to mature, the appropriate style of
leadership moves according to the curvilinear relationship.69 Hence, four general guiding propositions can be
deduced from the model.

Figure 6.4 Effective Leader-Situation Match

Adapted from Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior. Utilizing Human Resources, 3d ed. (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 194. Copyright 1977, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Used by permission of the publisher .

1. When the group is very immature (MI), a task-oriented (Q1) leadership style is most effective.
 15

2. When the group is moderately immature (M, a dynamic leadership style (Q2, high task and high
relationship behavior) is most effective.
3. When the group is moderately mature (M3), a relationship-oriented leadership style M) is most effective.
4. When the group is very mature (A), a passive leadership style (Q4) is most effective.

The model also denotes that within each leadership quadrant there should be more or less emphasis on task or
relationship behavior depending on the level of maturity. Finally, the model suggests that the maturity level of
groups or individuals can be improved over time, and task-oriented behavior decreases as the maturity of the group
improves.

Some Implications. The supervisor who can accurately diagnose the maturity of followers has another situational
model to guide his or her leadership behavior. Knowing when to be task-oriented and relationship-oriented is a
beginning of the improvement of performance. But knowing what to do and doing it are two different things. Some
individuals, for example, have a difficult time being task-oriented in their behavior--even when they know it is
appropriate. Others have difficulty being relationship-oriented; the task is too important. Finally, some leaders
cannot be passive in their leadership initiatives in a group; they need to lead even if the group (M4) can lead itself.
Thus, if a leader is to use the model effectively, he or she needs the flexibility in disposition and behavior to be able
to change styles. Individuals who have had limited experience using a wide range of styles will probably need a lot
of time, practice, and perhaps training before they develop enough behavioral flexibility to change styles
comfortably as the situation demands it.

The, model also suggests that simply matching the style with the situation to improve performance is not enough.
The leader has another role: to improve the maturity of the group as it engages in a specific task. Ultimately, the
leader's goal is to provide the group or individual with the ability, knowledge, skills, responsibility, motivation, and
confidence to perform the task without the leader's help. In a sense, the leader's direction and, eventually, social
support will subside as the group or individual grows and develops. Thus, developmental activities are as important
as leadership behavior.

The supervisor is often in the middle between the principal and teachers. If the principal is starkly task-oriented,
then the supervisor may have problems with the developmental growth of faculty. Here the supervisor has an
education problem with the principal. First, the supervisor must be able to explain the theory and convince the
principal that over the long run the more flexible strategy of the model will be more effective. Then the principal and
supervisor must join forces as a team to facilitate the growth and development of the faculty. Cooperation and
specialization of roles might emerge, for example, with the principal being the task-oriented leader and the
supervisor the relationship-oriented leader. Hence, in areas where the faculty is not mature, the principal might
provide the early task direction (MI), with the supervisor joining later to provide supportive relationships (M2). In
time the principal would relinquish the task direction to the group (M3), and eventually the supervisor would
withdraw relationship leadership as the group took over the function itself (see Figure 6.3). Of course, such a
cooperative process is easier said than done; it requires understanding, security, and maturity on the part of both
leaders, but the point is that the model does supply guidelines for joint leadership activities.

Institutional Leadership

Thus far our analyses of leadership have been primarily descriptive and analytic. Leadership, however, occurs in a
cultural context. Leaders have purposes, beliefs, and commitments, and the situations in which they perform are
imbued with purposes, ideals, norms, rituals, and traditions. Leadership is an expression of culture; that is, leaders
attempt to develop and nurture the organizational value patterns and norms as a response to the needs of individuals
and groups for order, stability, and meaning. 70

There is little doubt that effective supervision requires interpersonal leadership; human interactions need to be
healthy. The leader's task in this role is to smooth the path of human interaction, facilitate communication, evoke
personal devotion, and allay anxiety.71 There is, however, a broader notion of leadership, one that focuses on
institutional values. The institutional leader "is primarily an expert in the promotion and protection of values. 72
Institutional leadership is a basic function of the principal; it is an attempt to infuse the school with values beyond
the technical requirements of teaching. It is the development of institutional integrity that goes beyond efficiency
and beyond organizational forms and procedures. The leader is responsible for developing a structure uniquely
 16

adapted to the mission and role of the enterprise. The principal as institutional leader requires an ability to interpret
the role and character of the school, to perceive and develop models for thought and behavior, and to find modes of
communication that will inculcate general perspectives-that is, infuse day-to-day behavior with long-run meaning
and purpose. The art of institutional leadership is the art of developing an organizational culture--one with strong
and enduring values.

