Normative Model Of Decision Making

MB661 Leadership and Motivation

Lesson 2: Leadership Theory

Upon completion of the Required Readings, write a thorough, well-planned narrative answer to the following discussion question.  Rely on your Required Readings and the Lecture and Research Update for specific information to answer the discussion question, but turn to your original thoughts when asked to apply, evaluate, analyze, or synthesize the information.  Your Discussion Question response should be both grammatically and mechanically correct, and formatted in the same fashion as the question itself.  If there is a Part A, your response should identify a Part A, etc.  In addition, you must appropriately cite all resources used in your responses and document in a bibliography using APA style.

Discussion Question 2 (50 points)

Provide examples for the situations in which each of the major decision styles of the Normative Decision Model would be appropriate and of how the Path-Goal Theory of leadership can be used to improve leadership effectiveness.

Grading Rubric

Please refer to the rubric on the following page for the grading criteria for this assignment.

1. The Normative Decision Model focuses on decision making, assumes that the leaders can change his or her style, and is concerned with decision quality as the criterion for effectiveness. Leaders’ decision styles range from autocratic, to consultative, to group decision making.
   
   
   
   
   
   1. Autocratic styles are most effective when the leader has high expertise, little time, and the group is supportive and likely to agree with the leader’s decision. Furthermore, if followers cannot agree on a solution or course of action, the leader can use an autocratic style of decision making. The leader should make decisions alone when there is no time, he or she has all the information that is needed, the leader has support from the group, or followers cannot agree among themselves on a course of action. In other situations, the leader should rely on participation to varying degrees. The model has a narrow focus on decision making, but has been well supported and has broad application to real-life leadership decision making. The focus is on teaching the leader to understand the leadership situation.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   2. Consultation should be used when followers’ support is essential in accomplishing the goal, there is time to consult, followers can agree on a solution, or when the leader does not have the necessary information or expertise.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   3. Group decision making should be used when there is time and followers work well together and can agree on a decision.
   
   
   
   
   







2. Path-Goal Theory focuses on the role of the leader to clear paths for subordinates to accomplish goals. The exchange between the leader and followers centers around this obstacle removal role and the exchange of guidance or support from the leader for performance and satisfaction from followers.
   
   
   
   
   
   1. The two central hypotheses of the model are: when the task is structured, the leader’s supportive behavior leads to follower satisfaction, whereas when the task is ambiguous, the leader’s structuring behavior leads to satisfaction.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   2. Lack of consistent research findings is suggested to be one of the major limitations of path-goal theory. However, the model’s focus on followers’ perception of the task and the role of the leader as obstacle remover provide interesting areas of applications.
   
   
   
   
   







3. Substitutes for leadership model can be very useful in the current environment of self-managed teams and empowerment where the leader may intentionally use the model’s findings to set up organizational and team substitutes to replace the traditional leadership functions. Substitutes for leadership can be used to improve the effectiveness of the leader and to free his/her time for other tasks. They can be very positive if followers are able to do much of their tasks without close supervision, or if the group provides sources of support and motivation. In the most positive situation, substitutes can empower followers to do their job without having to constantly rely on their leader.
   
   As discussed by Kriger & Zhovtobryukh (2013), “High internal complexity combined with a turbulent competitive environment will require a more complex form of strategic leadership that encourages not only benefiting from multiple sources of ideas but also simultaneously aligning opposite forces within the firm toward achieving common goals. Strategic leadership networks facilitate these via distribution of strategic leadership and development of the firm culture.” (p. 430)
   
   In the most negative situation, substitutes can undermine the leaders’ ability to lead and guide followers. If the group acts against accomplishment of goals, if the organization does not provide the leader with enough power or resources to influence the group, if there is so much physical distance and little contact to maintain close group cohesion, the leader will lose his/her ability to influence the group.







4. The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model focuses on the impact of existence of in-groups and out-groups on organizational performance and leadership effectiveness. The model’s lack of clarity regarding the factors that lead to the development of an out- vs. in-group relationship and the scarcity of research regarding the impact of in- and out-groups on organizations are its major limitations. In many cultures, for example, in-group membership is assumed to be based on performance. In collectivistic cultures such as Malaysia and many middle-eastern countries, in-group membership tends to be based on family and clan membership.
   
   The strength of the model is in its intuitive appeal and its potential use for making in- and out-groups effective. Particularly, the use of in-groups can be highly beneficial when membership is fluid and based on performance rather than personal factors. Examples of the danger of selecting in-group members who are highly homogeneous are presented with focus on top-level executive teams. This homogeneity can be partially blamed for the recent lack of performance of many large U.S. businesses.
   
   
   

Drawing upon the existing literature, Duncan & Herrera (2014) investigated the relationship between the Diversity dimensions of individualism, collectivism, and gender egalitarianism - and the four LMX dimensions of Contribution, Loyalty, Affect, and Professional Respect. In this study of 300 working adults, [they] found that there was a significant positive relationship between Diversity and the Multidimensional Measure of Leader-Member Exchange. Further regression analysis indicated that the Diversity dimension, Collectivism, was the driving factor of the relationship. This outcome indicated that Collectivism was a strong predictor of how positively participants rated their attitudes toward their immediate supervisor and perceptions of leadership. Furthermore, it strengthens the argument that organizations must be prepared to evaluate their policies with regard to diversity in the organization, particularly with respect to Collectivism. (abs)