LEADERSHIP STYLE VS. LEADERSHI P TACTICS

By

James D. Boulgarides

And

William A. Cohen

Published by The Journal of Applied Management and Enrepreneurship (Spring 2001, Vol. 6, No. 1pp. 59-73).

ABSTRACT

Leadership style is a consistent pattern of behavior displayed by a leader over time. Researchers have found different leadership styles to be optimal depending on the situation. Thus, certain leaders may be chosen for their style depending on various factors peculiar to the situation which an organization faces at any given time. The authors show that such an approach is inefficient under dynamically changing situations of the organization’s life cycle. Instead they recommend that leaders be chosen for their ability to manage an array of tactics, and that individual leaders become proficient in applying tactics rather than maintaining or attempting to optimize any given style of leadership or decision making.

 

The term “leadership style” has been defined as “the relatively consistent pattern of behavior that characterizes a leader” (DuBrin, 1995).  A leader’s style is reflected in his style of decision making A decision style model encompassing four basic styles as follows was envisioned by Rowe and Boulgarides (1998):

1.             Directive – Low tolerance for ambiguity and low cognitive complexity. The 

focus is on technical decisions, and this style is generally autocratic. The decision-maker may adopt this style due to a high need for power. Because of the use of little information and few alternatives, speed and satisfactory solutions are typical. The decision-makers tend to be focused and are frequently aggressive. Generally they prefer structure and specific information, which is given verbally. Their orientation is internal to the organization and short range. They tend to operate with tight controls. Although they are efficient, these decision-makers have a high need for security and status. They have the drive required to achieve results, but they also want to dominate others.

2.            Analytic

This decision-maker has a much greater tolerance for ambiguity than the directive style man­ager and also has a more cognitively complex personality that leads to the desire for more information and the consideration of many alternatives. Because of the focus on tech­nical decisions and the need for control, there is an autocratic bent. The analytic style is typified by the ability to cope with new situations, but in a structured manner. As a result, this style enjoys problem solving and strives for the maximum that can be achieved in a given situation. Position and ego are important characteristics possessed by the leader. Consequently these leaders often reach top posts in an organization, or start their own companies. They are not particularly quick in their decision-making and they enjoy variety and prefer written reports. They also enjoy challenges and examine every detail in a situation.

3.              Conceptual

Having both high cognitive complexity and a people orientation, this style tends to use data from multiple sources and considers many alternatives. Similar to the behavioral style, there is trust and openness in relationships and shared goals with subordinates. These individuals tend to be idealists who may emphasize ethics and values in their behavior. They generally are creative and can readily understand complex relationships. Their focus is long range with high organizational commitment. They are achievement-oriented and value praise, recognition, and independence. They prefer loose control over power and will frequently encourage participation of those they lead. They may be characterized as thinkers rather than doers.

4.             Behavioral

Although low on the cognitive complexity scale, this leader has a deep concern for the organization and development of people. Behavioral style managers tend to be supportive and are concerned with subordinates' well being. They provide counseling, are receptive to suggestions, communicate easily, show warmth, are empathetic, are persuasive, and are willing to compromise and accept a looser control. With low data input, this style tends toward short-range focus and uses meetings primarily for communicating. These managers avoid conflict, seek acceptance, and tend to be more people-oriented, but sometimes are insecure.

Patterns Of Behavior

Based on these descriptions, a matrix describing patterns of behaviors dependent on style can be developed and is shown in Table I.

 

STYLE	THINKING	PRIMARY MOTIVATION	DECISION PROCESS	ACTIONS UNDER STRESS
Directive	Focused	Power and Status	Follows Rules	Loses Self- Control
Analytic	Logical	Challenge	Analysis and Insight	Follows Established Rules and Procedures
Conceptual	Creative	Recognition	Intuition and Judgment	Becomes Erratic
Behavioral	Emotional	Acceptance	Feeling and Instinct	Attempts to Avoid Situation