It is our position that building a strong school culture is the central leadership function of the principal. If
collaborative supervision is to work, a consistent set of shared values must be developed and nurtured within the
school. These shared orientations build commitment and teacher loyalty as well as encourage the decentralization of
authority. Activities are loosely coupled to the formal structure but tightly coupled to the core values. Professional
autonomy and expertise are stressed and structural constraints are minimized.

Shared values should address such issues as the scope of education; attitudes toward risk; attitudes toward students,
parents, colleagues, and administrators; and attitudes toward discipline. "Schools are for students." "Both cognitive
and affective development of students are vital." "Experiment with your teaching." "Make sure you generate a
reasonable share of mistakes." "Supervisors are colleagues." "Stay close to your students." "Strive for academic
excellence." "Set high but attainable academic goals." "Teachers are professionals." Are these empty slogans or core
values? Openness, authenticity, participativeness, humanism, intimacy, and trust: hollow concepts or shared values?
Such values are hallmarks of effective organizations.' Ultimately, the principal is responsible for building culture
and providing an atmosphere in which faculty grow and develop. Without a climate of openness, trust, and
participation (see Chapter 7), the supervisor's leadership initiatives to improve instruction will be severely limited if
not counterproductive.

SUMMARY

Leadership remains an elusive but important factor in the organizational life of schools. Because of its complex
nature, perspectives and definitions of leadership vary widely. Early studies concentrated on traits of individuals,
attempting to identify the physical, personality, and general ability characteristics that separated leaders from
followers. The lack of success in finding the key traits of loaders, however, prompted a shift in the focus of study
away from traits to behavior of leaders.

What are the behaviors that distinguish effective and ineffective leaders? This question is complicated by the fact
that there is not complete consensus on what constitutes leader effectiveness. Group output, group morale, and
individual
satisfaction have all been proposed and used as criteria of effectiveness. Nevertheless, the behavioral approach to
the study of leadership, using a variety of techniques, has produced the remarkably consistent finding that there are
two general and basic dimensions of leadership---concern for tasks and concern for individual relationships. But in
spite of the success in identifying these basic patterns of behavior, the relationships between leadership behavior and
effectiveness have been much less conclusively established.

Although it is now clear that traits, situations, and behavior are all important in determining leadership effectiveness,
the nagging question of what kinds of leaders for what kinds of situations remains. Contemporary research and
theory have turned to a contingency approach in an attempt to answer this difficult question. Two different
contingency theories and their implications for administration and supervision in schools were described and
discussed - Fiedler's contingency model and Hersey and Blanchard's situational theory. Each of these perspectives
calls attention to different but important aspects of leading.

Fiedler argues that leadership style is determined by the motivational needs of the leader and that the effectiveness
of the group in accomplishing its task is a function of the relationship between leadership style and favorableness of
the situation. Thus, effective group performance is contingent upon the leader's motivations and the leader's ability
to exert influence in the group. Hersey and Blanchard's situational theory postulates that leader effectiveness
depends on the appropriate matching of leader behavior with the maturity of the group or individual.
 17

Each of the approaches presented in this chapter identifies important elements that aid in understanding leadership
effectiveness in schools. Each of the models points to factors that facilitate or constrain attempts by the principal and
supervisor to improve the teaching-learning process. Alone none of the perspectives is sufficient, but together they
provide a solid basis for understanding and predicting behavior. The crucial elements of leadership are summarized
in Table 6.5

Table 6.5 Key Elements of Leadership

NOTES

1. Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, Chapter 5.

