Aim: To examine the impact of leadership selection style on group performance and group

maintenance.

LEADERSHIP
Leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of
goals. The source of this influence may be formal, such as that provided by managerial rank
in an organization.
Organizations need strong leadership and strong management for optimal effectiveness. The
leaders today need to challenge the status quo, create visions of the future, and inspire
organizational members to want to achieve the visions. formulate detailed plans, create
efficient organizational structures, and oversee day-to-day operations.
Leadership is the behaviour of an individual when he is directing the activities of a group
toward a shared goal. (Hemphill & Coons, 1957).
The functions as performed by a leader have been conceptualized in several ways by different
theorists. According to Krech and Crutchfield (1962), a leader performs 14 functions:
1. The leader, as an executive, is a top coordinator of group activities and an overseer of the
execution of policies.
2. The leader, as a planner, decides the ways and means by which the group achieves its both
short-term and long-term ends through proper action and proper planning.
3. The leader, as a policy-maker, establishes the group goals and policies.
4. The leader as an expert is a source of information and skills.
5. The leader, as a representative is the official spokesperson for the group, the representative
of the group and the channel for both outgoing and incoming communications.
6. The leader, as a controller of internal relations determines specific aspects of the group
structure.
7. The leader, as purveyor of rewards and punishment exercises controls over the group
members by the power vested in him to give rewards and impose punishments.
8. The leader, as arbitrator and mediator, controls inter-personal conflict within the group.
9. The leader, as exemplar is a role model for members of the group, setting an example of
what is expected.
10. The leader, as a symbol of the group, enhances the group unit by providing some kind of
cognitive focus and establishing the group as a distinct entity.
11. The leader, as a substitute for individual responsibility relieves the individual member of
the group from the necessity of, and responsibility for, personal decision.
12. The leader, as an ideologist, serves as the source of beliefs, values and standards of
behaviour for individual members of the group.
13. The leader, as a father figure serves as focus for the positive emotional feelings of
individual members and the object for identification and transference.
14. The leader, as a scapegoat serves as a target for aggression and hostility of the group,
accepting blame in the case of failure.
Another conceptualization given by Cartwright and Zander (1960) defined leadership as the
performance of those acts which help the group achieve its objectives. They suggested that
leaders help to guide two central group functions: contributing to the achievement of group
goals and group maintenance, which refers to strengthening the group itself.

HOLLANDER’S ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP

Followership is the actions of someone in a subordinate role. It can also be considered as a
specific set of skills that complement leadership, a role within a hierarchical organization, a
social construct that is integral to the leadership process, or the behaviours engaged in while
interacting with leaders in an effort to meet organizational objectives.
While emphasizing on the difficulty given while attempting to define followership, Hollander
and Webb (1955) defined it as the extent to which an individual is desired by potential leaders
of a group functioning within a circumscribed institutional context. Hollander & Webb
(1955) argued that leader and follower was not an either/or proposition in which leaders and
followers were found at opposite ends of a continuum. They proposed that the qualities
associated with leadership and followership were interdependent. Hollander suggests that for
groups to function as effectively as possible, the leader needs to be attuned to the needs of the
followers, their perceptions, and expectancies. Thus, the leader must represent the interests of
the collective for the group to function as a group, and not simply as a collection of
individuals.
The Curphy-Roellig Followership Model (Curphy & Roellig, 2011) builds on some of the
earlier research of Hollander and other researchers and consists of two independent
dimensions and four followership types. The two dimensions of the Curphy-Roellig model
are Critical Thinking and Engagement. Critical thinking is concerned with a follower's ability
to challenge the status quo, ask good questions, detect problems, and develop solutions.
Engagement is concerned with the level of effort people put forth at work. Based on these
two dimensions followers are then categorized into four groups: Slackers (low critical
thinking and low engagement), Brown-nosers (low critical thinking and high engagement),
Criticizers (high critical thinking and low engagement) and Self-starters (high critical
thinking and high engagement). The authors stress a situational nature of the model.

THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP
The various theories of leadership can be broadly categorized in the following manner:
Trait Theories
Trait theories of leadership focus on personal qualities and characteristics. The theory
identifies the specific personality traits that distinguish leaders from non-leaders. It is based
on the premise that leaders are “born, not made” – that there are natural leadership tendencies
rather than them being developed through learning.
Among the core traits identified are:

● Achievement drive: High level of effort, high levels of ambition, energy and initiative
● Leadership motivation: an intense desire to lead others to reach shared goals
● Honesty and integrity: trustworthy, reliable, and open
● Self-confidence: Belief in one’s self, ideas, and ability
● Cognitive ability: Capable of exercising good judgment, strong analytical abilities,
and conceptually skilled
● Knowledge of business: Knowledge of industry and other technical matters
● Emotional Maturity: well adjusted, does not suffer from severe psychological
disorders.
● Others: charisma, creativity and flexibility

Big Five Factor Theory of Leadership

Since the 1960s, researchers have examined whether there is a relationship between the basic
agreed-on factors that make up personality and leadership. The Big Five personality factors
are conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion, which some
researchers have labelled the CANOE personality model as an easy aid to remembering each
factor.

Conscientiousness is defined as an individual’s tendency to be organized, thorough,

controlled, decisive, and dependable. Of the Big Five factors, it is the personality factor that
has been related to leadership second most strongly (after extraversion) as evident through
the researches conducted ..

Agreeableness or an individual’s tendency to be trusting, nurturing, conforming, and

accepting, has been only weakly associated with leadership.

Neuroticism or the tendency to be anxious, hostile, depressed, vulnerable, and insecure, has
been moderately and negatively related to leadership, suggesting that most leaders tend to be
low in neuroticism.

Openness, sometimes referred to as openness to experience, refers to an individual’s tendency

to be curious, creative, insightful, and informed. Openness has been moderately related to
leadership, suggesting that leaders tend to be somewhat higher in openness than nonleaders.

Extraversion is the personality factor that has been most strongly associated with leadership.
Defined as the tendency to be sociable, assertive, and have positive energy, extraversion has
been described as the most important personality trait of effective leaders. Although research
on the Big Five personality factors has found some relationships between these overall
personality factors and leadership, focusing on more specific traits has led to more consistent
findings between effective leadership and the following five traits: intelligence, self-
confidence, determination, sociability, and integrity.

Stogdill Theory of Leadership

In 1948 Ralph Stogdill published a review of one hundred twenty-four studies and surveys
that had appeared in print between 1904 and 1947. Researchers in these studies identified
characteristics such as initiative, social dominance, and persistence as general qualities of
effectual leaders His review of leadership qualities included age, physique, appearance,
intelligence, knowledge, responsibility, integrity, emotional control, social skills and self-
confidence, but unfortunately no common list of specific leadership traits surfaced. From this
search of the literature, Stogdill concluded that a person does not become a leader by virtue
of the possession of some combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of
the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of
the followers (Stogdill, 1948). Stogdill's later work builds on his conclusions from the
literature research and suggests that traits considered singly hold little diagnostic or
predictive significance. In combination, however, they can generate personality dynamics, or
patterns, rather than specific traits that are advantageous to the person in a leadership role
(Stogdill, 1985).

