Leadership and worker motivation would appear to be quite different topics, and yet, when examined more closely they are very much intertwined. For example, the style of leadership may be the source or cause of a particular level of motivation. It is widely accepted that individuals in leadership roles play a vital role in the success of the efforts of their subordinates. Several different styles of leadership will be described, along with different theories related to leadership.
Historically, there has existed at least some notion that leaders are born. This is perhaps the root of the existence of royalty or the ascendance of leaders through blood lines. There is another line of thought that leaders exhibit particular traits or characteristics. It is assumed that these traits or characteristics can be acquired through learning or training. Of course, since some studies have shown that intelligence is associated with many individuals in leadership or managerial roles, it may be that to some extent the innate ability to learn leadership traits may be associated with genetics. The desire for power and the need for responsibility are more common traits that would appear to be learned. Other theories has suggested that leaders exhibit certain behavior. Behavior may be of various types, but the most common are democratic (give alternates to subordinates and let them make the choice), laissez-faire (give no directions to subordinates), and autocratic (set policy for the subordinates). The democratic style is the most palatable to most individuals and generally results in the best overall production and work contentment.
Rensis Likert defined four basic styles of leadership. The first
was exploitative-authoritative in which leaders imposed their decisions
on their subordinates. Their subordinates would be given very little
responsibility in the work place. Motivation is largely achieved
by threats with little true communication or teamwork existing among workers.
The second style was benevolent-authoritative which is different from the
exploitative style in that leadership controls are more condescending.
The leader continues to feel responsible for the work but tries to motivate
workers through positive incentives rather than by threats. The consultative
style is one in which greater faith is placed in the abilities of subordinates.
Value is placed on positive incentives, but motivation can also be achieved
by getting workers involved. Greater teamwork and communication exists
with this style of leadership. The participative leader is one who
places a great deal of confidence in the abilities of workers. Such
a leader feels that the goals of management and workers can be the same,
and that task achievement is the greatest reward for workers. Communication
and teamwork are integral with the work for such leaders. Of these
styles, Likert felt (based on research) that the participative style resulted
in the greatest production.
THEORY X AND THEORY Y
Perhaps the most famous theory that linked leadership style to the motivation of workers was developed by Douglas McGregor (Source: Human Resources Management in New Zealand, by Richard Rudman, Longman Paul Ltd., Auckland, 1991.). He concluded that the style of leadership must be responsive to the factors that motivate subordinates to perform work. He simplified this by stating that one of two sets of assumptions basically apply to workers. The first set of assumptions are associated with Theory X. The Theory X assumptions state that workers are basically lazy and do not like to work. Thus, in order to achieve work with such workers, the leader must coerce or threaten the workers with punishment. The underlying theme is that the objectives of workers are not the same as the employer and that some form of force must be used to get the workers to pursue the employer's objectives. Furthermore, most workers actually prefer to be directed and tend to avoid responsibility. The assumptions associated with Theory Y are quite different. They state that the expenditure of effort to perform work is as natural as play or rest. This states that workers actually enjoy work and that workers want leaders or managers who facilitate work accomplishment. In addition, the objectives of workers are often synonymous with those of management. Workers will exercise self-direction and self-control in the pursuit of objectives to which they are committed. When conditions are appropriate, workers will not only accept but will actually seek responsibility. Finally, the assumption is that individuals have a tremendous reserve of untapped creativity and intellectual potential.
It is perhaps obvious that the assumptions of Theory X and Theory Y are at polar extremes. Despite the harsh assumptions associated with Theory X, most organizations observed by McGregor managed their subordinates as if these assumptions applied to the workers. It must be stated emphatically that the assumptions of Theory X are not inherently bad or that those of Theory Y are inherently good. McGregor stated that one must test the assumptions and lead according to the assumptions that most apply. It should also be stressed that when Theory X assumptions apply, the leader does not automatically become established as a supervisor with tight control over the workers. Clearly, the assumptions must be tested before an effective style of leadership is formulated.
LEADERSHIP IS SITUATIONAL
The style of leadership appears to be situational in nature, or the
leadership style may of necessity change when circumstances in the work
place are changed. Various researchers have looked at this issue.
In their analysis of work situations, they generally relate leadership
styles to two components: production-centered and employee-centered. Different
terms have been used for these components, but they essentially define
leaders who are concerned with differing degrees of emphasis on either
production or on the workers. For example, the term initiating structure
is used to define a leader who is focused on getting a work product completed.
