Social Psychology

by Paul Seager

  Situational effects on leadership

  Whilst the ways in which leaders behave may have a profound effect on their effectiveness, the environment in which they find themselves should not be ignored. There may be functional demands of a situation which will affect the performance of a leader, and indeed may dictate who the leader is. For example, in Sherif’s summer camp studies (see Chapter 14 for a fuller explanation of these studies), when the group of boys were in a peaceful, non-conflict situation, their notional leader tended to be a less aggressive, and a more ‘bookish’ individual. However, when there was the opportunity for competition, their role was usurped by a bigger, more athletic individual who the others felt was more equipped for the situation. Real world events have also shown exactly this, for example Winston Churchill was considered a great wartime leader but a less than adequate leader during times of peace.

  Experimental studies have also shown that the leader of a group depends on the situation in which the group finds themselves. One study gave pairs of high school students three tasks to complete: an intellectual task, a clerical task and a mechanical task. It found little evidence to suggest that the same person emerged as the leader in each situation, and notionally this would seem to contradict the idea that leaders are made (as in the ‘great person’ theory).

  Generally speaking, the most effective leader in a given context is the person who is best suited to help the group to attain its goals. Nevertheless, it is likely that there is some interplay between all of the factors covered so far (characteristics, behaviour and situation), and contingency theories of leadership address this idea.

  Contingency theories of leadership

  Probably the most famous of the contingency theories of leadership was put forward by Fred Fiedler (1965), and is referred to as the ‘least preferred co-worker (LPC)’ contingency theory. Its premise suggested that the effectiveness of a leader was contingent upon the match of leadership style with the situation in which they found themselves.

  Key idea: Contingency theories of leadership

  Such theories suggest that the effectiveness of a leader depends on the interaction of the person with the situation in which they find themselves.

  The first stage of this theory involved measuring an individual’s leadership style, and for this Fiedler relied on the dichotomy of a task-focused vs. a person-centred approach. Individuals were asked to imagine a person with whom they had the most difficulty working (their LPC), and were then given a series of 18 scales on which to rate their LPC. The scales (1–8) represented a series of personality characteristics and were labelled at the ends (e.g. unpleasant–pleasant; cold–warm; guarded–open; nasty–nice). The range of possible scores was 18–144, with a high score (>64) representing a person-centred leader and a low score (<57) representing a task-focused leader. Fiedler believed that this leadership measure represented a fixed-personality characteristic (though this is questionable given current personality theories, along with the fact the Lewin, Lippit and White were able to train individuals in three different styles of leadership, and with Bass also claiming that individuals can be taught to become transformational leaders).

  Fiedler had already identified three elements regarding the situation in which a leader might find themselves. These were:

  1 Leader-member relations (good/bad)

  2 Task structure (structured/unstructured)

  3 Leader’s position of power (strong/weak)

  The situation was labelled on each of the three elements, giving eight possible outcomes, which Fielder referred to as octants. The eight octants were classified on a scale of high situational control (octant I) through to low situational control (octant VIII). He predicted that when the situation was highly favourable (octants I, II and III) or highly unfavourable (octant VIII), the most effective leader would be a low LPC (task-oriented) leader. However, when the favourability of the situation was middling, then a high LPC (person-oriented) leader would be more effective.

  The final task for Fiedler was to correlate the leader’s group effectiveness (using some performance criteria) with the leader’s LPC score and map the findings on to a slightly-complicated looking graph (see Spotlight below). Fiedler claimed his results supported his theory, and that it was therefore possible to predict what sort of leader would be effective in a given situation. As predicted, it appeared that a task-oriented leader was the most effective in octants I, II, III and VIII; he claimed that this was because the group relations were already so good or so bad that no amount of person-oriented behaviour could make the situation any better. However, a person-oriented leader appeared more effective in octants IV, V, VI and VII when the situation was in the mid-range of acceptability (e.g. there were some positive and negative aspects of the situation). He claimed that this was because such a leader would bolster the group relations and this in turn would lead to an enhanced performance.

  Overall, there is reasonable empirical support for Fiedler’s model, though octants II and VII did not quite map as predicted. However, critics have questioned the seemingly arbitrary ordering of the three situational factors; in any other order, the model loses its shape and predictive nature (though Fiedler did mount a reasonable defence for why the situational factors should be listed in their given order). Fiedler’s measure of leadership style has also been questioned on many counts. First, his choice of the LPC scale to measure effective leadership seems odd, and it may not in fact be measuring what Fiedler claimed it was measuring. Secondly, with regards to its test-retest reliability, it was not always the case that an individual registered the same leadership score when retested at a later time, thus calling into question the stability of his leadership measure and with it the models predictive power. And finally, the eagle-eyed reader will have noticed that the scoring on the LPC (i.e. <57 or >64) seems to miss out a series of possible leadership scores – what type of leader are you if you score 60 on the LPC scale? Instead, it has been suggested that a trichotomy of leadership styles should be used (i.e. including a 57–64 category) which might add to the predictive power of the model. However, in spite of the criticism, the model may have some interesting applications given that it appears reasonably able to predict the most effective leader for a given situation.