TABLE I

Patterns of Behaviors Dependent on Leader Style

The Impact of the Situation

Early management theorists attempted to discover a one best leadership style for all situations. However, later researchers found that both the internal and external environments have a significant impact on leader effectiveness. For example, with a limited range of external opportunity leaders are constrained by competition, legislation, technology, changing markets and limited resources when making strategic decisions. Fiedler (1967), who conducted extensive research on the situational aspects of leadership effectiveness, identified factors that determine what style of leader performed best. He examined correlations between test scores of leaders and their performance related to situational factors. The relations-motivated leader performs best where the leader position is not strong. Task-motivated leaders perform best when the leader-member relations are good and the leader power position is strong. The latter category represents poor member relations and a weak leader who is attempting to deal with a poor situation. Because that situation is unfavorable, Fiedler's model would requite a task-oriented leader to keep the situation from falling apart. An obvious alternative would be to replace the leader.

       To deal with the issue of matching style to the situation, Vroom and Yetton (1973) de­veloped an approach that deals with leader-subordinate interaction. Their model explicitly recognized that an effective style depended on situational variables including the leader's exper­tise, the task structure, and the employees' willingness to accept a solution. They found that the key elements in sharing of leader power are the maximization of technical effectiveness and subordinate motivation or acceptance. If technical effectiveness is not crucial and motivation and accep­tance are not important, the decisions are made by the leader alone. On the other hand, if the technical difficulties are important but motivation is low, the leader attempts to obtain more information. When technical effectiveness is unimportant but motivation and acceptance are high, delegation becomes a useful approach. Finally, if the problem is high on the technical level and there is a need for acceptance, then the decision is shared with the group.

The situational determinants of leadership show that there is frequently, but not necessarily optimally, a consistency in the behavior of a leader when he or she performs in different situations. Many times, patterns of interpersonal behavior are transferred even when work performances change to meet new requirements (Stogdill, 1974). Leaders also change in response to differing group task demands.

Another perspective that relates leader style to the situation is described by Filley et al. (1975), who concluded that there are four situational factors that influence the effectiveness of a particular leader style. These are:

1.     Intrinsic job pressure.- Acceptance of structure by subordinates.

2.     Intrinsic job satisfaction.-Satisfaction leads to less impact of leader consideration.

3.     Leader's consideration.- Leader's job structure does not cause dissatisfaction.

4.   Subordinates' need for information.- Personality and ambiguity lead to tolerance of struc­ture.

The Organization Life Cycle

Further challenging the leader is the organization life cycle. Greiner (1972) described five stages through which an organization passes and the related changes in management focus, organization structure, top management style, control system, and reward emphasis that results. Contributing to these changes and complicating the leaders decision-making were the age of the organization, its size, stages of evolution (defined as growth through creativity, direction. delegation, coordination, and collaboration), stages of evolution (defined as crises of leadership, autonomy, control, red tape, and uncertainty) and finally, the growth rate of the industry. It should be noted that the organization’s life cycle can be correlated for optimization with leader style.

        The five phases of the organization’s life cycle integrated with optimal leader style

are:

                            Organizational Life Cycle          Leader Style

Phase 1      Innovation                                      Conceptual

Phase 2      Transition                                      Analytic

Phase 3      Growth                                            Production

Phase 4      Consolidation                                Behavioral

Phase 5      Adaptation                                     Conceptual

       An organization at the innovation stage requires a leader whose style is most often a combination of the conceptual and directive styles. This leader is the entrepreneur who has both ideas and the drive to implement them. This combination of styles is conducive to taking the risks associated with starting a new venture.

       During this phase, the organization is small and under intense pressure because of the possibility of failure. Interestingly, these conditions often lead to a cohesive culture. The high level of stress and excitement creates a situation where everyone knows what is happening. Communication is face-to-face, and there are few written procedures. This is sometimes referred to as a hip-pocket operation.