When a leader is strong on initiating structure, the primary task is seen
as giving directions and clear instructions. The term consideration
is associated with a leader when there is a concern or empathy for the
individual or egoistic needs of the workers. Such a leader will be
seen as being psychologically supportive of the workers. Such leaders
exhibit warmth and are supportive, i.e., they respect the emotional needs
of workers. Leaders may exhibit varying combinations of these styles
of leadership. In very simple terms they can be illustrated as follows:
high consideration
low structure high consideration
high structure
low structure
low consideration
high structure
low consideration
low > > > > > >>>>> > > > Initiating Structure >
> > > > > >>>>>>> > high
Another version of presenting these leadership styles was developed by Blake and Mouton. This method is commonly known as the Managerial Grid. The ordinate is called Concern for People which is similar to the consideration style of leadership. The x-axis is called Concern for Production and is similar to initiation structure. The Managerial Grid is more detailed in that each style can be categorized into one of nine positions. Thus a total of 81 potential combinations of these traits can exist. Although the grid is generally divided into 81 squares, 5 positions are generally the subject of most discussions. These are shown as follows:
Country Club Manager
(1,9) Permissive Team Manager (9,9)
Participative
Compromise Manager (5,5)
Impoverished Manager
(1,1) Laissez-Faire Task Manager (9,1)
Autocratic
low > > > > > > > > Concern for Production
> > > > > > > high
The objective of using the grid is to help develop managers. In the long term, under the ideal circumstances, the ideal manager would be a 9,9 manager. However, managers in truth are located at various positions on the grid. These varying positions are assumed as a consequence of the perception of the role that managers are to play and the degree of agreement that one sees with concurrently having concern for workers and concern for production.
The 1,1 manager sees virtually nothing but conflict between the goals of the organization and the goals of the workers. In seeking neutral ground, this manager simply communicates directives, rules, and procedures from top management. Workers are assigned their tasks with little intervention on the part of the manager. This manager sets no goals. Directives simply pass through the manager from top management to the workers. There is little that can be done in the form of directing or controlling output (simply voice the decisions from the top). Such a manager will be available to answer questions. This manager takes no risks and makes no major decisions.
The 5,5 manager sees the organization's goal as being to maximize profits and also of providing satisfaction and security to the workers. Since this manager sees these as conflicting goals, compromises must be made on both. This manager will then try to get an acceptable output from the workers, without expecting optimum results. People and production get about equal emphasis. This manager seeks middle-ground conditions when conflicts develop. General goals are set forth for the workers and these are regarded as mere targets for the workers. This manager tries to lead and motivate rather than direct or command. The "carrot and stick" approach is used for production, combining incentives with some prodding. With superiors, only ideas that are expected to be well-received are presented.
For the 9,1 manager the goals of the organization are seen as not being compatible with those of the workers. The assumption is that most people do not like to work. This manager sees the primary task being to get the work done. This means that the workers may not like the manager, because the manager may have to be a bit "heavy-handed" at times and insist on meeting quotas. The manager sets the goals and operating procedures as the workers are not considered to be very helpful in this area. A great deal of direction and control is required of the manager. Surprise visits to observe work performance are needed on occasion. A harsh reprimand in response to poor work habits may be essential or workers may begin to question the manager's authority. Workers are accountable for their performance. Meetings with workers are avoided as this manager would rather deal with subordinates on a one-on-one basis. Problems of morale are seen as the outgrowth of too little to do. Management cannot be soft. Managers prefer little intervention from their superiors. Superiors are to be kept informed about general activities of a work group, but they should not be concerned about routine details.
The 1,9 manager also has a problem of reconciling production requirements with the needs of people. However, this manager places a high regard on the attitudes and feelings of people and sees this as the primary way of getting work done. In conflict situations, this manager will try to smooth things over and keep the people together. The manager's role is seen as arranging the work environment so that people find satisfaction in the things they do. Thus, any plans, directives, or attempts at controls must be handled in a way that worker acceptance is met. Goals are not imposed from above. It is best when workers can be led to generate their own goals that are in close accord with the goals of the company. Work is seen as being accomplished through leading and persuasion, not by pushing or coercing. This manager helps and gives support to workers when they fail at a task. Problems are avoided when the workers like the manager. Self control is better than external control. It is important to try to keep the spirits of the workers up. This is accomplished by frequent meetings. Outside social activities (parties and picnics) are seen as helping boost morale. This manager shows a personal interest in the workers. When a worker makes a mistake, the worker will feel bad about it so the manager should not criticize (focus is on the positive).
The 9,9 manager sees no inherent conflict between the goals of the organization
and the needs of people, i.e., they are in fact quite integral. To
get people to adopt the company goals, it is important to get them involved
in determining the conditions and strategies of the work. A 9,9 manager
does not see a need to make decisions but rather to see that they are made.
This does not mean that all matters of control are deferred to the workers,
only to the extent that this is best for the organizational objectives.
Not all work tasks are discussed with workers, particularly if clear criteria
already exist. When criteria are not evident, this is where subordinate
input pays dividends. The role of the manager is seen as that of
advisor, coach, consultant, and helper. When mistakes occur,
it is important to learn from them. When appropriate, recognition
is given to individuals or to groups that have earned it.