2. John B. Miner, Studies in Management Education (Atlanta: Organizational Measurement Systems Press, 1965);
and Salancik et al., "Leadership as an Outcome of Social Structure and Process: A Multidimensional Analysis," in
James G. Hunt (ed.), Leadership Frontiers (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1975).
3. Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2d ed. (New York: Wiley, 1978).
4. Warren G. Bennis, "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority," Administrative
Science Quarterly 4 (1959), 259-260.
5. John K. Hemphill, "Administration as Problem Solving," in Andrew W. Halpin (ed.), Administrative Theory in
Education (New York: Macmillan, 1967), p. 98.
6. For example, see Thomas J. Sergiovanni and John W. Corbally (eds.), Leadership and Organizational Culture
(Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984), especially pp. 105-114, and Lee G. Bolman and Terrence
E. Deal, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984),
pp.
148-166.
7. Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement (Columbus:
Research Monograph No. 88, Ohio State University, 1957).
8. Gary A. Yuld, Leadership in Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1981) p. 15.1
9. Ibid.
10. Fred E. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), p. 15.
11. Yuld, op. cit., p. 15.
12. Jacob W. Getzels, James M. Lipham, and Roland F. Campbell, Educational Administration as a Social
Process: Theory, Research, and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 130.
13. Fiedler, op. cit., p. 9.
14. Robert 1. House, "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness," in James G. Hunt and Lars J. Larson (eds.),
Leadership: The Cutting Edge (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977), pp. 141-177.
15. C. Bird, Social Psychology (New York: Appleton-Century, 1947); W. 0. Jenkins, "A Review of Leadership
Studies with Particular Reference to Military Problems," Psychological Bulletin 44 (1947), 54-79; R. D. Maim, "A
Review of the Relationships between Personality and Performance," Psychological Bulletin 56 (1959), 241-270;
and Ralph M~ Stogdill, "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature," Journal of
Psychology 25 (1948), 35-71.
16. Stogdill, "Personal Factors," op. cit., p. 64.
17. Yukl, op. cit., p. 69.
18. Ralph M. Stogdill, "Traits of Leadership: A Follow up to 1970," in Bernard M. Bass (ed.), Stogdill's Handbook
of Leadership (New York: Free Press, 1981), p. 81.
19. Chester 1. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 60. 144
Organizational Context
20. Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics Research and Theory (Evanston, Ill.: Row Peterson,
1953), p. 549.
21. Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York: Free Press, 1961), p. 91.
22. Alan F. Brown, "Reactions to Leadership," Educational Administration Quarterly 3 (1967), 62-73.
23. Robert F. Bales, "In Conference," in Amitai Etzioni (ed.), Readings on Modern Organizations (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969), pp. 147-154.
24. Jacob W. Getzels and Egon G. Guba, "Social Behavior and the Administrative Process," School Review 65
(1957), 423-441.
25. Daniel Katz, N. Maccoby, and Nancy C. Morse, Productivity,- Supervision and Morale in an Office Situation
(Detroit: Darel, 1950).
 18