       Start-up organizations typically have only two levels: one concerned with ideas and the other with operations. Examples are Lockheed's Skunk Works, which produced advanced avionics, and Jobs and Wozniak, who started Apple Computer in a garage. Similarly, Hewlett-Packard, which was Jobs and Wozniak's former employer had also started in a garage. Many individuals have ideas that they never implement because they do not have the desire, drive, or courage to act on them. This would be the case of the researcher who is conceptual but does not have a directive style and thus does not have the necessary drive. Typically, the conceptual or creative individual is more interested in inventing new ideas than in implement­ing those ideas. That is, conceptual and directive styles are generally inversely correlated.

       A variation of the life cycle is concerned with research and development needed to develop new products. Typically, 60 ideas introduced into R & D produce only one final product. The prod­uct in turn must be engineered, fabricated, marketed, and managed. The critical leadership role occurs when the product has reached saturation. Unless an innovative approach is taken again, the product life will decline. As discussed by Scheuble (1964), meaningful overall growth requires continuous new-product development to offset the decline in older products.

       Similar considerations apply in companies that are project-oriented, such as aerospace companies developing missiles or aircraft. Each project also has a life cycle. These life cycles may not be as predictable as consumer products, but nonetheless demand constant management attention to the changing situation.

       After the original idea is proven and the product or service is implemented, the organi­zation begins to grow. At this point, the hip-pocket approach to running the organization is no longer suitable, When Apple Computers began to grow, the fun was gone. One of the partners, Wozniak took his money and left. Jobs, who remained, did not want to run a large organization, so he brought in John Sculley, who was president of the Pepsi Company. While the chemistry seemed to be good at the beginning, eventually power and control became an issue between the two and Jobs was forced out. Also, it was clear that at this stage of the organization’s life cycle, a new type of leadership was required. This was represented in Sculley's analytic decision style that he uses to develop systems, procedures, rules, and the discipline essential to continued growth in a large organization.

       Although John Sculley may be successful at running a large corporation, he probably could not invent a computer. It takes a leader with a conceptual style to invent a new product. On the other hand, "ideas belong to those who buy them." Loosely interpreted, "buys them" refers to whoever is receptive and accepts the idea. During 1990, Sculley "took on the most im­portant inside job: overseeing the development of technology that would eventually replace the Macintosh" (Buell et al., 1990). According to Larry Tesler, Apple's vice-president of advanced products, "there was tremendous skepticism among the engineers." Nevertheless, Tesler was surprised at how well his boss did. Sculley applied his organizational skills to the consolidation of development units, created quarterly operations review, and instituted daily 7:30 A.M. meetings with his chief engineer. As a result, the time for decision making shortened the development cycle. He accomplished this by improving communication and getting closer to the action. He applied his full attention to the critical issue of development. It took the right kind of leader with great self-confidence to place himself or herself on the firing line in this way. According to Buell et al .,"Sculley's long-term aim is to get new prod­ucts out the door in 9 to 12 months rather than the 12 to 24 months it now takes" (1990, p.96).

       Although Sculley’s initial efforts were successful, he too, was forced to leave Apple, to be replaced by a series of leaders as the organization sought to find one who could successfully run the organization faced with a different situation and phase of the organization’s life cycle. Recently, Jobs returned, to bring the leadership itself full turn.

       The adaptation phase of the organization life cycle restarts the cycle or the organization fails to adapt and ceases to exist.

Organizations go through many cycles, and individual departments or divisions might have different cycles than the overall organization. Organizations grow and change as manage­ment shifts and matures, as technology changes, as competition changes, and as economic conditions dictate new requirements. Changes in divisions or products or combinations of these also combine to change management and thus affect the overall organization life cycle.

      In part, the organization life cycle also includes the career life cycle of leaders within it. Five to seven years after individuals have completed their education, half of what they learned typically is obsolete. Filley (1976) et al. report on a number of studies that suggest that there are similarities in the growth of organizations and that the S-shape curve is a good means for describing the growth of a business. But there is little doubt that the challenges in the different stages require a different way of operating, a different leadership in each.

Leadership Style Related To Organization Life Cycle Stages

The innovation stage is generally characterized by considerable freedom and high risk. As the organization progresses through its life cycle, and because of the loose nature of the organization, a crisis in leadership typically arises. Individuals who are suited to start new organizations are not necessarily the same ones who are equipped to handle this crisis. They are ill-suited for the transition or growth phase, where more structure is required.

