You are on page 1of 2

Melvin C. Cabonegro MAED 136 (EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP) Dr. Erico G.

Alan PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EMPLOYEES According to House, the leadership style employees prefer partially determined by their personal characteristics. He cites studies suggesting that individuals who believe their behavior affects the environment favor a participatory leadership style, while those who believe events occur because of lack or fate tend to find an authoritarian style more congenial. Employees evaluates of their own ability will also influence their style preferences. Those who feel highly skilled and capable may resent an overly supervisory manager, whose directives will be seen as counterproductive rather than helpful. Employees who less skilled may prefer a more directive manager, who will seen as enabling them to carry out their task properly and earn organizational rewards.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE AND WORKPLACE DEMANDS Environmental factors also affect the leadership styles preferred by employees. Nature of the employees tasks. Ex. An overly directive style may seem redundant and even insulting for a highly structured task. If a task is unpleasant, however, a managers consideration may add to the employees satisfaction and motivation. Organizations formal authority this clarifies which actions are likely to be met with approval (coming in under budget) and which with disapproval (coming in over budget). Employees work group. Ex. Groups that are not very cohesive usually benefit from a supportive, understanding style. As a general rule, a leaders style will motivate employees to the extent that it compensate them for they see as deficiencies in the task, authority system, or work group.

DECIDING WHEN TO INVOLVE SUBORDINATES: THE VROOM-YETTON AND VROOM-JAGO MODELS Victor Vroom and Arthur Jago criticize the path-goal theory because it fails to take into the account the situation which managers decide to involve employees. - As solution, they extend the classic Vroom-Yetton model of situational leadership to include a concern for both the quality and the acceptance of decisions. - Was developed in 1973 to help managers decides when and to what extends they should involve employees in solving a particular problem. - This model isolated five styles of leadership that represents a continuum from authoritarian approaches (AI, AII), to consultative (CI, CII) to a fully participative approach (GII). TYPES OF LEADERSHIP STYLES AI Managers solve the problem or make the decision themselves, using information available at that time. AII Managers obtain the necessary information from subordinate(s), and then decide on the solution to the problem themselves. They may or may not tell subordinates what the problem is when they request information. The role played by subordinates in making the decision is clearly one providing the necessary information to managers rather than generating or evaluating alternative solutions.

CI Managers share the problem with relevant subordinates individually getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Then the managers make the decision, which may not reflect subordinates influence. CII Managers share the problem with subordinates as a group, collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions. Then they make the decision, which may or may not reflect subordinates influence. GII Managers share a problem with subordinates as a group. Managers and subordinates together generate and evaluate alternatives and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. Managers do not try to influence the group to adopt their preferred solution, and they accept and implement any solution that has the support of the entire group. Vroom and Yetton suggest several questions that managers can asks themselves to help determine which style to use for the particular problem they facing: Do I have enough information or skill to solve the problem on my own? If not AI, where I make the decision myself, would be inappropriate. Do I need to make a high-quality decision that my employees are likely to disagree with? If so, GII, where I seek the consensus of the group, would be inappropriate. In this case, giving up my authority to make the final decision would probably mean that the decision would not have the objective quality problem requires. Is the problem structured? That is, do I know what information I need and where to get it? If not, then CII and GII, which allow for the greatest group interaction, would be preferable. Is the acceptance of the group critical for the success of the decision? If so, then styles AI and AII, which involve employees the least, might not be appropriate. If acceptance of the decision is important, are my employees likely to disagree among themselves about which is the best solution? If so, then styles CII and GII which involve group decision are preferable. Depending on the nature of the problem, more than one leadership style might be suitable. Vroom and Jago extended this approach by hypothesizing that the effectiveness of a decision depends on the quality of the decision, the commitment made to the decision, and the time expended to make the decision. - They also believe that the overall effectiveness of leadership is a function of the effectiveness of decisions minus the cost of making the decisions plus the value realized in developing peoples abilities by means of committed decision making. - It is possible to make a series of highly effective decisions, but if these decisions do little or nothing to develop the abilities of others or if the decision-making process is cumbersome or costly then the decisions in question will lower the overall human capital of the organization.

You might also like