26. Andrew W. Halpin, The Leader Behavior of School Superintendents (Columbus: College of Education, Ohio
State University, 1956).
27. Brown, op. cit.
28. Stogdill and Coons, op. cit.
129. Brown, op. cit.
30. See Wayne K. Hoy and Cecil Miskel, Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice (New
York, Random House, 1982), pp. 224-226.
31. Hemphill and Coons, op. cit.
32. Andrew W. Halpin and B. J. Winer, The Leadership Behavior of the Airplane Commander (Washington, D.C.:
Human Resources Research Laboratories, Department of the Air Force, 1952).
33. Halpin, The Leader Behavior of School Superintendents, op. cit., pp. 97-98.
34. B. T. Keeler and John H. M. Andrews, "Leader Behavior of Principals, Staff Morale, and Productivity," Alberta
Journal of Educational Research 9 (1963), 179-191.
35. Brown, op. cit., p. 71.
36. Andrew W. Halpin, "The Superintendent's Effectiveness as a Leader," Administrator's Notebook 6 (1958), 3.
37. Daniel Kunz and Wayne K. Hoy, "Leader Behavior of Principals and the Professional Zone of Acceptance of
Teachers," Educational Administration Quarterly 12 (1976), 49-64; and Cecil Miskel, Public School Principals'
Leader Style, Organizational Situation, and Effectiveness: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of
Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Grant No. NE-G-003-0141, October 1974).
38. William Kupersmith, "Leader Behavior of Principals and Dimensions of Teacher Trust" (Ed.D. diss., Rutgers
University, 1983).
39. Barnard, op. cit., p. 167. Actually, Barnard uses the term "zone of indifference." We prefer Herbert Simon's
label, "zone of acceptance," which captures the positive significance of the concept. See Herbert Sim on,
Administrative Behavior (New York: Free Press, 1965).
40. Kunz and Hoy, op. cit. and Bonnie Leverette, "Leader Behavior of Elementary Principals and Professional Zone
of Acceptance of Teachers" (Ed.D. diss., Rutgers University, 1984).
41. Kupersmith, op. cit.
42. Bales, op. cit., p. 151.
43.Ibid., pp. 151-152.
44. Edwin A. Fleishman, "Twenty Years of Consideration and Structure," in Edwin A. Fleishman and Jame§ G.
Hunt (eds.), Current Developments in the Study of Leadership (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press,
1973), pp. 1-37. Leadership 145
45. Fiedler's theory can be found in a number of sources. The most extensive discussion of its development and
measurement is contained in his 1967 book entitled A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. Other sources include
Fred E. Fiedler, "Validation and Extension of the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of
Empirical Findings," Psychological Bulletin 76 (1971), 128-148; and Fred E. Fiedler and Martin M. Chemers,
Leadership and Effective Management (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1974).
46. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, op. cit., p. 36.
47. Robert W. Rice, "Psychometric Properties of the Esteem for Least Preferred Co-workers (LPC) Scale,"
Academy of Management Review 3 (1978), 106-118. For a more critical analysis of the measure, see Terrence
Mitchell, "Leader Complexity and Leadership Style," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16 (1970), 166-
173.
48. Fred E. Fiedler, "The Leadership Game: Matching the Man to the Situation," Organizational Dynamics 4
(1976), 6-16.
49. Katz and Kahn, op. cit., pp. 565-566. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, op. cit., pp. 32-34. Most
of Fiedler's work dealt with interacting task groups.
51. Ibid., p. 146.
52. Fred E. Fiedler, Leadership (New York: General Learning Press, 1971), p. 15.
53. Ibid., p. 17.
54. For a review of the early studies see Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, op.cit., pp. 154-250. A
review of the later research is found in Fred E. Fiedler, "The Contingency Model and the Dynamics of the
Leadership Process," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 11 (1973), 60-112.
55. Two studies provide rigorous and complete tests of the model. The study supporting the model is reported by
Martin M. Chemers and G. J. Skrzypek, "Experimental Test of the Contingency Model of Leadership
Effectiveness,"
 19

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24 (1972), 172-177. The study that failed to support the theory is
Robert P. Vecchio, "An Empirical Examination of the Validity of Fiedler's Model of Leadership Effectiveness,"
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 19 (1977), 180-206.
56. Vincent McNamara and Frederick Enns, "Directive Leadership and Staff Acceptance of the Principal,"
Canadian Administrator 6 (1966), 5-8.
57. Leonard B. Williams and Wayne K. Hoy, "Principal-Staff Relations: Situational Mediator of Effectiveness,"
Journal of Educational Administration 9 (1973), 66-73.
58. Yvonne M. Martin, Geoffrey B. Isherwood, and Robert G. Lavery, "Leadership Effectiveness in Teacher
Probation Committees," Educational Administration Quarterly 12 (1976), 87-99.
59. Fiedler, Leadership, op. cit., pp. 19-20.
60. Most of these ideas are developed by Fiedler, ibid. His program for training leaders to match style and situation
is found in Fred E. Fiedler and Martin M. Chemers, Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match
Concept
(New, York: Wiley, 1977).
61. The most comprehensive description of the theory is presented in Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard,
Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1965), p. 65.
62. Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1965), p. 65.
63. William J. Reddin, Managerial Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970).
64. Hersey and Blanchard, op. cit., p. 161.
65. Ibid.66.
67. Ibid., pp. 111-132.
68. Ibid., p. 163.
69. Ibid., p. 185~
70. Thomas J. Sergiovanni, "Leadership in Cultural Expression," in Sergiovanni and Corbally, op. cit., p. 107. See
also Thomas J. Sergiovarmi, "Ten Principles of Quality Leadership," Educational Leadership 39 (February 1982),
330-336.
71. Philip Selznick, Leadership in Administration (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), p. 27. This section on
institutional leadership draws heavily on Selznick's sessional thinking, especially pp. 16-28 and 130-144.
72. Ibid., p; 28.

