Example: The leader allows the team members to decide when and how often to meet.
Leadership Pattern 2: "The leader defines limits, and asks the group to make the decisions."
Example: The leader says that the team members must meet at least once a week, but the team can decide which day is best.
Leadership Pattern 3: "The leader presents problems, gets the group's suggests, then the leader makes the decision."
Example: The leader asks the team to suggest good days to meet, then the leader decides what day the team will meet.
Leadership Pattern 4: "The leader presents tentative decision to the group. The decision is subject to change by the group."
Example: The leader asks the group if Wednesdays would be a good day to meet. The team suggest other days that might be better.
Leadership Pattern 5: "The leader presents ideas and invites questions."
Example: The leader tells the team that he or she is considering making Wednesday the day for team meetings. The leader then asks the group if they have any questions.
Leadership Pattern 6: "The leader makes the decision then convinces the group that the decision is right."
Examples: The leader tells the team members that they will be meeting on Wednesdays. The leader then convinces the team members that Wednesdays are the best days to meet.
Leadership Pattern 7: "The leader makes the decision and announces it to the group."
Example: The leader decides that the team will meet on Wednesdays whether they like it or not, and tells that news to the team.
This Autocratic to Democratic continuum model builds upon the early work of Lewin et al (1938), both autocratic and democratic styles are apparent, but laissez-faire is absent.
The advantages of this model are that the manager is given a range of choices for involvement and focuses the decision maker on relevant criteria (For example: Forces & Time). Criteria for involvement and delegation are also presented, and the development and empowerment of employees is emphasised. Overall, this encourages research to see how effective delegation will be when the model is used. The limitations, however, are that this particular model assumes the manager has sufficient information to determine disposition to self or team and assumes a neutral environment without social bonds or politics. Also, this only involves the initial step of assigning a task to someone, not the following processes that may determine the effectiveness of the outcome. This makes it difficult for other theorists who follow the same patterns when developing different theories.
Bruce Tuckman's 1965 Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing team development model, remains a good explanation of team development and behaviour. As the team develops maturity and ability, relationships establish, and the leader changes leadership style. Beginning with a directing style, moving through coaching, then participating, and finishing delegating and almost detached. At this point the team may produce a successor leader and the previous leader can move on to develop a new team. This progression of team behaviour and leadership style can be seen clearly in the Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum - the authority and freedom extended by the leader to the team increases while the control of the leader reduces. In Tuckman's Forming Storming Norming Performing model, Hersey's Situational Leadership model and in Tannenbaum and Schmidt's Continuum, we see the same effect, represented in three ways.
The progression is:
Forming - High dependence on leader for guidance and direction. Little agreement on team aims other than received from leader. Individual roles and responsibilities are unclear.
Storming - Decisions don't come easily within group. Team members vie for position as they attempt to establish themselves in relation to other team members and the leader, who might receive challenges from team members. Clarity of purpose increases but plenty of uncertainties persist.
Norming - Agreement and consensus is largely forms among team, who respond well to facilitation by leader. Roles and responsibilities are clear and accepted. Big decisions are made by group agreement. Smaller decisions may be delegated to individuals or small teams within group.
Performing - The team is more strategically aware; the team knows clearly why it is doing what it is doing. The team has a shared vision and is able to stand on its own feet with no interference or participation from the leader. There is a focus on over-achieving goals, and the team makes most of the decisions against criteria agreed with the leader.
Hersey & Blanchard (1982) created a model of task maturity. Depending on the level of the team, the leader must adjust his/her style. An experienced team would do well with a delegation style, however an inexperienced group would more likely need an instructional/directive style. This model is another with similarities to Tannenbaum and Schmidt.
Hersey and Blanchard identified four different leadership styles that could be drawn upon to deal with contrasting situations:
Telling (high task/low relationship behaviour): This style or approach is characterized by giving a great deal of direction to subordinates and by giving considerable attention to defining roles and goals. The style was recommended for dealing with new staff, or where the work was menial or repetitive, or where things had to be completed within a short time span. Subordinates are viewed as being unable and unwilling to ‘do a good job’.
Selling (high task/high relationship behaviour): Here, while the leader gives most of the direction, there is an attempt at encouraging people to ‘buy into’ the task. Sometimes characterized as a ‘coaching’ approach, it is to be used when people are willing and motivated but lacks the required ‘maturity’ or ‘ability’.
Participating (high relationship/low task behaviour): Here decision-making is shared between leaders and followers – the main role of the leader being to facilitate and communicate. It entails high support and low direction and is used when people are able, but are perhaps unwilling or insecure.
Delegating (low relationship/low task behaviour): The leader still identifies the problem or issue, but the responsibility for carrying out the response is given to followers. It entails having a high degree of competence and maturity (people know what to do and are motivated to do it).
The dotted line on the two models above is equal to the diagonal line on the Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s model. This model, however, allows for different time scales and the emotions of the employees/workers.
Fred E. Fiedler (1967) developed a leadership (contingency) model, which comes close to the dimensions of the Hersey and Blanchard model. In this model, leadership effectiveness is the result of interaction between the style of the leader and the characteristics of the environment in which the leader works. This theory suggests there is no one leadership style that is best in every circumstance. Fred E. Fiedler argued that effectiveness depends on two interacting factors: leadership style and the degree to which the situation gives the leader control and influence. This has great similarity to Tannenbaum and Schmidt through the control certain situations gives the managers, and the style used.
In 1932, Renis Likert invented a measurement method, called the Likert Scales, used in attitude surveys. They allowed answers that ranged from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Likert also developed the Linking-pin concept. This concerns the managers' role in the relation to the groups they supervise and the group's perception of their manager. Managers are members of at least two groups and their behaviour reflects the values, norms, and objects of both groups - a manager is a subordinate in one group and a superior in another group. This might’ve influenced Tannenbaum and Schmidt because of the role of the manager within the different groups. The managers’ roles change in each situation and the responsibility of the employees can differ also.
Websites used:
www-class.unl.edu
- author: Patrich Antoine
