Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The downside of relationship-oriented leadership is that, if taken too far, the development of team chemistry may detract from the actual tasks and goals at hand. The term "people-oriented" is used synonymously, whilst in a business setting, this approach may also be referred to as "employee-oriented". [2]
Consideration is the extent to which a leader exhibits concern for the welfare of the members of the group. This factor is oriented towards interpersonal relationships, mutual trust and friendship. This leadership style is people-oriented. Some of the statements used to measure this factor in the LBDQ are: Being friendly
According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation".
A high LPC score suggests that the leader has a "human relations orientation", while a low LPC score indicates a "task orientation". Fiedler assumes that everybody's least preferred coworker in fact is on average about equally unpleasant, but people who are relationship-motivated tend to describe their least preferred coworkers in a more positive manner, e.g., more pleasant and more efficient.
They also identified three critical characteristics of effective leaders – task-oriented behavior, relationship-oriented behavior and participative leadership. [2] The studies concluded that an employee orientation rather than a production orientation, coupled with general instead of close supervision, led to better results.
Situational Leadership is the idea that effective leaders adapt their style to each situation. No one style is appropriate for all situations. Leaders may use a different style in each situation, even when working with the same team, followers or employees. Most models use two dimensions on which leaders can adapt their style:
The path–goal theory, also known as the path–goal theory of leader effectiveness or the path–goal model, is a leadership theory developed by Robert House, an Ohio State University graduate, in 1971 and revised in 1996. The theory states that a leader's behavior is contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of his or her ...
Substitutes for leadership theory is a leadership theory first developed by Steven Kerr and John M. Jermier and published in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance in December 1978. [ 1 ] The theory states that different situational factors can enhance, neutralize, or substitute for leader behaviors [ 2 ] (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).