Adaptable management approaches and implementation

¶ … Adaptable Management

Supervisors & managers are often regarded as being highly adaptable and being aware of the styles and approaches to management. Is this a realistic assumption?

When confronted with this question, Fielder (1967) would likely reply no, rather the success of a decision is more contingent upon organizational or situational factors, than a supervisor or manager's ability to change his or her leadership personality. Instead, the overall group atmosphere, the structure of the task at hand, and the leader's power position are more influential. For example, a relationship-motivated leader, who does not view any of his or her subordinates in an extremely negative fashion, is likely to be most effective and adaptable in an intermediately favorable situation. The favorable status of a situation is gauged by Fielder in terms of the other relationships on a work team, how defined the task at hand may seem, and in terms of the clear control of the leader over the subordinates designated to complete the task. But a highly task orieted leader will instead excel in either a very favorable or unfavorable situation in terms of the workplace relationships, task definition, and his or her control over the other members of the team.

The idea that supervisors or managers pay attention to leadership theories is thus less important than the managers own, perhaps subconscious psychological profile and how it relates to the task at hand and the nature of the group. A more relationship-driven leader might seem to be more adaptable than a leader driven merely to complete a task. But implicit in Fielder's theory is that personalities are less likely to change than are other situational factors. Rather tasks are subject to a variety of different external factors, and if these factors change, the likelihood of success may increase or decrease depending on the leader's character.

Fielder's theory is one of the more extensively researched of leadership theories. His research involved asking many leaders to rate the members of their organization in regards to their effectiveness. Leaders with clear ideas about their negative or positive feelings about different member of their organization. More judgmental leaders were heavily task-oriented while less judgmental leaders tended to be more relationship-oriented. Suit the leader to the situation, rather than alter or educated the leader, he would suggest.

Vroom and Yetton's (1973) Normative Decision Theory likewise has a very situational emphasis, but has a less deterministic quality. Success, these authors write, depends a variety of factors, such as the amount of relevant information possessed by the leader and subordinates (can subordinates give information about the 'right' decision that will improve its quality), the personality of the subordinates (in terms of their competency and motivation) and the amount of dissent amongst the ranks as to the availability of favorable alternatives. ("Leadership Styles," 2006, Changing Minds)

For example, when the quality of the decision is important to the future of the organization and subordinates have useful information, then the leader making the decision alone, or even soliciting input and then making an autocratic decision is less effective than using a more participative or democratic style of decision-making.

Vroom and Yetton, rather than conducing field studies, took a more 'game theory' oriented approach, breaking down leadership decision-making styles according to decision importance, informational determinacy, and other relevant factors. ("Leadership Styles," 2006, Changing Minds)

Likewise, House and Mitchell's Path-Goal Theory (1974) is also quite theoretical and even more optimistic about the possibility of psychological change within the character of the leader. It suggests that there are four different leadership approaches -- telling, selling, participating and delegating -- that the leader should carefully tailor the approach to the psychology of the subordinate and the task. Telling is appropriate when simply completing the task is important, a subordinate is uncertain or incompetant, and completing the task is more important than the relationship. Selling a new approach is necessary when the subordinate has higher self-esteem, the relationship of the leader is highly important to the subordinate, and completing the task as specified is important. A less important task with a competant but unmotivated subordinate might require more supporting or mentoring, if the relationship between the two employees is important, while delegating less important but relevant tasks to competant subordinates is the last leadership approach. ("Leadership Styles," 2006, Changing Minds)