Once the direction is defined, there is a tendency for management to overcontrol and for the organization to overreact to the direction taken, which then leads to another crisis, one of autonomy. At the next phase of the organization life cycle, the reins are loosened again and delegation is used to distribute decision making to decentralized divisions. In most organizations, another crisis arises because of the need for tighter control and direction of the organization. To achieve more control, coordination and more centralization tends to be the answer, which in turn leads to the red tape crises because of another instance of overcontrol. Thus, alternate phases of the organization life cycle represent tight and loose control.

During the final phase of the organization life cycle, adaptation, is the most critical requirement. It is often too late to prevent radical change if appropriate action was not taken in the prior stage. The adaptation phase determines whether the organization will survive and enter a new' growth cycle or if it will decline and eventually be taken over or go bankrupt. This last phase is sometimes very painful, as evidenced by the kinds of actions taken by leaders in companies when attempting to consolidate the growth from the prior phase. Organizations will generally move toward adaptive strategies in Phase 4 to avoid the trauma that can occur in Phase 5.

Each phase requires a different emphasis to meet the organization requirements. In a start­up situation, cooperation and involvement of personnel are important in order to overcome the many problems encountered. Information requirements at this phase tend to be current due to rapidly changing conditions, and thus have a minimal impact on decision making.

During the transition phase, decision making must he flexible in order to change from a start-up to the steady growth of Phase 3. Here again, because there are many changes taking place, only a slight increase in information is warranted. Phase 3 is what normally is thought of as conventional management. This represents a reasonably steady state, even though there is rapid growth. The analytic leader using automated information to maintain control over the decentralized operations, is the one who performs most effectively.

Phase 4 requires an innovative leader who can anticipate the changes required to avoid a decline in Phase 5. The information requires a decision support system that can predict future alternatives in contrast to merely keeping operations "under control." If successful, the cooperative style of adaptation most successful in Phase 5 facilitates the transition into a new mode of operating. Because of the information requirements shift to being more selective, using critical item analysis, and having a moderate volume of data.

Leadership Style is Crucial . . . But Can Nothing be Done?

Boulgarides (1973) conducted research in which he compared decision styles with leadership flexibility. He found that extremes of being too flexible or too rigid are least effective. By “too flexible” is meant being indecisive. Fiedler (1967) suggests that it is easier to change almost anything than to change a manager’s personality or style. Indeed Cohen (1998) found that for the leader to pretend to be something he or she is not is a major error. However, even in a given phase of the organization life cycle, a flexible style that can be used to match a given situation was more effective. Leaders who facilitate work accomplishment are accepted and followed most easily. When viewed in terms of leader styles, the flexible leader adapts to new situations, whereas the rigid leader maintains consistent patterns of behavior in almost all situations. A flexible style doesn’t mean changing personality. It does however involve the use of different tactics, depending on the situation.

Leader Tactics

While the tactics a leader may use to influence others is in theory unlimited, Cohen (2000) has identified eight fundamental tactics that a leader may use in any situation to influence those he or she is attempting to lead, regardless of the leader’s style. These are:

1.     Direction

2.     Persuasion

3.   Negotiation

4.   Involvement

5.  Indirection

6.     Enlistment

7.     Redirection

8.                        8.  Repudiation

The Direction Tactic

Similar to the directive style, the direction tactic is authoritarian. The difference is that leaders who do not normally practice leadership with a directive style can use it. The leader simply gives orders and tells others what to do. There are two situations where simply giving orders without discussion is desirable. However, to employ the direction tactic, the leader must have more power in the situation than those led. Attempting to use this tactic  without this power will lead to failure.

     The first situation where the leader may want to use direction is where there is little time for using the other tactics. If someone on a production line is about to cause a major accident by mixing two dangerous chemicals, his supervisor doesn’t hesitate, but orders: “Put that stuff down, NOW!”

