Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Vroom and Yetton's Normative Model |
Decision acceptance increases commitment and effectiveness of action. Participation increases decision acceptance. A1: Leader takes known information and then decides alone. A2: Leader gets information from followers, and then decides alone. C1: Leader shares problem with followers individually, listens to ideas and then decides alone. C2: Leader shares problems with followers as a group, listens to ideas and then decides alone. G2: Leader shares problems with followers as a group and then seeks and accepts consensus agreement.
|
|
|
Decision acceptance |
is the degree to which a follower accepts a decision made by a leader. Leaders focus more on decision acceptance when decision quality is more important. Vroom and Yetton's Normative Model |
|
|
Decision quality |
is the selection of the best alternative, and is particularly important when there are many alternatives. It is also important when there are serious implications for selecting (or failing to select) the best alternative. Vroom and Yetton's Normative Model |
|
|
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership |
Developed to describe the way that leaders encourage and support their followers in achieving the goals they have been set by making the path that they should take clear and easy. In particular, leaders: * Clarify the path so subordinates know which way to go.* Remove roadblocks that are stopping them going there. * Increasing the rewards along the route. |
|
|
Supportive leadership
|
Considering the needs of the follower, showing concern for their welfare and creating a friendly working environment. This includes increasing the follower's self-esteem and making the job more interesting. This approach is best when the work is stressful, boring or hazardous. House's Path-Goal Theory of Leadership |
|
|
Directive leadership
|
Telling followers what needs to be done and giving appropriate guidance along the way. This includes giving them schedules of specific work to be done at specific times. Rewards may also be increased as needed and role ambiguity decreased (by telling them what they should be doing). This may be used when the task is unstructured and complex and the follower is inexperienced. This increases the follower's sense of security and control and hence is appropriate to the situation. House's Path-Goal Theory of Leadership |
|
|
Participative leadership
|
Consulting with followers and taking their ideas into account when making decisions and taking particular actions. This approach is best when the followers are expert and their advice is both needed and they expect to be able to give it. House's Path-Goal Theory of Leadership |
|
|
Achievement-oriented leadership
|
Setting challenging goals, both in work and in self-improvement (and often together). High standards are demonstrated and expected. The leader shows faith in the capabilities of the follower to succeed. This approach is best when the task is complex House's Path-Goal Theory of Leadership |
|
|
Contingency Theories |
The leader's ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors, including the leader's preferred style, the capabilities and behaviors of followers and also various other situational factors. |
|
|
Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Theory |
Leaders prioritize between task-focus and people-focus. Relationships, power and task structure are the three key factors that drive effective styles. scoring for leaders by asking them first to think of a person with which they worked that they would like least to work with again, and then to score the person on a range of scales between positive factors (friendly, helpful, cheerful, etc.) and negative factors (unfriendly, unhelpful, gloomy, etc.). A high LPC leader generally scores the other person as positive and a low LPC leader scores them as negative. High LPC leaders tend to have close and positive relationships and act in a supportive way, even prioritizing the relationship before the task. Low LPC leaders put the task first and will turn to relationships only when they are satisfied with how the work is going. |
|
|
* Leader-Member Relations:
|
The extent to which the leader has the support and loyalties of followers and relations with them are friendly and cooperative. LPC theory |
|
|
* Task structure:
|
The extent to which tasks are standardised, documented and controlled. LPC theory |
|
|
* Leader's Position-power:
|
The extent to which the leader has authority to assess follower performance and give reward or punishment. LPC theory |
|
|
Cognitive Resource Theory |
1. A leader's cognitive ability contributes to the performance of the team only when the leader's approach is directive. 2. Stress affects the relationship between intelligence and decision quality. 3. Experience is positively related to decision quality under high stress. 4. For simple tasks, leader intelligence and experience is irrelevant. |
|
|
Cognitive Resource Theory |
Intelligence and experience and other cognitive resources are factors in leadership success. Cognitive capabilities, although significant are not enough to predict leadership success. Stress impacts the ability to make decisions. |
|
|
Strategic Contingencies Theory |
Intraorganizational power depends on three factors: problem skills, actor centrality and uniqueness of skill. If you have the skills and expertise to resolve important problems, then you are going to be in demand. And by the law of supply and demand, that gives your the upper hand in negotiations. It also gives you power from the reciprocity created. If you work in a central part of the workflow of the organization, then what you do is very important. This gives you many opportunities to be noticed. It also means you are on the critical path, such that if your part of the company fails, the whole show stops. Again creating attention and giving you bargaining power. Finally, if you are difficult to replace, then if you do make enemies up the hierarchy, then they cannot just move you out or sideways. |
|
|
Transactional Leadership |
People are motivated by reward and punishment. Social systems work best with a clear chain of command. When people have agreed to do a job, a part of the deal is that they cede all authority to their manager. The prime purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to do. |
|
|
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory |
describes how leaders in groups maintain their position through a series of tacit exchange agreements with their members.
|
|
|
In-group and out-group
|
In particular, leaders often have a special relationship with an inner circle of trusted lieutenants, assistants and advisors, to whom they give high levels of responsibility, decision influence, and access to resources. This in-group pay for their position. They work harder, are more committed to task objectives, and share more administrative duties. They are also expected to be fully committed and loyal to their leader. The out-group, on the other hand, are given low levels of choice or influence. This also puts constraints upon the leader. They have to nurture the relationship with their inner circle whilst balancing giving them power with ensuring they do not have enough to strike out on their own. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory |
|
|
Role taking
|
The member joins the team and the leader assesses their abilities and talents. Based on this, the leader may offer them opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities. Another key factor in this stage is the discovery by both parties of how the other likes to be respected. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory |
|
|
Role making
|
In the second phase, the leader and member take part in an unstructured and informal negotiation whereby a role is created for the member and the often-tacit promise of benefit and power in return for dedication and loyalty takes place. Trust-building is very important in this stage, and any felt betrayal, especially by the leader, can result in the member being relegated to the out-group. This negotiation includes relationship factors as well as pure work-related ones, and a member who is similar to the leader in various ways is more likely to succeed. This perhaps explains why mixed gender relationships regularly are less successful than same-gender ones (it also affects the seeking of respect in the first stage). The same effect also applies to cultural and racial differences. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory |
|
|
Routinization
|
In this phase, a pattern of ongoing social exchange between the leader and the member becomes established. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory |
