Description
Please provide an answer that is 100% original and do not copy the answer to this question from any other website since I am already well aware of this. I will be sure to check this.
Please be sure that the answer comes up with way less than 18% on Studypool’s internal plagiarism checker since anything above this is not acceptable according to Studypool’s standards. I will not accept answers that are above this standard.
No AI or Chatbot! I will be sure to check this.
The assignment instructions are provided in the first attached file titled module_4_theory_application_assignment. Helpful info has been provided in the second attached file titled leadership which is from the following textbook, please be sure to read, use, and cite it. If you happen to use any sources in addition to the textbook please be sure that they are credible or scholarly sources published within the last 5 years:
Essentials of Organizational Behavior
by Stephen P. Robbins; Timothy A. Judge
Requirements: 400-500 Words Times New Roman Size 12 Font Double-Spaced APA Format Excluding the Title and Reference Pages | .doc file
Please be sure that the answer comes up with way less than 18% on Studypool’s internal plagiarism checker since anything above this is not acceptable according to Studypool’s standards. I will not accept answers that are above this standard.
No AI or Chatbot! I will be sure to check this.
Please be sure to carefully follow the instructions
No plagiarism & No Course Hero & No Chegg. The assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Please be sure to include at least one in-text citation in each paragraph(s).
Unformatted Attachment Preview
In 400-500 words:
1. Describe a “development plan” for a leadership goal of your choice. This plan should
include steps you would take to develop your ability to achieve a leadership goal of your
choosing. For example, if you want to manage time better, what specific steps would
you need to take to improve how you manage time?
2. Explain how the Fiedler model OR path-goal theory of leadership are (or are not)
aligned with your leadership development plan. In this part of the assignment, you will
want to demonstrate your understanding of the theory you choose and provide details
involving the theory in your explanation.
*Please note: This assignment will be turned in via the Turnitin tool, which will indicate
to us when you submit information from internet as your own work.
Trait Theories of Leadership
We define leadership as the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of
goals. Surely you’ve noticed, though, that not all leaders are managers, nor are all managers leaders.
Nonsanctioned leadership—the ability to influence that arises outside the formal structure of the
organization—is sometimes more important than formal influence. What makes a person a leader? Since
strong leaders have been described by their traits throughout history, leadership research has sought to
identify the personality, social, physical, or intellectual attributes that differentiate leaders from
nonleaders. As we will see in the chapter, there are a number of different approaches toward analyzing
leadership. Keep in mind that none of the concepts is mutually exclusive—in fact, research is not clear
yet about which variables in combination yield the best leadership. But we’re getting there.
Leadership : The ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals.
To begin, the trait theories of leadership focus on personal qualities, including personality traits like
those in the Big Five (see Chapter 5), and characteristics that predict two distinct outcomes: leadership
emergence and leadership effectiveness. Based on the latest research literature, we offer two
conclusions about personality traits and leadership: one, traits can predict leadership; and two, traits do
a better job in predicting the emergence of leaders and the appearance of leadership than in
distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders.1 The fact that an individual exhibits the right
traits and others consider that person a leader does not necessarily mean he or she will be effective,
successful at getting the group to achieve its goals. That said, there are some strong links between traits
and leadership we should consider.
Trait theories of leadership : Theories that consider personal qualities and characteristics that
differentiate leaders from nonleaders.
Personality Traits and Leadership
What constitutes a great leader? In general, individuals who like being around people and who are able
to assert themselves (extraverted), disciplined and able to keep commitments they make
(conscientious), and creative and flexible (open) have an apparent advantage when it comes to
leadership. Let’s break that down a bit.
Big Five Traits
In examining personality traits, researchers have consistently found extraversion to be the most
predictive trait of effective leadership.2 However, extraversion sometimes relates more to the way
leaders emerge than to their effectiveness. Sociable and dominant people are more likely to assert
themselves in group situations, which can help extraverts be identified as leaders, but effective leaders
are not domineering. One study found leaders who scored very high in assertiveness, a facet of
extraversion, were less effective than those who were moderately high.3 So although extraversion can
predict effective leadership, the relationship may be due to unique facets of the trait.
Unlike agreeableness and emotional stability, which do not seem to predict leadership,
conscientiousness and openness to experience may predict leadership, especially leader effectiveness.
For example, one study indicated that top management teams that were high in conscientiousness
positively influenced organizational performance through their leadership.4 Conscientiousness and
extraversion are positively related to leaders’ self-efficacy (see Chapter 7),5 and since people are more
likely to follow someone who is confident he or she is going in the right direction, these leaders tend to
emerge.
Dark-Side Traits
What about the Dark-Side personality traits of machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy (see
Chapter 5)? Research indicates they’re not all bad for leadership. A study in Europe and the United
States found that normative (mid-range) scores on the Dark-Side personality traits were optimal, and low
(and high) scores were associated with ineffective leadership. Furthermore, the study suggested that
high emotional stability may actually accentuate ineffective behaviors.6 However, higher scores on DarkSide traits and emotional stability can contribute to leadership emergence. Thankfully, both this study
and other international research indicate that building self-awareness and self-regulation skills may be
helpful for leaders to control the effects of their Dark-Side traits.7
Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Leadership
Another trait that may indicate effective leadership is emotional intelligence (EI). As discussed in Chapter
4, a core component of EI is empathy. Empathetic leaders can sense others’ needs, listen to what
followers say (and don’t say), and read the reactions of others. A leader who effectively displays and
manages emotions will find it easier to influence the feelings of followers by expressing genuine
sympathy and enthusiasm for good performance, and by showing irritation when employees fail to
perform.8 The link between EI and leadership effectiveness may be worth investigating in greater
detail.9 Research has also demonstrated that people high in EI are more likely to emerge as leaders, even
after taking cognitive ability and personality into account.10
The Fiedler Model
Fred Fiedler developed the first comprehensive contingency model for leadership.14 The Fiedler
contingency model proposes that group performance depends on the proper match between the
leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives the leader control. With the model, the
individual’s leadership style is assumed to be permanent. As a first step, the least preferred coworker
(LPC) questionnaire identifies whether a person is task-oriented or relationship-oriented by asking
respondents to think of all the coworkers they ever had and describe the one they least enjoyed working
with. If you describe this person in favorable terms (a high LPC score), you are relationship-oriented. If
you see your least-preferred coworker in unfavorable terms (a low LPC score), you are primarily
interested in productivity and are task-oriented.
Fiedler contingency model : The theory that effective groups depend on a proper match between a
leader’s style of interacting with subordinates and the degree to which the situation gives control and
influence to the leader.
Least preferred coworker (LPC) questionnaire
An instrument that measures whether a person is task- or relationship-oriented.
After finding a score, a fit must be found between the organizational situation and the leader’s style for
leadership effectiveness to be predicted. We can assess the situation in terms of three contingency or
situational dimensions:
1. Leader–member relations is the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members have in
their leader.
Leader–member relations: The degree of confidence, trust, and respect subordinates have in their
leader.
2. Task structure is the degree to which the job assignments are procedurized (that is, structured
or unstructured).
Task structure : The degree to which job assignments are procedurized.
3. Position power is the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing,
discipline, promotions, and salary increases.
Position power :Influence derived from one’s formal structural position in the organization; includes
power to hire, fire, discipline, promote, and give salary increases.
According to the model, the higher the task structure becomes, the more procedures are added; and the
stronger the position power, the more control the leader has. The favorable situations are on the left
side of the model in Exhibit 12-1. A very favorable situation (in which the leader has a great deal of
control) might include a payroll manager who has the respect and confidence of his or her employees
(good leader–member relations); activities that are clear and specific—such as wage computation, check
writing, and report filing (high task structure); and considerable freedom to reward and punish
employees (strong position power). An unfavorable situation, to the right in the model, might be that of
the disliked chairperson of a volunteer United Way fundraising team (low leader–member relations, low
task structure, low position power). In this job, the leader has very little control. When faced with a
category I, II, III, VII, or VIII situation, task-oriented leaders perform better. Relationship-oriented leaders,
however, perform better in moderately favorable situations—categories IV, V, and VI.