     The second situation when a leader should use direction is when the action needed is good for the organization, but may be less desirable as perceived by the employee. The leader needs a report typed by tomorrow morning, but his or her secretary has social plans for tonight. While the leader can try other influence tactics first, eventually it may come down to using direction.

     Unfortunately, the direction tactic is sometimes overused. One reason is probably the popular image of the effective leader who runs around barking orders, and everyone else simply falls into line and obeys. As Dwight D. Eisenhower advised: “You do not lead by hitting people over the head – that’s assault, not leadership.”

     Another reason that the direction influence tactic is overused is that once a leader begins using it routinely, it becomes habit. If the leader has hire and fire authority, It’s almost too easy. The leader doesn’t have to think about those led at all. He or see simply issues an order.

     Unfortunately, routinely using direction can have unwanted results as the leader may no longer get input from those led. "Fine," say the leader’s followers, "If that so and so wants us to do this and everything gets screwed up, it’s not our fault." Mistakes that the leader makes that others might have caught are allowed to go on uncorrected. The organization suffers, yet everyone goes about following orders to the letter.

The Persuasion Tactic

With persuasion, the leader influences others explaining the reasons and convincing others that what the leader wants is the right thing to do. Persuasion can work very well when leading others who have similar or more power in the situation than the leader has. This is especially true when the leader has minimal means of rewards or punishment.

     What means can the leader use to implement the persuasion tactic? One way is to convince through logic. Simply give the person you want to lead good reasons why he or she should do what you want. Everyone wants to know why the leader wants him or her to take a certain action. Giving reasons why has an important fringe benefit. When the situation changes and the leader isn’t available to give new instructions, this person knows what the leader is trying to do. He or she can alter their actions based on why the leader wanted the actions taken in the first place.

     Another way of utilizing the persuasion tactic is for the leader to emphasize his or her personal need or the worthiness of the cause.

     Many college-age door-to-door salespeople emphasize personal needs: a sales award, money for college, or experience in real business. All of these are examples of persuasion by emphasizing personal need. They are used because they work.

The Negotiation Tactic

Another important influence tactic is negotiation. Negotiation means that the leader influences by conferring with others to arrive at a settlement which both the leader and those led find acceptable. It may involve compromise or exchanging something that the other person wants or wants done for what the leader wants done.

     Negotiation may be required under certain circumstances. Do the leaders desires offer little or no perceived benefit to the person or persons led? Do the leader and those led have about equal power? Can both sides help or hurt each other almost equally? If these are the existing conditions, the negotiation influence tactic may be the most effective for that situation.

     George Washington gave us a successful demonstration of the negotiation tactic in a battle that was important in winning American Independence.

     By the summer of 1781, the French and American allies realized that the British strength was divided into two strongholds centered at New York and the Chesapeake Bay area.  Combined, these British forces were stronger than the allied American-French force. But the combined allied force was stronger than either British force if either one was faced separately. If the two British forces could be cut off from each other they could be defeated individually.

     The French had a strong fleet in the area of the West Indies under the command of Admiral Francois de Grasse. However, the hurricane season started in late summer and grew progressively worse in the fall. De Grasse did not want to risk his fleet in these storms.

     Washington's original plans called for defeating the British in the Chesapeake Bay area, and then moving south for an attack on Charleston or the British base at Wilmington. He got De Grasse to support him by the negotiating tactic. He told Admiral De Grasse that if he came north, he could return by mid-October.

     On August 30th, De Grasse's fleet arrived off Yorktown, Virginia. He also brought reinforcements and siege artillery. More importantly, he took command of the sea and isolated the British forces under Lord Cornwallis. Six weeks later Cornwallis surrendered. The Battle of Yorktown is known as the decisive battle of the War of Independence. Based on the battle's results, the British opened peace negotiations the following spring.           

The Involvement Tactic

If the leader can get others involved in what is wanted, they will adopt the leader’s goal as theirs and become committed to its attainment. Because of this, involvement is a very powerful influence tactic, and can usually be combined fairly easily with one or more of the other tactics.

     Why is involvement so important? One dimension is ownership. We work and fight much harder for things that are our own. Involving people succeeds because it gives those you need ownership.