  Spotlight: Fiedler’s contingency theory:

  LPC Fiedler’s LPC model

  Based on Fiedler (1964).

  Other contingency theories do exist, such as Hersey and Blanchard’s (1993) situational leadership theory. This theory suggests that the two different styles of leadership (person-centred and task-directed) are needed dependant on the stage of a group’s (or follower’s) development (referred to as maturity). Maturity can refer to the level of commitment to the group’s task, and also to the levels of competence of the group or followers (with mature members of the group possessing the requisite skills and knowledge to achieve the group’s goals). The theory advocates that a task-centred style of leadership is required when there is a low level of commitment to the group, or when competence levels of members are low. As these two factors increase, the leader should move from a directive style to a coaching style (high on both styles of leadership). As the group progresses beyond this level, it is possible for a leader to lessen both styles (though task-directed is lessened first), and as the group becomes ‘moderately mature’, a person-centred style is most effective for the supporting style. Finally, when the group is fully mature, a delegating style of leadership is most effective. The leader is thus required to adopt four different styles depending on the level of the group’s development.

  Whilst it can be seen that there are a variety of factors affecting a given leader’s effectiveness (e.g. individual characteristics, behaviour, situation and a combination of all three), there is still the question of how leaders come to be leaders.

  Leadership emergence theories

  In many cases, leaders are elected (e.g. politicians) or earn the rank by meeting a set of criteria (e.g. military leaders). Ho
wever, in other cases this is not so. A number of theories have tried to explain how individuals emerge from a group to take on the mantle of leader. One such theory was proposed by Hollander (e.g. 1958), who claimed that a potential leader first has to build up idiosyncrasy credit within a group before they can lead it. As seen in Chapter 10, group members are subject to norms in order to regulate their behaviour, and this also includes leaders of groups. However, leaders are also agents of change, moving their groups in different directions and perhaps even attempting to change the group norms themselves (think Tony Blair and his idea of ‘New Labour’). In order to be able to do this, Hollander claims that they first have to build up credit, and only when they have sufficient credit can they ‘cash it in’ to attempt to make changes. According to the theory, there are a number of ways that credit can be accumulated:

  • By conforming initially with the group norms, and behaving as a model group member (Tony Blair was a model Labour rank and file member).

  • By having the competence to fulfil the group objectives (Tony Blair was seen as intelligent and capable).

  • By identifying strongly with the group (Tony Blair was seen as being committed to Labour and its ideals).

  Additionally, if the individual is eventually elected as leader of the group (as Tony Blair was), as opposed to being given the position, they will gain additional credit. The more credit an individual is perceived to have, the more likely they will be accepted as the group’s leader, and the more able they are to effect change (and hence Tony Blair was able to change radically the Labour party).

  A further idea of how leaders emerge is based on social identity theory (see Chapters 2 and 14). According to this idea, membership of a group is important to the self-definition of an individual. Individuals identify themselves with groups, and eventually categorize themselves as being members of those groups as they discover that they share many traits and ideals with the other group members. As membership becomes more important, individuals will identify more strongly with the group. Over time, each individual develops a clear idea of what a model group member should be like (referred to as a prototypical member) and the group as a whole will likely reach agreement on this. Any group member evidencing characteristics approaching those of a prototypical member (it may actually be the case that the perfect group member doesn’t exist) will have a greater chance of being accepted as the leader, and is more likely to emerge as the leader.

  As well as exemplifying what the group stands for, any successful leader will also be able to show that they also represent how their group is different to other groups. A successful leader will promote the values of their group and show less acceptance and tolerance of rival groups. In fact, intergroup considerations need careful monitoring when determining the effectiveness of leaders – weak leaders seem more conciliatory than strong leaders. In fact, leaders who are in danger of losing the support of their members could do worse than to create conflict with a rival group to bolster their support (consider this idea in light of Margaret Thatcher’s decision to declare war on Argentina when it invaded the Falkland Islands, rather than opting for a diplomatic settlement).