Behaviour Theories of Leadership

Behavioural Theory of leadership considers the observable actions and reactions of leaders
and followers in a given situation. Behavioural theories focus on how leaders behave and
assume that leaders can be made, rather than born, and successful leadership is based on
definable, learnable behaviour.
The Iowa Leadership studies
A series of pioneering leadership studies were conducted in the late 1930s by Ronald Lippitt
and Ralph K. White under the general direction of Kurt Lewin at the University of Iowa. In
the initial studies, hobby clubs for ten-year-old boys were formed. Each club was submitted
to all three different styles of leadership—authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. The
authoritarian leader was very directive and allowed no participation. This leader tended to
give individual attention when praising and criticizing, but tried to be friendly or impersonal
rather than openly hostile. The democratic leader encouraged group discussion and decision
making. This leader tried to be objective in giving praise or criticism and to be one of the
group in spirit. The laissez-faire leader gave complete freedom to the group; this leader
essentially provided no leadership . Unfortunately, the effects that styles of leadership had on
productivity were not directly examined. The experiments were designed primarily to
examine patterns of aggressive behaviour. However, an important by-product was the insight
that was gained into the productive behaviour of a group. The democratic style can be further
classified in two ways: consultative and participative. For example, the researchers found that
the boys subjected to the autocratic leaders reacted in one of two ways: either aggressively or
apathetically.
Both the aggressive and apathetic behaviours were deemed to be reactions to the frustration
caused by the autocratic leader. The researchers also pointed out that the apathetic groups
exhibited outbursts of aggression when the autocratic leader left the room or when a
transition was made to a freer leadership atmosphere.
The laissez-faire leadership climate actually produced the greatest number of aggressive acts
from the group. The democratically led group fell between the one extremely aggressive
group and the four apathetic groups under the autocratic leaders. While the amount of work
done was equal in the groups with autocratic and democratic leaders; work quality and group
satisfaction was higher in the democratic groups. Thus, democratic leadership appeared to
result in both good quantity and quality of work, as well as satisfied workers.
Ohio state leadership studies
An interdisciplinary team of researchers from psychology, sociology, and economics
developed and used the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) to analyze
leadership in numerous types of groups and situations. Studies were made of Air Force
commanders and members of bomber crews; officer non -commissioned personnel, and
civilian administrators in the Navy Department; manufacturing supervisors; executives of
regional cooperatives; college administrators; teachers, principals, and school
superintendents; and leaders of various student and civilian groups. The two dimensions of
leadership that emerged from the questionnaire data were consideration and initiating
structure. These two factors were found in a wide variety of studies encompassing many
kinds of leadership positions and contexts. Thus, the Ohio State factors are task or goal
orientation (initiating structure) and recognition of individual needs and relationships
(consideration).
University of Michigan Leadership Studies
The study was conducted at the Prudential Insurance Company, where 12 high-low
productivity pairs of groups were selected for examination. Each pair represented a high-
producing section and a low-producing section, with other variables such as type of work,
conditions, and methods being the same in each pair. Nondirective interviews were conducted
with the section supervisors and clerical workers. Results showed that supervisors of high-
producing sections were significantly more likely to be general rather than close in their
supervisory styles and be employee-centered. The low-producing-section supervisors were
found to be close, production centered supervisors.

Managerial Grid Model

The managerial grid model (1964) is a style leadership model developed by Robert R.
Blake and Jane Mouton. This model originally identified five different leadership styles
based on the concern for people and the concern for production. The optimal leadership style
in this model is based on Theory Y. The grid theory has continued to evolve and develop.
The theory was updated with two additional leadership styles and with a new
element, resilience. In 1999, the grid managerial seminar began using a new text, The Power
to Change. The model is represented as a grid with concern for production as the x-
axis and concern for people as the y-axis. Each axis ranges from 1 (Low) to 9 (High). The
resulting leadership styles are as follows:
● The indifferent (previously called impoverished) style (1,1): evade and elude. In this
style, managers have low concern for both people and production. Managers use this
style to preserve job and job seniority, protecting themselves by avoiding getting into
trouble. The main concern for the manager is not to be held responsible for any mistakes,
which results in less innovation decisions.

● The accommodating (previously, country club) style (1,9): yield and comply. This style
has a high concern for people and a low concern for production. Managers using this
style pay much attention to the security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this
will increase performance. The resulting atmosphere is usually friendly, but not
necessarily very productive.

● The dictatorial (previously, produce or perish) style (9,1): control and dominate. With a

high concern for production, and a low concern for people, managers using this style find
employee needs unimportant; they provide their employees with money and expect
performance in return. Managers using this style also pressure their employees through
rules and punishments to achieve the company goals. This dictatorial style is based
on Theory X of Douglas McGregor, and is commonly applied by companies on the edge
of real or perceived failure. This style is often used in cases of crisis management.

