home Management Management - Vikhanskiy OS

Management - Vikhanskiy OS

4.1. The concept of attributive leadership (the cause-and-effect approach to the study of leadership)

This concept is based on the theory of attribution, which explains the causal relationship between what happened, what people think is the cause of what happened. The attributive approach to leadership is based on the fact that the conclusions of the leader, as well as the behavior of followers, are due to the leader's reaction to the behavior of the latter. Observing the work of subordinates, the leader receives information about how it is performed. Depending on this, he draws his conclusions about the behavior of each employee chooses his behavior style in such a way as to adequately respond to the behavior of the subordinate. For example, if the leader ascribes poor results to the work of his subordinate laziness, then this may be followed by reprimand. If the leader believes that the factors external to the subordinate are guilty, for example, the volume of work that has sharply increased, then the leader will try to solve the problem differently.

This approach assumes that knowledge of the causes that created the situation strengthens the leadership understanding and ability to predict people's reaction to the situation. The concepts and models developed on this basis try to answer the question of why people behave this way, and not otherwise. This takes into account the fact that in most cases the leader does not have the ability to directly observe the work of a subordinate.

In the framework of this approach, the leader mainly acts as an information processor. He is looking for information tips that help him answer the question of why this or that is happening. The thus found obligation of reasons directs his leadership behavior.

The definition by the leader of the reasons for the behavior of the subordinate is based on three components: personality , work itself , organizational environment or circumstances.

In the search for reasons, the leader tries to obtain three different types of information about the behavior of the subordinate: the degree of difference, the sequence and the degree of uniqueness. The first is related to the manager's desire to understand the relationship between behavior and work from the point of view of how this behavior can be attributed to the distinctive features of the job. Secondly, the leader is interested in whether the subordinate is consistent in the manifestation of this behavior or how often such behavior is manifested in him. Finally, the leader takes into account how much other subordinates behave in the same way. That is, whether this behavior is unique, characteristic of one subordinate or observed in many

The above-described process of determining the cause of the event by the leader is affected by attributive regulators or disturbances that distort his perception and cause the leader to be inconsistent in his behavior. The more the subordinate's behavior is seen by the leader as a result of his personal characteristics (internal causes), the more the leader places on the subordinate responsibility for the results. In this case, individual traits of the subject's personality become attributive hindrances.

Studies show that managers tend to attribute success in the work of women to external causes, and failure - internal. In another way, the leaders are talking about male employees.

The one shown in Fig. 11.18 model attributive leadership has significant differences from previously considered traditional models, which are too descriptive and, most importantly, do not answer the question, why.

Fig. 11.18 The attributive leadership model

There are two important links in the model . The first link reflects the leader's desire to determine the causes of poor performance. This search is regulated by the types of information about the behavior of the subordinate: distinctive features, sequence and degree of uniqueness. The second link reflects the responsive leadership behavior, which is the result of what, in the opinion of the leader, is the cause of the poor performance. The relationship between the reasons for the results of work established by the leader and his subsequent behavior is determined by who, in the opinion of the leader, should be responsible for what happened. If the leader believes that the reasons are internal, then responsibility, in his opinion, must be borne by the subordinate and appropriate measures are taken to him.

The following research results on this model are of great practical interest:

• the subordinates are inclined to see the reasons for their poor performance outside, and the managers - in subordinates;

• managers who are inclined to give preference to internal reasons in explaining the poor performance of subordinates usually show great punctuality and direct their impact directly to subordinates;

• poor performance of a subordinate in the past, according to all three types of information, is likely to lead to the identification of internal causes by the manager;

• The seriousness of the situation leads the head to the identification of internal causes and a high degree of punctuality in response measures;

• Evasion (with explanation) of the subordinate from responsibility or his apology for what happened makes the leader less severe and punctual in the response behavior;

• the constant level of performance of the work switches the attention of the manager from the reasons related to the capabilities of the subordinate, to the reasons related to the number of efforts made.

Subsequent studies have shown that within the framework of this model, it is most likely not the influence of the leader on the behavior of the subordinate, but the interaction between the leader and the subordinate, i.e. Subject to its reaction to the manager's measures, has an effect on the subsequent behavior of the latter (Figure 11.19). In this case, depending on the effectiveness of leadership, the spiral of the "leader-follower" relationship can be upwardly twisted (the relationship gives a greater effect) or down (the relationship gives a lesser effect). The latter can ultimately lead to a rupture of the relationship between the participants - the dismissal of the employee or the departure of the head.

Studying the views of subordinates on the actions of the leader, the researchers were faced with the fact that these views reflect the already formed subordinate's clear idea of ​​what an effective leader is and how he should act in a certain situation. This phenomenon was called stereotyped leadership. The stereotype of the leader grows in the minds of people as a set of specific, as well as more general characteristics.

It is noted that in addition to institutional (image of a leader for a certain type of organization) there are national stereotypes of leadership. For example, Eastern and Asian cultures, due to the large "power distance" available in them, attribute to the leader the following qualities as necessary: ​​directive, high structured tasks, wide use of tactics of manipulation. Greater emphasis on the participation of subordinates in management is inherent in leaders in small countries of Western Europe and Scandinavia, where national culture guides people to a small "power distance". The group approach to work is considered typical for leaders in the countries of the Mediterranean and South-East Asia, whose national cultures support the spirit of true, not imposed collectivism.

Fig. 11.19. Spiral of leadership interaction or "leader-follower" relationships in the attributive leadership model