     In his book, Pour Your Heart Into It, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz (1997) says, “If I hang my hat on one thing that makes Starbucks stand out above other companies, it would be the introduction of ‘bean stock.’ With it we turned every employee of Starbucks into a partner.” Schultz goes on to say that privately held companies such as Starbucks was at the time didn’t have employee stock plans. But continues Schultz, “My goal was to link shareholder value with long-term rewards for our employees. I wanted them to have a chance to share in the benefits of growth, and to make clear the connection between their contributions and the growing value of the company.

The Indirection Tactic

The indirection influence tactic is used when the leader’s authority is limited in the situation and those led will resist a direct influence tactic. With the indirection tactic, the leader gets others to do what is required by not asking directly for the action desired, but by doing something else which will get others to do what the leader desires.

     After the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army had not yet disbanded and Congress was slow in authorizing back pay that was owed. The righting of various other wrongs had been frequently promised by the Continental Congress, but never delivered.

     The Continental Army officers knew that George Washington, would never go along with seizing power from the civilian authority no matter how just the cause. They asked him anyway. They wanted to march on Congress, and give Washington the title of “King or Dictator.” This was wrong, it was treason, and he told them so, but they wouldn’t listen. Moreover, he was no longer their commander, and so had no formal power over them. These officers had a meeting to organize what amounted to a rebellion. Washington attended the meeting. He hoped to dissuade them, and they actually let him speak. Among them were many of the heroes of the revolution: Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, and "Light Horse" Harry Lee. Washington tried to persuade them to give up their plans of rebellion  to no avail. These officers were determined to take the law into their own hands!

     Finally, Washington reached into his cloak and pulled out a pair of spectacles. No one had ever seen Washington with spectacles before. In the thinking of those days, it was the kind of physical weakness that commanders didn’t admit to. As he slowly put the glasses to his face, he said: "Gentlemen, I have grown old in your service and now I am growing blind."

     Washington turned and left. At first there was only silence. Then, somebody said, “Maybe we should give Congress one more chance.” The rebellion never took place.

     Washington’s officers didn't know that he had worn spectacles for years. Even his closest aides didn't know that he wore glasses. Washington judged that the loss of his vanity and the risk of his prestige in opposing this treason was a worthwhile price to pay for an America free from a military dictatorship. He used the indirection tactic to get what he wanted after other tactics failed.

The Enlistment Tactic

With the enlistment tactic, the leader just asks. It works in situations where the leader doesn’t have the power, or may have the power, but may not want to use it. Langer (1989) looked at the motivation one person used in getting others to do things. She found that frequently the logic for persuading does not need to be perfect. The person doing the persuading only has to give a reason for wanting the action performed.

      During one study, (Cialdini, 1984) discovered that many people would allow someone to cut ahead of them in a line to make copies on an office copier if a reason were given. The reason did not even need to be compelling. The person had only to say: "Can I go ahead of you because I have to make copies?”     Just using the word “because” and giving a reason was apparently itself sufficiently persuasive. What the reason was wasn't particularly important.

 The Redirection Tactic

The leader using redirection doesn't want to reveal the real reason for the action he or she wants done. The leader wants to redirect those he or she leads because if this does not occur it will have a negative impact of one kind or another.

     Let's say there are two organizations whose offices are located right next to each other. The members of these organizations are constantly bickering. The fact that they are located so close to one another allows increased opportunity for hostile contact. The leader decides to separate the two offices. Rather than the actual reason for the relocation, "efficiency," or "better space utilization" is the official reason.

     Redirection is also used when firing senior managers. Senior executives are rarely officially fired. Rather, they are “given new assignments.”

     This is a perfectly legitimate tactic with many advantages. The organization preserves the feelings of the fired executive to the maximum degree possible. The leader shows others that people are important. The leader doesn’t  just throw people aside like old shoes when they fail. Also, an individual unsuitable for one job may do a superior job at a different time and at a different place somewhere else.

