Leadership Substitute Theory
Discuss the following contingency theories:
Kerr and Jermier’s Leadership Substitute Ideas (1978)
Discuss what is known about the theory from a research perspective. Do we know whether the ideas work or not? Are there any practical "strategic" recommendations for leaders based on that theory? . Identify the pros, cons, motivators, behaviors, limitations and approach
Be sure to cite your sources using APA style from the attached reference Yuki, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. New York: Prentice Hall.
Contingency Theories
Name
Institution
Contingency Theories
The Kerr and Jermier (1977) substitutes for leadership theory points out that under some special conditions, situational factors may be used as substitute for leadership. The theory also proposes that there are certain situational factors that may neutralize leadership or rather bar the leader from taking action. Such substitutes include factors such as capability, training and past work experience. This means that well-defined jobs that offer clarity do not require much supervision and inspiration from the team leader. If the group is highly cohesive, there will also be less need for supervision. The ideals proposed in this theory are workable since it only recommends this sort of leadership for specific situations and not a blanket rejection for leadership as some would propose.
According to this theory, the success of a leader is directly dependent on their ability to lead. Even if a leader without certain qualities is handed a leadership opportunity, it will be hard for such a leader to be able to succeed in leading the group. This theory, therefore recommends that the leader should do away with the neutralizers that hinder success. Without doing this, the leader will constantly fail in their duties. The most significant neutralizer for most leaders is the lack of an internal drive to succeed and inspire change as a leader (Yuki, 2013).
The pros for this theory are that it encourages people to be self-motivated. The theory also encourages individuals to attain qualities that make them to succeed such as training and work experience. The major con for this theory is that it dissuades accountabi