● The status quo (previously, middle-of-the-road) style (5,5): balance and compromise.

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

● The sound (previously, team) style (9,9): contribute and commit. In this style, high

concern is paid both to people and production. As suggested by the propositions of
Theory Y, managers choosing to use this style encourage teamwork and commitment
among employees. This method relies heavily on making employees feel themselves to
be constructive parts of the company.

● The opportunistic style: exploit and manipulate. Individuals using this style which was

added to the grid theory before 1999, do not have a fixed location on the grid. They adopt
whichever behaviour offers the greatest personal benefit.

● The paternalistic style: prescribe and guide. This style was added to the grid theory
before 1999.

Contingency Theories of Leadership

Fiedler developed the contingency model of leadership effectiveness. This model contained
the relationship between leadership style and the favourableness of the situation. Situational
favourableness was described by Fiedler in terms of three empirically derived dimensions:
1. The leader-member relationship is the most critical variable in determining the situation’s
favourableness
2. The degree of task structure, which is the second most important input into the
favourableness of the situation
3. The leader’s position power obtained through formal authority, which is the third most
critical dimension of the situation
Situations are favourable to the leader if all three of these dimensions are high. If the leader is
generally accepted and respected by followers (high first dimension),if the task is very
structured and everything is spelled out (high second dimension), and if a great deal of
authority and power are formally attributed to the leader’s position (high third dimension),
the situation is favourable. If the opposite exists (if the three dimensions are low), the
situation will be very unfavourable for the leader. Fiedler concluded through his research that
the favourableness of the situation in combination with the leadership style determines
effectiveness. Fiedler was able to discover that under very favourable and very unfavourable
situations, the task-directed, or hard-nosed and authoritarian, type of leader was most
effective. However, when the situation was only moderately favourable or unfavourable (the
intermediate range of favourableness), the human-oriented or democratic type of leader was
most effective.

Path-Goal Leadership Theory

The other widely recognized theoretical development from a contingency approach is the
path-goal theory derived from the expectancy framework of motivation theory.
The path-goal theory attempts to explain the impact that leader behaviour has on associate
motivation, satisfaction, and performance. The House version of the theory incorporates four
major types, or styles, of leadership. House and Mitchell (1974) defined four types of leader
behaviors or styles: Directive, Supportive, Participative, and Achievement, based on the two
factors given below:
1. Directive leadership. This style is similar to that of the Lippitt and White authoritarian
leader. Associates know exactly what is expected of them, and the leader gives specific
directions. There is no participation by subordinates.
2. Supportive leadership. The leader is friendly and approachable and shows a genuine
concern for associates.
3. Participative leadership. The leader asks for and uses suggestions from associates but still
makes the decisions.
4. Achievement-oriented leadership. The leader sets challenging goals for associates and
shows confidence that they will attain these goals and perform well.
This path-goal theory suggests that these various styles can be and actually are used by the
same leader in different situations. Two of the situational factors that have been identified are
the personal characteristics of associates and the environmental pressures and demandsfacing
associates.

