Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Vroom–Yetton contingency model is a situational leadership theory of industrial and organizational psychology developed by Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Philip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988). The situational theory argues the best style of leadership is contingent to the situation.
Over the years, many reviewers of trait leadership theory have commented that this approach to leadership is "too simplistic", [41] and "futile". [42] Additionally, scholars have noted that trait leadership theory usually only focuses on how leader effectiveness is perceived by followers [23] rather than a leader's actual effectiveness. [8]
A leadership style is a leader's method of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. [1] Various authors have proposed identifying many different leadership styles as exhibited by leaders in the political, business or other fields.
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.
The Michigan leadership studies, along with the Ohio State University studies that took place in the 1940s, are two of the best-known behavioral leadership studies and continue to be cited to this day. These theories attempt to isolate behaviours that differentiate effective leaders from ineffective leaders.
Conflict: Conflict is a necessary part of a group's development. Conflict allows the group to evaluate ideas and it helps the group conformity and groupthink: Consensus: Conflict ends in the consensus stage, when group members compromise, select ideas, and agree on alternatives. Closure
Implicit leadership theory (ILT) is a cognitive theory of leadership developed by Robert Lord and colleagues. [1] It is based on the idea that individuals create cognitive representations of the world, and use these preconceived notions to interpret their surroundings and control their behaviors . [ 2 ]
In many cases, upward conflict spirals are sustained by the norms of reciprocity: if one group or person criticizes the other, the criticized person or group feels justified in doing the same. In conflict situations, opponents often follow the norm of rough reciprocity, i.e. they give too much (overmatching) or too little (undermatching) in return.