Situational Leadership Theory
Situational leadership theory (SLT) focuses on the followers. It says successful leadership depends on
selecting the right leadership style contingent on the followers’ readiness, the extent to which followers
are willing and able to accomplish a specific task. A leader should choose one of four behaviors
depending on follower readiness.
Situational leadership theory (SLT) : A contingency theory that focuses on followers’ readiness.
If followers are unable and unwilling to do a task, the leader needs to give clear and specific directions; if
they are unable but willing, the leader needs to display a high task orientation to compensate for
followers’ lack of ability, and a high relationship orientation to get them to “buy into” the leader’s
desires. If followers are able but unwilling, the leader needs to use a supportive and participative style; if
they are both able and willing, the leader doesn’t need to do much.
SLT has intuitive appeal. It acknowledges the importance of followers and builds on the logic that leaders
can compensate for followers’ limited ability and motivation. Yet research efforts to test and support the
theory have generally been disappointing.15 Why? Possible explanations include internal ambiguities
and inconsistencies in the model itself as well as problems with research methodology. So, despite its
intuitive appeal and wide popularity, any endorsement must be cautious for now.
Path–Goal Theory
Path–goal theory :A theory that states that it is the leader’s job to assist followers in attaining their
goals and to provide the necessary direction and/or support to ensure that their goals are compatible
with the overall objectives of the group or organization.
Developed by Robert House, path–goal theory extracts elements from the research on initiating
structure and consideration, and on the expectancy theory of motivation.16 Path–goal theory suggests
it’s the leader’s job to provide followers with information, support, or other resources necessary to
achieve goals (the term path–goal implies that effective leaders clarify followers’ paths to their work
goals and make the journey easier by reducing roadblocks). The theory predicts:
•
•
•
Directive leadership yields greater employee satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous or stressful
than when they are highly structured and well laid out.
Supportive leadership results in high employee performance and satisfaction when employees
are performing structured tasks.
Directive leadership is likely to be perceived as redundant among employees with high ability or
considerable experience.
Of course, this is a simplification. The match between leadership style and situation can be individualistic
and mercurial. Some tasks might be both stressful and highly structured, and employees may have high
ability or experience in some tasks and not others. Other research has found that goal-focused
leadership can lead to higher levels of emotional exhaustion for subordinates who are low in
conscientiousness and emotional stability.17 This suggests that leaders who set goals enable
conscientious followers to achieve higher performance but may cause stress for workers who are low in
conscientiousness.
Like SLT, path–goal theory has intuitive appeal, especially from a goal attainment perspective. Also like
SLT, the theory can be only cautiously adopted for application, but it is a useful framework in examining
the important role of leadership.18
Leader-Participation Model
The final contingency theory we cover argues that the way the leader makes decisions is as important as
what he or she decides. The leader-participation model relates leadership behavior to subordinate
participation in decision making.19 Like path–goal theory, it says leader behavior must adjust to reflect
the task structure (such as routine, nonroutine, or in between), but it does not cover all leadership
behaviors and is limited to recommending what types of decisions might be best made with subordinate
participation. It lays the groundwork for the situations and leadership behaviors most likely to elicit
acceptance from subordinates.
Leader-participation model :A leadership theory that provides a set of rules to determine the form and
amount of participative decision making in different situations.
As one leadership scholar noted, “Leaders do not exist in a vacuum;” leadership is a symbiotic
relationship between leaders and followers.20 But the theories we’ve covered to this point assume
leaders use a fairly homogeneous style with everyone in their work units. Think about your experiences
in groups. Did leaders often act very differently toward different people? It’s common.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
