LMX separates these relationships into two groups: the in-group and the out-group. Researches have found that those classified as part of the leaders in-group are often more productive. They are given more trust and take on extra roles within the organization. In contrast, out-group members receive the standard job benefits and respond by performing up to the standard job description. More recent research has identified three phases that each leader-follower dyad goes through as one moves from out-group to in-group: stranger, acquaintance and partner. As the relationship moves from stranger to partner, mutual trust, respect and obligation toward each other develops.

Useful Lies

LMX is widely researched and accurately depicts leader-member relationships. It explains why leaders often develop “go-to” people and utilize their skills more than others. LMX was also the first theory to focus its study on the leader-member relationship, rather than just the leaders attributes or behavior. However, LMX is merely a descriptive theory. While it explains that mutual trust and respect develop as dyads progress, it fails to explain how or why this occurs. Likewise, it accurately explains leader-member interactions but it does not prescribe any method or model for developing in-group relationships.

LeaderLab Quarterly – Volume 1, Issue 1 (Spring 2010)

[Download/Print Entire Issue]

• Letter from the Editor
• [Download/Print Article]

• You’ve Survived, Now What? Michael Petty
• As a result of the current economic upheaval, firms face a new reality of chaos, complexity and continuous change. To lead organizations through this new economic landscape, leaders must begin to think beyond the challenges of the next quarter and begin think strategically.
• [Download/Print Article]

• A Leader is As A Leader Does Angelia Arrington
• Do you follow the leader or lead the followers? What type of relationship do you have with your followers? What type of relationship do you have with your leaders? Your leadership style is important; your motive is what really matters.
• [Download/Print Article]

• Organizational Design: foundation of a successful company Eddy Shigly
• Many factors come together to make an organization great. A few worth mentioning are leadership style, personality and charisma; a compelling vision and mission; excellent products and employees; exceptional customer service; a unifying organizational culture; the right strategy and plans; technology; and an exceptional organizational design. This article analyzes one factor – organizational design. An extraordinary organizational design can act as a solid foundation to build upon as a company strives for success.
• [Download/Print Article]

• Leading the Next Generation: five ways to turn millennials into followers David Burkus
• There is disagreement about how older generations in organizations perceive Millennials. However, there is agreement among these sources on what actions leaders can take to engage Millennial followers. From the flow of the literature review, it is clear that these recommendations represent an early conceptual model of adjusting to Millennial workers and that, as organizations continue to adjust, a more structured model will arise.
• [Download/Print Article]

• Book Review
• Ori Brafman & Rod Beckstrom ’s (2006) The Starfish and the Spider:  The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations
• [Download/Print Article]

• LeaderLab Vol. 1 Issue 1
• ISSN: 2153-2443
• CC BY-ND-NC

Please note: Views and opinions expressed in the articles published in the LeaderLab Quarterly represent each author’s research and viewpoint and do not necessarily represent LLQ or its sponsors. LLQ and its sponsors make no representations about the accuracy of the information contained in published manuscripts and disclaims any and all responsibility or liability resulting from the information contained in the LLQ. All articles submitted to LLQ are done so with the understanding that all copyrights belong to the attributed author(s), who is(are) solely responsible for the content. These articles are considered to have been licensed to LeaderLab Quarterly under the Creative Commons “Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivatives” License. A copy of this license can be found here.

According to path-goal theory, leaders help followers be selecting a style of leadership (directive, supportive, participative or achievement-oriented) that motivates followers and helps them move toward the desired reward. In essence, followers are on a path toward a goal, and leaders are there to help followers reach that goal through guidance, coaching and direction. Path-goal theory is a contingency theory, in that it predicts how leaders style will interact with follower needs and the nature of the task. It argues directive leadership for ambiguous tasks, supportive leadership for repetitive tasks, participative leadership for unclear, autonomous task and achievement-oriented leadership for challenging tasks.

Useful Lies

Path-goal theory provides leaders with a practical yet theoretical foundation for discerning which leadership style to select. It also builds on a motivational theory as its foundation. However, path-goal theory is difficult to apply to organizations because it utilizes so many, interconnected assumptions. Despite building upon a motivational theory, path-goal theory does not fully explain how leadership styles affect follower motivation, which is one of many reasons why it lacks a strong research supporting its claims.

