IT Employment

General discussion


Leadership Models

By frank ·
Four Framework Approach
In the Four Framework Approach, Bolman and Deal (19**) suggest that given certain situations, chosen leadership style and/or behavior can be effective or ineffective. The Four Framework Approach suggests that leaders display leadership behavior in one of four types of framework: Structural Framework, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic. More than one approach is needed in any leadership situation. Bolman and Deal suggests striving to be aware of each approach is the best approach to good leadership. We must understand ourselves and the limitations of using just our preferred approach in given situations.

? The Structural Framework suggests a leader is a social architect. Their focus is on structure, strategy, environment, implementation, experimentation, and adaptation. Their style is analysis and design to achieve their goals. However, when the leadership situation is ineffective, they can become petty tyrants whose focus is on details.
? The Human Resource Framework suggests a leader who is a servant or catalyst. They want to support and empower their team. They communicate a belief in people by being visible, accessible and by sharing information. The decision making is moved down in the organization. The disadvantage to this framework is the leader can become a pushover, whose style is abdication and fraud.
? The Political Framework suggests building coalitions and linkages to other stakeholders. They use persuasion and when necessary negotiation and coercion. They assess the distribution of power and interests as they clarify what they want and what they can get. In an ineffective leadership situation, the Political leader can be a hustler whose style is manipulative.
? The Symbolic Framework suggests a style of inspiration and prophecy. They view the organization as place of role playing as in a theatre or on stage. They discover and communicate their vision with symbols that provide plausible interpretations of experiences. In an ineffective leadership situation, they become ?fanatics or fools? whose style is ?smoke and mirrors?.

This model could be effective at EEST. The Human Resource framework would work best for low or declining moral due to the pending lay-offs. The Structural framework would be effective because the goals of the department are well defined, the technologies are strong, and there is a stable legitimate authority. The focus would be on task and logic, not personality and emotions.

The Managerial Grid
The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid (1985) use only two dimensions to describe managerial behavior. This simplicity makes their model very attractive. The two axis of the grid are:

1. ?Concern for people? is plotted using the vertical axis
2. ?Concern for task? is plotted along the horizontal axis.

They both use a range of 0 to 9. While most people fall near the middle of the two axes, those who score on the far end of the scales can be used to describe four types of leaders:
? Authoritarian (9 on task, 1 on people)
? Team Leader (9 on task, 9 on people)
? Country Club (1 on task, 9 on people)
? Impoverished (1 on task, 1 on people)

Authoritarian Leaders (high task, low relationship) are heavily task oriented people who are hard on their workers. They expect people to what they are told with no allowance for collaboration. It is difficult for subordinates to contribute to development. They concentrate on who is the blame rather than the solution or prevention of the problem.

Team leaders (high task, high relationship) form and lead some of the most productive teams. They encourage the reaching of goals in the most effective way possible. They are positive people who lead by example and foster a team environment. Everyone is motivated to reach their highest potential, both as a team and an individual.

Country Club Leaders (low task, high relationship) fail to employ coercive and legitimate power to accomplish goals for fear of jeopardizing relationships with other team members.

Impoverished Leader (low task, low relationship) are not committed to either task accomplishment or maintenance. They detach themselves from the team process by a ?delegate and disappear? management style.

LPC Contingency Model
Fiedler?s (1964, 1967) LPC Contingency model describes how the situation moderates the relationship between leadership effectiveness and a trait measure called the least preferred coworker (LPC) score?. The LPC score is a rating given to a coworker by the leader based on how well the leader worked with the coworker. The rating is based on a set of bipolar adjective scales (e.g., friendly-unfriendly, cooperative-uncooperative, efficient-inefficient). Close, interpersonal relationships with other people indicated a high LPC leader. Achievement of task objectives and emphasis on task-oriented behavior indicated a low LPC leader. The relationship between leader LPC score and effectiveness depends on situational variables such as:
? Leader-Member Relations (Support and loyalty of subordinates)
? Position Power (The authority of the leader to evaluate performance)
? Task Structure (The standard of operating procedures to accomplish task)
The model is most effective when relations with subordinates are good, the leader has substantial position power, and the task is highly structured. The weakness of this model is the LPC score and its ?measure in search of a meaning? (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977, p.23). Its interpretation has been changed in an arbitrary fashion, and the current interpretation is speculative. LPC scores may not be stable over time and may be more complex than assumed (Yukl, 1970).

Clark, Donald (2005). Concepts of Leadership, Big Dog?s Leadership Page. Retrieved July 2, 2005, from

Leadership and Management Models (2005), College of Business at Northeastern. Retrieved July 2, 2005, from

Yukl, G (2002). Leadership in Organizations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

People into buckets

by dask In reply to Leadership Models

It almost appears like these statements put people and/or leaders into specific buckets or roles.
It has been my experience that most good leaders can move from a 1-9 to a 9-9 to a 9-1 or anywhere in between based on what the team needs to accomplish and where the team is at that time.
If a manager is taking on a team that has been run by a 9-1, then more emphasis on people is required to build a balance of task and people growth. As I see it, the manager is trying to accomplish tasks, but the people have to have confidence, skills and knowledge to meet those tasks. Go-fer delegation or supervision only gets you so far.

Collapse -

Lead people - manage things.

by lhoyos In reply to Leadership Models

A very wise man I know taught me that you lead people and you manage things. The role of the leader is to show the direction and motivate the desired actions to accomplish the results, not to manage the people as if they were a variable in the process. When you try to manage people at that micro level, they resent it and will consciously or unconsciously compromise the team's success. Theories like those outlined are fine as a guide, but they are a blueprint for failure when followed religiously.

Collapse -

Right On!

by jesc In reply to Leadership Models

I have used the Four Framework Approach since I learned about it while taking management for my BA some time ago. The class was limited to people that had managed at least 10 direct reports. The discussions we had were enlightening, as all of us tended to use only one or two approaches.

Since then I have consiously tried to cover all four bases. Many times when I have had personnel or project issues with leadership I found that by evaluating our approach in each area we could identify the area we were neglecting. Adjusting our approach based on that insight allowed us to get things back on track.

Related Discussions

Related Forums