HOUSE'S PATH-GOAL THEORY
Puzzled by the contradictory findings in the leadership area, House developed a model that is based on motivation. House's model of leadership effectiveness does not indicate the "one best way" to lead but rather suggests that a leader must select a style that is most appropriate to the particular situation.
The basic idea of the model is that one of the functions of a leader is to enhance the psychological status of subordinates that result in motivation to perform a task or in satisfaction with the job. The leader's function consists of increasing the personal satisfactions of subordinates for work-goal attainment, and making the path to these satisfactions easier to obtain. This is accomplished by clarifying the nature of the task, by reducing the road blocks to successful task completion, and by increasing the opportunities for the subordinates to obtain personal satisfactions. The model states that, to the extent the leader accomplishes these functions, the motivation of the subordinates will increase. A subordinate is satisfied with his or her job to the extent that performance will lead to things that are valued by the individual. The function of the leader is to help the subordinate reach these highly valued job-related goals. The specific style of leader behavior is determined by two situational variables -characteristics of the subordinates and the task structure.
Characteristics of Subordinates: With respect to subordinate characteristics, the theory states that leader behavior will be viewed acceptable to subordinates to the extent that the subordinates see such behavior as either an immediate source of satisfaction, or as needed for future satisfaction. For example, if subordinates have a high need for esteem and affiliation, supportive leader behavior may serve as an immediate source of need satisfaction. On the other hand, subordinates with high needs for autonomy, responsibility, and self-actualization are more likely to be motivated by leaders who are directive rather than by leaders who demonstrate more supportive behavior (those leaders who are low on the directive dimension).
Supportive leadership is demonstrated by a friendly and approachable leader who shows concern for the status, well-being, and needs of subordinates. This leadership style is similar to the employee-centered or the considerate styles discussed earlier. Such a leader does little things to make the work more pleasant, treats members as equals, and is friendly and approachable. Similarly, where subordinates perceive themselves to have the ability to perform the task, a leader who demonstrates constant coaching and directiveness is likely to be perceived unfavorably. Directive leadership is characterized by a leader who lets subordinates know what is expected of them, gives specific guidance as to what should be done and how it should be done, makes the manager's role clear to the subordinates, schedules work to be done, maintains definite standards of performance, and asks group members to follow the standard rules and regulations.
Task Structure: The second major variable is the structure of the task. Where path-goal relationships are apparent because of the routine nature of the task, attempts by the leader to further clarify path-goal relationships will be perceived by subordinates as unnecessary and as exhibiting excessively close control. While such close control may increase performance by preventing "slacking at the job," it will also result in decreased job satisfaction. For example, an axle assembler in an auto plant who secures front and rear assemblies to chassis springs is performing a highly structured and repetitious task. Under these conditions, many workers cannot derive any intrinsic satisfaction (e.g., esteem, self-actualization) from the performance of the task. If a leader is directive, this leadership style is likely to be perceived by the workers as redundant and excessive, and directed at keeping them working on unsatisfying tasks. Within this task structure, a leader who is supportive is likely to have more satisfied employees than one who is directive. A supportive leadership style is likely to increase the worker's extrinsic satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with the company and colleagues at work) on a job that provides little intrinsic satisfaction. On the other hand, when the tasks are highly unstructured (more complex and varied), a more directive leadership style is appropriate to the extent that it helps subordinates cope with task uncertainty, and clarifies the paths leading to highly valued goals. For example, a manager of an industrial relations team who gives subordinates guidance and direction on how to process a grievance for arbitration is attempting to clarify the direction of the subordinates for the attainment of an organization goal. This style of leadership is not perceived as excessive and/or redundant since it helps the subordinates reach their goals, a source of intrinsic job satisfaction.
The following figure illustrates the effect of task structure on leader behavior and the job satisfaction of subordinates. On the vertical axis is a continuum of job satisfaction, ranging from low to high. On the horizontal axis is a leader's directive behavior, ranging from high to low. Task structure moderates the relationship between leader behavior and subordinate job satisfaction. When the task is highly structured, the leader who does not give direction and an excessive amount of instruction is likely to have highly satisfied subordinates. On the other hand, when the task is unstructured, a directive leadership style is likely to increase the satisfaction of subordinates. There are several other variables (performance, satisfaction with supervisor, promotion) that could replace job satisfaction in the figure and the relationships would not change.
high
Unstructured
Tasks
job satisfaction
Structured
Tasks
low
high > > Leader Directiveness > > low
In summary, according to the path-goal theory, workers performing highly
structured tasks have higher job satisfaction when their immediate supervisor
uses a supportive (as opposed to directive) leadership style. However,
this leadership style does not guarantee high job satisfaction. Where
tasks are non-routine and provide a challenge to the workers, greater job
satisfaction is realized when a more directive style of leadership is used.
The accomplishment of task completion must be intrinsically satisfying
for this to occur.