MONTGOMERY, JERALD JAMES G.

Master in Business Administration – 1

Organizational Behavior
Self-Test Questions Set No. 4

1. When might leaders be irrelevant?

A great man once said that the best leaders know where all of the great

companies start. With this, organizations imperatively need strong leadership and

strong management for optimal effectiveness. Organizations need relevant

leaders to challenge the status quo, create visions of the future, and inspire

organizational members to want to achieve the visions. We also need managers

to formulate detailed plans, create efficient organizational structures, and

oversee day-to-day operations. We can clearly show who is irrelevant by

emphasizing who is relevant.

To achieve this, studying organizational behavior with a strategic focus in mind is

valuable for managers and aspiring managers at all levels of the organization, as

well as for the workers who complete the basic tasks. For example, effective

senior managers spend much of their time talking with insiders and outsiders

about vision, strategy, and other major issues crucial to the direction of the

organization1, and senior management leaders make the strategic decisions for

the firm.2 Take for example, Apple’s strategic leaders like the late Steve Jobs, are

willing to take risks, and they nurture the innovation culture. But it also requires
strategic leadership to implement Apple’s innovation strategy throughout the

company with a focus on human capital development.

Further, relevant leaders who practice positive organizational behavior build

stronger ties with their associates and peers. 3 Research also suggests that more

than 25 percent of associates express distrust in their leaders 4 and then,

rebuilding trust after it has dissolved represents a significant challenge. 5

Alternatively, relevant leaders are able to rebuild trust by developing positive

psychological capital among their associates. And when positive psychological

capital exists within units and organizations, individuals tend to be more highly

motivated and persist longer in trying to achieve goals. Therefore, such units

perform at higher levels.6 These studies may also indicate that charismatic

leaders have a positive influence on organizational effectiveness because they

are able to induce positive emotions in their followers. Thus, angry and anxious

leaders, which ultimately indicates irrelevance, are likely to develop followers

who are angry and anxious, whereas leaders who are happy and passionate

about their work are likely to develop followers who experience the same

emotions.

To this statements and definitions, we can definitely distinguish what a relevant

leader from the irrelevant. Business entities need leaders who can go along with

the tides of change, have balanced compassion in their heart in considering the

needs of its followers while effectively and efficiently dealing with the issues in
 management and production. Organizations should know that providing leaders

and associates with new tools and training that stretches their capabilities is

crucial to continued success.

In addition to their technical knowledge and risk management skills, relevant

leaders must be able to adapt in situations involving the emotional and

psychological to cope and be someone who is flexible and remain useful at any

given period. Relevant leaders must be able to influence their constituency

towards the materialization of their corporate vision, mission and goals. In short,

we need leaders with visions and can ‘walk the talk’, and when they fall from that

line, they definitely go astray as being irrelevant.

2. Develop an example where you can operationalize the path-goal theory of

leadership.

I personally believe that leaders must able to create satisfied and high-

performing employees by making sure that employee effort leads to

performance, and their performance is rewarded by desired rewards. The leader

removes roadblocks along the way and creates an environment that

subordinates find motivational.

This theory could be best pragmatically operationalized through reevaluating the

whole organization’s needs. Management should know where there is a lack of

of the organization. I must be able to attain the short and long term goals as well

as the corporate vision of the organization through reexamining the existing

reward management, thus, I must be able to give praise and recognition to

people who deserve them and promotion and advancement to the ones who are

excelling and giving extra effort, which shares a great portion of the

organization’s development. To the ones who are not performing well, these

measures should be made in order for them to cope up with the pace.

Secondly, the human capital and resources must be reviewed in order to place

the right people to the right positions in the organization by considerably and

prudently looking up to the assignment and work specialization approaches. With

this, sufficient and appropriate supervision and training must be able to contribute

to better group performance.

Lastly, however, if the organizational structure is sound and very functional, I

must be relaxed and democratic in giving directives as people are now very

engaged and committed to the organization. The only focus now is on the

employee’s personal development.

Generally, the theory contends that subordinates will react favorably to leaders

who are perceived as helping them make progress toward various goals by

clarifying the paths to such rewards. Specifically, the things a leader does to help
 clarify the nature of tasks and reduce or eliminate obstacles will increase

subordinates' perceptions that working hard will lead to good performance and

that good performance, in turn, will be recognized and rewarded. Under such

conditions, motivation will be enhanced, which may help enhance performance.

3. “There is no best type of leadership”. Agree or disagree. Discuss.

We should have known by now that leadership is a complex process. It involves

intricate social relationships and is affected by a wide range of variables.

Generally, leadership is influenced by two main factors—the characteristics of

the individuals involved, and the nature of the situations they face. This basic

point lies at the heart of several approaches to leadership known as contingency

theories of leader effectiveness. According to this approach, I must agree that

there is no best style of leadership. Instead, a certain leadership styles may

prove most effective under certain conditions.

To this, the best way to having the best type of leadership style is to enhance the

effectiveness, hence, to fit the right kind of leaders to the situations they face.

Fiedler’s classic contingency theory, which suggests that leadership styles must

fit or match the situation in order to be effective, is the best known. Another form

of situational-contingency theory incorporates in itself the expectancy concepts of

motivations and applied them to leadership and situations: the path-goal theory
of leadership, as an attempt to synthesize motivational and leadership

processes.