  A final idea, which is worth considering for the way it explains why women are underrepresented as leaders and not always respected when they do assume such a role, is Eagly’s social role theory. Applied to leadership, this theory argues that individuals have stereotypes about the way that a leader is meant to behave (e.g. focused on the task at hand, strong, directive), and these behaviours, in turn, are seen as being more typically male than female. Therefore, as these expectations match more with a male gender role stereotype than a female one (which is seen as more sympathetic, gentle, and feminine), when people consider who should become a leader, they are more likely to think of a man than a woman. Consequently, when a woman does achieve a leadership role, not only are they judged by a male standard, but if they should achieve it by acting in the way expected of a male leader (e.g. task oriented), they are more likely to be criticized for betraying their expected gender role which suggests they should be more nurturing and person-centred. Under such expectations and pressure, it is unsurprising that many women are not selected as leaders, or in fact actively avoid leadership roles.

  Key idea: Social role theory

  The idea that society determines the sex differences in an individual’s behaviour, as opposed to it being a biological determinant.

  Summary

  That there are many good leaders in the world is beyond doubt, but what makes them good leaders is certainly a difficult question to tackle. As we have seen, some suggest that they are born to be leaders, or at the very least have the characteristics that make them more likely to be a leader in the first place. Other theories would claim that the way in which they act is the determinant of whether or not they are an effective leader. And yet others declare that the situation in which they find themselves is the crucial factor in determining their leadership effectiveness. On balance, it is likely to be a combination of some, or all, of these factors that will eventually determine whether or not they are judged a good leader.

  However, given the highly applied nature of the topic of leadership, it is certainly worth stopping to think for a moment as to how the current political leaders of your country (or indeed any other leader that you can think of) fit in with the theories and ideas described in this chapter. It should be borne in mind that these theories and ideas need not only be accurate, but should also apply to many different types of leader (from Kennedy and Hitler through to your local scout or guide leader).

  Food for thought

  If you are a leader of a group, try to determine your style of leadership – is it as simple and straightforward as the typologies outlined in this chapter. If not, try to understand why not. If you’re not a leader (or even if you are), look at the leader of any group to which you belong, and attempt to evaluate their style of leadership based on the theoretical perspectives in this chapter. Will the information in this chapter help you to become a more effective leader?

  Dig deeper

  Ayman, R. & Korabik, K. (2010). ‘Leadership. Why gender and culture matter’. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157–170.

  Bass, B. M. (1997). ‘Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?’ American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.

  Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. (1990) ‘Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis’. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.

  Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D. & Platow, M. J. (2011) The New Psychology of Leadership. Identity, Influence and Power. Psychology Press.

  Fact-check

  1 An admiral in the Royal Navy wields which one of the following types of power?

  a Referent power

  b Expert power

  c Legitimate power

  d Coercive power

  2 A senior manager of a company possesses secret insider knowledge regarding the finances of his company, which in turn will affect its share price when it floats on the stock exchange in ten days’ time. He offers to share the information with one of his employees in return for the completion of an unpleasant task. The manager is wielding what kind of power here?

  a Expert power

  b Informational power

  c Reward power

  d Coercive power

  3 Which of the following EI traits has been found to be linked with effective leadership?

  a The ability to understand the relationships within their group

  b The ability to anticipate potential problems before they occur

  c The ability to control their own emotions successfully

  d All of the above

  e None of the above

  4 Which of the following is not true with regards to gender and leadership?

  a There are more female leaders than male leaders

  b A male is more likely to be selected as a leader in a crisis situation than a female

>   c In lab experiments, males are likely to adopt a more relationship-oriented approach to leadership than females

  d Actually, they are all true

  e Actually, none of them are true

  5 Which of the following is not a personality trait on which most leaders have been found to have raised levels?

  a Conscientiousness

  b Psychopathy

  c Extraversion

  d Openness to experience

  6 According to the study by Lewin, Lippit and White, which type of leader was responsible for their group being the most productive whilst they remained in the room?

  a Autocratic

  b Laissez-faire

  c Democratic

  d There was no difference between the three types

  7 According to Bass, which of the following is not a key quality of a transactional leader?

  a Charisma

  b Inspiration

  c Individual consideration

  d They are all key qualities

  e None of them are key qualities

  8 What is the correct order of the three key situational elements identified by Fiedler in his contingency theory of leadership?

  a Task structure; leader’s position of power; leader-member relations

  b Leader’s position of power; leader-member relations; task structure

  c Leader-member relations; task structure; leader’s position of power

  d Leader’s position of power; task structure; leader-member relations

  9 Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory claims that the maturity of the group (or individual) dictates the style of leadership required. Which style of leadership requires high levels of both task-directed and person-centred leadership?