The Repudiation Tactic

In using the repudiation tactic, the leader gets someone to do something by disclaiming his or her own ability or power to do it. An analyst goes to his supervisor and asks for help in doing some problem. "Gee, I'd like to help," the supervisor says, "but I haven't worked this type of analysis in quite a long time. How would you approach it? Why don't you start out. Maybe I'll remember a little."

     So the analyst begins to work the analysis. Whenever he gets stuck, his leader gets him going again. The supervisor used the repudiation strategy to get the analyst to learn to solve the problem and to do the job at the same time.

     Leaders may use the repudiation tactic to lead other leaders at their own levels. Instead of competing in an area that the other leader does better, the good leader disclaims his own ability and in doing so gets his colleague to do what he wants. "Joe you're the best softball coach the company team ever had. I'm going to recommend that you be named the coach this year again."

When To Use One Tactic Over Another

There is a time and place for all of the influence tactics. If a leader has one tactic that he or she relies on almost all the time, it is almost certain to develop into a pattern or behavior, in other words a style. This negates the very purpose of the tactics.

     The leader’s selection of a particular tactic in a situation will depend on:

·        the individual personality of the person or persons led

·        the frame of mind of the person or persons led

·        the leader’s own current frame of mind

·        the leader’s goals or objectives

·        the relative power between the leader and those led

·        the importance of time in the action the leader wants taken

·        the type of commitment required to complete the desired action

·        rules, laws, or authority of the leader in the situation  

     As with the organization life cycle, certain tactics tend to work better than others as the situation changes. A new company or organization is formed. The leader emphasizes attracting qualified people. This requires persuasion tactics. As the organization grows, team building and the exchange of ideas become more important. Involvement tactics are used more frequently. Now the organizational units are formed and the biggest question is how the work should be divided. This requires negotiation. Once the company is into production, tasks are more routine, but time is critical. This calls for more direction. Throughout, indirection, enlistment, redirection, and repudiation may be used. The tactics and when to use them are summarized in Table II.

Conclusion

Dynamic changing situations require different leader behaviors. These behaviors can take the form of patterns of behavior termed leadership style, or leadership tactics. Selecting leaders with different leadership styles is inefficient. It is far more effective to select flexible leaders who have the capability of using different tactics under different conditions.

References

Boulgarides, James D., “Decision Style, Values and Biographical Factors in Relation to

Satisfaction and Performance of Supervisors in a Government Agency,” (MDAC paper WD 2040). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, June 1973.

Buell, Barbara, Levine John, and Gross, Neil, “Apple: New Team, New Strategy,”

      Business Week (October 15, 1990) pp.86-96

Cohen, William A. The New Art of the Leader (Paramus, New Jersey: Prentice Hall

      Press, 2000)

Cohen, William A. The Stuff of Heroes: The Eight Universal Laws of Leadership

      (Marietta, Georgia: Longstreet Press, 1998) pp.151-152

Cialdini,  Robert B., The Psychology of Influence, Rev. Ed. (New York: William Morrow,

      1993) p.4.

DuBrin, Andrew J. Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, Skills (Boston: Houghton

      Mifflan, 1995) p. 377.

Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).

Filley, Allan C., House, Robert J., and Kerr, Steve, Managerial Process and

      Organizational Behavior (Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co., 1975).

Greiner, Larry E., “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,” Harvard Business

      Review (July – August 1972).

Langer, E.J., “Minding Matters,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 22,

      ed. L. Berkowitz (New York: Academic Press, 1989).

Rowe, Alan J. and James D. Boulgarides, Managerial Decision Making (New York:

      MacMillan Publishing Company, 1998) pp. 28-30.

Scheuble, P.A. Jr., “R.O.I. for New Product Planning,” Harvard Business Review

      (November – December, 1964) pp.110-120

Schultz, Howard, Pour Your Heart Into It (New York: Hyperion, 1997) as excerpted in

Fortune (September 29, 1997) p.268.

Stogdill, Ralph, Handbook of Leadership (New York: Free Press, 1974) p.386.

Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P. Leadership and Decision-Making (Pittsbugh: University of

      Pittsburgh Press, 1973).