Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is a relationship-based approach to leadership that focuses on the two-way relationship between leaders and followers. [1]The latest version (2016) of leader–member exchange theory of leadership development explains the growth of vertical dyadic workplace influence and team performance in terms of selection and self-selection of informal ...
Fundamentally, the leader may overestimate the work quality presented by the in-group members, as a result of their existent solid connections. [citation needed] On the other hand, it is possible for the member to discover that the leader does not display similar personal traits. As a result, the subordinate may assess the relationship at a ...
The Fiedler contingency model argues that three situational components can determine whether task-oriented or relationship-oriented leadership is the better fit for the situation: Leader-Member Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and confidence between the leader and the subordinates.
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.
Shared leadership is a leadership style that broadly distributes leadership responsibility, such that people within a team and organization lead each other. It has frequently been compared to horizontal leadership, distributed leadership, and collective leadership and is most contrasted with more traditional "vertical" or "hierarchical" leadership that resides predominantly with an individual ...
These findings made it apparent that there were variables that affected the relationship between leader behavior and subordinate outcomes, making the relationship stronger or weaker. [9] In 1973, Kerr was the first to coin substitutes for leadership as elements in the work setting that lessened leader effectiveness on subordinate outcomes. [11]
The three levels referred to in the model's name are Public, Private and Personal leadership. The model is usually presented in diagram form as three concentric circles and four outwardly directed arrows, with personal leadership in the center. The first two levels – public and private leadership – are "outer" or "behavioral" levels ...