Contemporary Theories of Leadership

Charismatic Leadership Roles
On the basis of the analysis of political and religious leaders, House suggests that charismatic
leaders are characterized by self-confidence and confidence in their associates, high
expectations for associates, ideological vision, and the use of personal example. Followers of
charismatic leaders identify with the leader and the mission of the leader, exhibit extreme
loyalty to and confidence in the leader, emulate the leader’s values and behaviour, and derive
self-esteem from their relationship with the leader. Bass has extended the profile of
charismatic leaders to include superior debating and persuasive skills as well as technical
expertise and the fostering of attitudinal, behavioural, and emotional changes in their
followers.
Transformational versus Transactional Leaders
MacGregor Burns identified two types of political leadership: transactional and
transformational. The more traditional transactional leadership involves an exchange
relationship between leaders and followers, but transformational leadership is based more on
leaders’ shifting the values, beliefs, and needs of their followers. On the basis of his research
findings, Bass concludes that in many instances (such as relying on passive management by
exception), transactional leadership is a prescription for mediocrity and that transformational
leadership leads to superior performance in organizations facing demands for renewal and
change. He suggests that fostering transformational leadership through policies of
recruitment, selection, promotion, training, and development will pay off in the health, well-
being, and effective performance of today’s organizations.
Most of the research on transformational leadership to date has relied on Bass and Avolio’s
MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire)100 or qualitative research that simply describes
leaders through interviews. Examples of the latter were the interviews with top executives of
major companies conducted by Tichy and Devanna. They found that effective
transformational leaders share the following characteristics:
1. They identify themselves as change agents.
2. They are courageous.
3. They believe in people.
4. They are value driven.
5. They are lifelong learners.
6. They have the ability to deal with complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty.
7. They are visionaries.
Substitutes for Leadership Theory
The 'substitutes for leadership' theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) proposes that, under some
circumstances, situational factors may substitute for leadership. In addition, there are
situational factors that may 'neutralise' leadership, i.e., prevent the leader from taking action.
Leader substitutes may be situational or organisational factors (such as job design, or a
cohesive work group) or follower characteristics (such as ability, training and previous
experience). Well-designed jobs that provide clarity, meaning and intrinsic motivation should
require little guidance and inspiration from a leader. These substitutes or neutralizers can be
found in subordinate, task, and organization characteristics. The substitutes theory tries to
point out that some things are beyond leaders’ control, leaders do not have mystical powers
over people.
A strength of this theory is its emphasis on understanding the context within which leadership
occurs rather than discounting the value of the leadership. For instance, those employees who
don’t particularly care about organizational rewards will neutralize both
supportive/relationship and instrumental/task leadership attempts. Tasks that are highly
structured and automatically provide feedback substitute for instrumental/ task leadership,
and those that are intrinsically do not need supportive/relationship leadership.
Implicit Leadership Theory
Implicit leadership theory (ILT) is a cognitive theory of leadership developed by Robert Lord
and colleagues. It is based on the idea that individuals create cognitive representations of the
world, and use these preconceived notions to interpret their surroundings and control
their behaviors. ILT suggests that group members have implicit expectations and assumptions
about the personal characteristics, traits, and qualities that are inherent in a leader. These
assumptions, termed implicit leadership theories or leader prototypes, guide an
individual's perceptions and responses to leaders. The term implicit is used because they are
not outwardly stated and the term theory is used because it involves the generalization of past
experiences to new experiences. ILTs allow individuals to identify leaders and aid them in
responding appropriately to leaders in order to avoid conflict.

Leadership in the Indian Context

J.B.P. Sinha has done considerable work in leadership in the Indian context. According to
him, the internal work culture of an Indian organization is characterized by employee
preference for a personalized and dependent relationship with the leader. In this type of work
context, J.B.P Sinha (1980) argued that a Nurturant Task leader is most effective in achieving
task objectives. Such a leader is task-oriented who requires that the task must be completed,
the subordinates understand and accept the goals and the normative structure of the
organization. Furthermore, his style of communication is well-structured so as to be explicit
and task-relevant. He also initiates, guides and directs his subordinates to maintain a high
level of productivity. However, his task orientation is also nurturant. He cares for his
subordinates, shows affections, takes personal interest in their wellbeing, and is committed to
their growth.
Furthermore, Udai Pareek developed the Leadership Profile Indicator-Managers Scale (LPI-
M). LPI was formerly called Survey of Strategies of Problem Management (SSPM). It was
first developed for health managers. However, later, it was adopted for all other managers.
The instrument is based on the theory of situational leadership by Hersey and Blanchard
(1982). The instrument consists of 12 situations, each posing a problem for action. Four
alternatives are given for each situation, and respondents were asked to select one of them
that they would use if they were leader in that situation. The reliability of the scale is .963.