The Heath brothers compile into a three-principle model for change. The present this model using an easy to understand elephant and rider analogy, arguing that it’s impossible to make an elephant move in the right direction unless it wants to, its rider wants to and the path is easy to follow.

The model is as follows (adapted from page 259 of their book):

• Direct the Rider
• Follow the Bright Spots. Investigate what’s working and clone it.
• Script the Critical Moves. Don’t think big picture, think in terms of specific behaviors.
• Point to the Destination. Change is easier when you know where you’re going and why it’s worth it.
• Motivate the Elephant
• Find the Feeling. Knowing something isn’t enough to cause change. Make people feel something.
• Shrink the Change. Break down the change until it no longer spooks the Elephant.
• Grow Your People. Cultivate a sense of identity and instill the growth mindset.
• Shape the Path
• Tweak the Environment. When the situation changes, the behavior changes. So change the situation.
• Build Habits. When behavior is habitual, it’s “free”—it doesn’t tax the Rider. Look for ways to encourage habits.
• Rally the Herd. Behavior is contagious. Help it spread.

At first thought, it may seem odd reviewing a popular business book on LeaderLab. Switch doesn’t appear to be a theory-based book. However, Switch is saturated with research findings and case studies. Chip and Dan Heath, both full-time professors make a compelling case that this model will be seen as equitable to Lewin, Kotter or anyone within academia.

Situational leadership defines four leadership styles: S1 (high-directive but low-supportive), S2 (high-directive and high-supportive), S3 (low-directive but high supportive) and S4 (low-directive and low-supportive). Developed by Hersey & Blanchard, the theory’s model (called Situational Leadership II or SLII) promotes a particular leadership style depending upon the development level of the follower: D1 (low-competence but high-commitment), D2 (moderate-competence but low-commitment), D3 (moderate-competence but no commitment) and D4 (high-competence and high-commitment). Effective leadership is a matter of assessing the development level of a follower and acting in the correlating leadership style to elicit the best response from followers (D1s respond to S1, D2s respond to S1, and so on).

Useful Lies

In the time since its inception, situational leadership II has become a standard model for use in training managers and leaders. The situational approach is effective and provides a prescription for leadership success rather than merely describing why certain leaders work in certain situations. In this way, situational leadership theory further eroded the notion of “one best way” of leadership. Despite a broad base of support from trainers and consultants, situational leadership theory lacks a significant body of research-based support. While situational leadership considers the followers in determining leadership style, it does so on a one-on-one basis and does not provide guidelines on how to use the model when leading group.

But there is far more to strategy than just announcing where an organization is headed. The authors of Strategy Safari use the analogy of a syringe to explain this misconception. Where leaders believe it is solely their responsibility to fill a syringe with deliberate strategy and then inject it into the followers. What causes this misconception? Another analogy. The authors liken understanding all element of strategy to blind men touching an elephant and trying to describe the whole creature. Each individual section is not the whole.

To that end, the authors seek to explore the ten common schools of strategy:

1. The Design School views strategy formation as a process of conception.
2. The Planning School views as a formal process, which follows a rigorous set of steps from analysis of the situation to the development and exploration of various alternative scenarios.
3. The Positioning School views strategy formation as an analytical process placing the business within the context of its industry.
4. The Entrepreneurial School views strategy formation as a visionary process, taking place solely within the mind of the leader.
5. The Cognitive School views strategy formation as a mental process, and analyzes how people perceive patterns and process information.
6. The Learning School views strategy formation as an emergent process of trial and error.
7. The Power School views strategy formation as a process of negotiation between power holders within the company.
8. The Cultural School views strategy formation as a collective process involving various groups and departments within the company.
9. The Environmental School views strategy formation as a reactive process, responding to the challenges imposed by the external environment.
10. The Configuration School views strategy formation as a process of transforming the organization from one type of decision-making structure into another.

The authors present the strengths and weaknesses of all ten schools, though they reveal and confess their favoritism toward the Learning School. Moreover, they assert the need to understand all ten schools. Just as the blind men feeling the elephant, no school of thought describes strategy in its entirety. Strategy Safari presents itself somewhere in between a textbook and a casual business book, enlightening yet entertaining to read. Overall, Strategy Safari is required reading for all strategic leaders.

Developed by Fielder, Contingency theory examines the leader in conjunction with the situation the leader is in. In essence, it argues that effective leadership is contingent upon a match between the leaders style and the work situation. Leadership style is assessed using a measure called the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. This scale divides leaders into task motivated (low LPC), socio-independent (middle LPC) and relationship motivated.