THE VROOM–JAGO–YETTON MODEL

• A situational model based on a continuum of five decision styles with differing degrees of employee
participation that enables leaders to analyze a situation and decide how much participation is called for using:
 A set of management decision styles
 A set of diagnostic questions
 A decision tree for identifying how much participation the situation calls for.

Vroom–Jago–Yetton Model’s Diagnostic Questions

• Is there a quality requirement such that one solution is likely to be more rational than another?
• Is there sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?
• Is the problem structured?
• Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates critical to effective implementation?
• If you alone make the decision, is it reasonably certain that it would be accepted by your subordinates?
• Do subordinates share the organizational goals to be obtained in solving this problem?
• Is conflict among subordinates likely over preferred solutions?

Types of Management Decision Styles

 20

Vroom and Yetton Decision Process Flow Chart

(Decision Tree)
21
22
 23

Vroom and Yetton formulated following seven questions on decision quality, commitment, problem information and
decision acceptance, with which leaders can determine level of followers involvement in decision. Answer to the
following questions must be either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ with the current scenario:

1. Is there a quality requirement? Is the nature of the solution critical? Are there technical or rational
grounds for selecting among possible solutions?
2. Do I have sufficient information to make a high quality decision?
3. Is the problem structured? Are the alternative courses of action and methods for their evaluation known?
4. Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates critical to its implementation?
5. If I were to make the decision by myself, is it reasonably certain that it would be accepted by my
subordinates?
6. Do subordinates share the organizational goals to be obtained in solving this problem?
7. Is conflict among subordinates likely in obtaining the preferred solution?

Based on the answers one can find out the styles from the graph.

The following codes represent the five decision-making processes that are described by the model:

Autocratic (A1): You use the information that you already have to make the decision, without requiring any further
input from your team.[Ketua akan sendiri selesaikan masalah berkenaan atau membuat keputusan secara
bersendirian, menggunakan maklumat yang ada padanya pada masa itu]

Autocratic (A2): You consult your team to obtain specific information that you need, and then you make the final
decision.[Ketua dapatkan maklumat yang diperlukan dari subordinat, kemudian menyelesaikan masalah itu
sendirian. Ketua mungin maklumkan atau tidak maklumkan masalah berkenaan samasa mendapatkan maklumat
darpada subordinatnya. Peranan subordinat dalam membuat keputusan hanyalah memberikan maklumat kepada
ketua dan bukan menjana atau menilai penyelesaian alternatif]

Consultative (C1): You inform your team of the situation and ask for members' opinions individually, but you don't
bring the group together for a discussion. You make the final decision.[Ketua berkongsi masalah dengan subordinat
tertentu, mendapatkan idea dan cadangan mereka TANPA mengumpulkan mereka sebagai satu kumpulan.
Kemudian ketua membuat keputusan yang MUNGKIN mengambil kira cadangan subordinat]

Consultative (C2): You get your team together for a group discussion about the issue and to seek their suggestions,
but you still make the final decision by yourself. [Ketua berkongsi maklumat dengan subordinat sebagai satu
kumpulan, secara kolektif mengumpul idea dan cadangan. Kemudian ketua membuat keputusan yang MUNGKIN
mengambil kira pengaruh subordinat]

Collaborative (G2): You work with your team to reach a group consensus. Your role is mostly facilitative, and you
help team members to reach a decision that they all agree on. [Ketua berkongsi masalah dengan subordinat sebagai
satu kumpulan. Secara bersama, ketua dan subordinat menjana dan menilai alternatif serta berusaha mencapai kata
sepakat (consensus) mengenai penyelesaiannya. Peranan ketua adalah sebagai pengerusi. Ketua tidak akan cuba
mempengaruh kumpulan untuk menerima penyelesaiannya, dan ketua sanggup menerima apa-apa penyelesaian lain
yang dipersetujui oleh majoriti ahli kumpulan