In his observations, Fiedler has also found that leaders may act differently in

different situations. Relationship-oriented (high-LPC) leaders often display task-

oriented behaviors under highly favorable conditions and display relationship-

oriented behaviors in situations that are unfavorable or intermediate in

favorableness. Conversely, task-oriented (low-LPC) leaders often display task-

oriented behaviors in situations that are unfavorable or intermediate in

favorableness but display relationship-oriented behaviors in favorable situations. 7

These findings help to explain why various leadership styles are effective in

different situations, as discussed above.

On the other hand, Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey’s Situational Leadership

Theory (SLT) argues that leaders must use different leadership styles depending

on their followers’ development level.8 According to this model, employee

readiness or the combination of their competence and commitment levels is the

key factor determining the proper leadership style. This approach has been

highly popular with 14 million managers across 42 countries undergoing SLT

training and 70% of Fortune 500 companies employing its use. 9

It is also worth noting that in one meta-analysis of 39 studies found that the

transformational behaviors of charisma or the idealized influence, individualized

effectiveness in most studies, but, except for the contingent reward behaviors,

the transactional leadership styles did not enhance leadership effectiveness, 10

and this more positive impact of transformational over transactional leadership

has held through the years. In another example, a recent meta-analysis of 87

studies found transformational leadership related to the composite of desired

outcomes e.g. follower job satisfaction, follower leader satisfaction, follower

motivation, leader job performance, group or organizational performance and

rated leader effectiveness.11 However, in another meta-analytic study, contingent

reward transactional leadership also related to the same composite of outcomes,

and transformational leadership failed to significantly predict leader job

performance.

Transactional approach is based on the exchange relationship between followers

and leaders. Transactional leadership is characterized by contingent reward

behavior and active management-by-exception behavior. Meanwhile,

transformational leadership emphasizes vision, development of the individual,

empowerment of the worker, and the challenging of traditional assumptions. The

transformational leader normally has charisma, is motivational, provides

intellectual stimulation to workers, and gives individualized consideration

In a very curious study though, except for passive management by exception, the

transactional leadership styles are also found effective, and they also have
positive influences over leader performance as well as employee attitudes. 12 To

maximize their effectiveness, leaders are encouraged to demonstrate both

transformational and transactional styles. They should also monitor themselves

to avoid demonstrating passive management by exception, or leaving employees

to their own devices until problems arise.

With all these, we can see that companies’ leadership styles must be pragmatic

rather than conceptual, and conservative rather than risk taking. Many senior

executives felt that to meet their current and future challenges, the styles should

be the other way around.13

Since leadership styles have been studied the longest and are derived from both

the classic and modern leadership theories and research. Examples of classic

approaches to leadership styles include Hersey and Blanchard’s situational, or

lifecycle, model. Such approaches to style have been around for a long time and

still have implications for the practice. For example, Hersey and Blanchard’s

approach shows how well managers can match the appropriate style with the

maturity level of the group being led. However, such approaches to style lack the

research backup to make sustainable contributions to effective evidence-based

practice. The emerging research on this approach shows promise of being able

to contribute to a new evidence-based leadership style to help meet

contemporary challenges.
In summation, the discussion clearly presented that in order to successfully

facilitate a group, the leader needs to move through various leadership styles

over time. For this purpose, leaders would use directive, supportive, participative,

and achievement-oriented and both practice and research-based leadership

styles depending on what employees needed to feel motivated, eventually

serving as a coach, and later, once the group is able to assume more power and

responsibility for itself, shifting to a delegator. Although I believe that there is no

universally superior leadership style, I believe that a visionary and charismatic

leader are to be the most influential leaders around the world, followed by team-

oriented and participative leaders.

2
. Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fi t at work: A
meta-analysis of personjob, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fi t. Personnel
Psychology, 58: 281–342; Arthur, W., Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J., & Doverspike, D. 2006. The use of person-
organization fi t in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion related validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91: 786–801.

3
Altmeyer, B. 1998. The other “authoritarian personality.” In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 30). San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 47–92.
4

. Son Hing, L.S., Bobocel, D.R., Zanna, M.P., and McBride, M.V. 2007. Authoritarian dynamics and unethical
decision making: High social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarian followers. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology , 92: 67–81.

5
. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. 1999. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

6
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. 1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality
variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 741–763.

7
Fiedler, F.E. 1972. Personality, motivational systems, and behavior of high and low LPC persons. Human
Relations, 25: 391–412.

8
Hersey, P.H., Blanchard, K.H., ' Johnson, D.E. (2007).Management of Organizational Behavior: Leadership
human [Link] Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

9
[Link]

10
Kevin B. Low, K. G. Kroeck, and N. Sirasubramaniam, “Effectiveness of Correlates of Transformational and
Transactional Leadership:A Meta-Analytic Review of the MLQ Literature,” The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 7,
1996, pp. 385–425.

11
Timothy A. Judge and Ronald F. Piccolo, “Transformational and Transactional Leadership:A Meta-Analytic
Test of Their Relative Validity,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 5, 2004, pp. 755–768.

12
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of
their relative [Link] of Applied Psychology,89, 755–768.

13
Changing Perspectives,” Wall Street Journal, November 25, 1986, p. 1. Also see David [Link], Gabriel G.
Ramírez, Robert J. House, and Phanish Puranam, “Does Leadership Matter? CEO Leadership Attributes and
Profitability under Conditions of Perceived Environmental Uncertainty,” Academy of Management Journal,Vol.
44, No. 1, 2001, pp. 134–143.