Three different variables provide as means for situational measurement: leader-member relations, task structure (defined or undefined tasks) and position power (how much power does the leader have). When considered together, these variables suggest a style of leadership that has the best chance of success. Generally, low LPCs are found effective in extreme combinations with high LPCs effective in moderate situations.

Useful Lies

Contingency theory is easily measurable, and as a result has a considerable amount of research supporting it. As mentioned, it represents the first theory to consider more than just attributes leaders but also the situation leaders can find themselves in.  While it is supported by substantial research, an adequate explain of why it works has yet to be discovered. Contingency theory is merely predictive. It can predict which leaders will be effective in what situations but cannot be use to make leaders in unfavorable situations more effective.

The Spiders are the standard, top down hierarchal organization. Their structure consists of a leader with several subordinates, each of whom also have subordinates. This type of structure is a very top down approach to organizing leadership. Control & decision-making are contained in one part of the spiders’ body: its head. It’s the head that is responsible for all decisions. For example, if the spider wants to move somewhere, its head notifies its legs of where they’re going and they’re off. If the spider’s head becomes injured or severed from its body, the spider will die.

Starfish, on the other hand, is an example of system where decision-making is distributed throughout the entire organization. Control and decision-making are distributed across the entire body. If the starfish wants to move somewhere, each individual leg makes the decision to move. If the leg of a starfish were to become severed, that starfish would simply grow a new leg. The severed leg will, in turn, grow into an entirely new starfish.

Spider organizations are centralized and rely on visible and controlling leaders. Starfish organizations are decentralized and do not rely on one specific leader. What happens when a spider fights a starfish? The spider will fight it like a spider. It will severe a limb of the starfish, and the starfish will grow another. The cycle will continue until a) the spider loses from fatigue or b) the starfish ceases to be a starfish (stops being leaderless).

Typically, reviews on this site tend to focus on leadership theory. However, Brafman and Beckstrom lay a foundation for a new field: leaderless theory. As society becomes more connected, leaderless organizations are becoming more coming. The Starfish and the Spider makes a compelling case that it is time for us to study them for organizations to gain the insight to adapt and become more starfish like. The starfish and the spiders are battling, and the starfish are winning convincingly.

Both the Ohio State and Michigan studies sought to identify the best combination of the leadership behaviors (although each used differing terms). Their research leads to a myriad of research attempting to define leadership behaviors that worked in every situation. However, the results of this research are inconclusive, suggesting that there is not one best style of effective leadership.

Blake and Mouton ran with this idea, developing a model for training leaders that describes leadership behaviors as plots on a grid with two axes: concern for results (task behaviors) and concern for people (relationship behavior). The model outlines five main plots on the managerial grid: authority-compliance (9,1), country club management (1,9), impoverished management (1,1), middle-of-the-road management (5,5) and team management (9,9).

Useful Lies

While style theory represents a step forward in understanding leadership, there are some strengths and weaknesses. In addition to enhancing understanding of leadership, style theory is supported by a large body of research. Style theory also works to identify two main behaviors, task and relationship, which can be learned and cultivated. However, style theorists have yet to come to consensus on an optimal style of leadership. The theory implies that a high task, high relationship style will yield the best results, but this implication has yet to be supported by research.

• Intro to Leadership Theory
• Why Theory
• A Word on Theory
• Trait Theory
• Skills Theory
• Style Theory
• Contingency Theory
• Situational Leadership Theory
• Path-Goal Theory
• Leader-Member Exchange Theory
• Transformational/Transactional Leadership Theory
• Servant Leadership Theory
• Strengths-Based Leadership Theory

Then came Our Iceberg is Melting.

Kotter uses a business fable to present a simplified explanation of the eight-stage model. The story follows a penguin colony that realizes their iceberg is shrinking and that they will need to transition to a new home. The plot takes the colony through all eight stages:

1. Create a Sense of Urgency.
2. Pull Together the Guiding Team.
3. Develop the Change Vision and Strategy.
4. Communicate for Understanding and Buy-in.
5. Empower Others to Act.
6. Produce Short-Term Wins.
7. Don’t Let Up.
8. Create a New Culture.

This playful fable clearly defines the eight stages while keeping the reader entertained. Our Iceberg is Melting is a fast read, which is surprising considering that it presents well-researched conclusions about leading change.