Substitutes for Leadership Theory

Last updated

Substitutes for leadership theory is a leadership theory first developed by Steven Kerr and John M. Jermier and published in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance in December 1978. [1]

Contents

The theory states that different situational factors can enhance, neutralize, or substitute for leader behaviors [2] (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). It has received criticism for shortcomings due to perceived methodological issues. [3] [4] Empirical research has produced mixed results as to its ability to predict subordinate outcomes.

Origins

Over the years, researchers have developed many leadership theories. Prior to the 1970s, trait leadership theory and path-goal theory were the two heavily researched theories. (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Proponents of trait leadership theory held that the ability to lead is a characteristic some people innately have and others do not. The effort was put forth to uncover which characteristics and abilities leaders had that separated them from non-leaders. Leadership style was another angle researchers took. Proponents of this approach did not believe the ability to lead was innate, rather it was a set of behaviors anyone could learn (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

In the mid-1970s, a great deal of research was dedicated to the contingency model and path-goal theory. [5] The contingency model stated that various leadership styles would be more or less effective depending on the situation. [6] (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Fiedler, 1965). Path-goal theory proposed that subordinates would be satisfied with their leader if they perceived that their leader's behavior would bring them future satisfaction. Subordinates would be motivated by their leader if they perceived that completing work tasks would bring them satisfaction, and if the leader provided proper coaching, support, rewards, and guidance. [7] Frustrations with not being able to find significant results with anyone's theory resulted in the development of reexaminations and new approaches, including questioning which situations necessitated a leader figure and which did not (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

Steven Kerr and Anne Harlan was one of the researchers publicly expressing his frustrations with current leadership theories. [8] In the 1970s, Kerr was at Ohio State University actively involved in leadership research. Kerr was studying existing proposed subordinate constructs such as organizational independence [5] and proposed leadership constructs such as consideration and initiating structure (put forth by the Ohio State Leadership Studies). [9]

Subordinates that are organizational independents do not feel tied to one company and are internally motivated instead of motivated by the characteristics of the organization, such as leader behavior. [10] [5] Leaders are high on initiating structure to clarify their own roles and their subordinates’ roles in obtaining a goal. [9] Kerr and colleagues noticed many studies had found significant moderators that played a part in the relationship between initiating structure leader behavior and subordinate outcomes. For example, when a task was ambiguous, the relationship between leader initiating structure and subordinate satisfaction was stronger than if the task was clear. These findings made it apparent that there were variables that affected the relationship between leader behavior and subordinate outcomes, making the relationship stronger or weaker. [9]

In 1973, Kerr was the first to coin substitutes for leadership as elements in the work setting that lessened leader effectiveness on subordinate outcomes. [11] Further publications [9] led to Kerr and Jermier's 1978 paper, which unveiled substitutes for leadership theory. This paper presented two types of elements in the job environment: substitutes and neutralizers. These elements were proposed to serve as moderators in the relationship between leader behavior and subordinate outcomes. [1]

The theory originally classified substitutes as characteristics of the subordinate, characteristics of the task, and characteristics of the organization. Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr proposed alteration to the theory in terms of subordinate classification. They argued that moderators should be grouped based on their effect on the criterion. The original theory had already proposed moderators that act as substitutes and moderators that act as neutralizers. Howell and colleagues added enhancers to these. [12]

Substitutes for leadership theory was a heavily researched area until the late 1980s when transformational leadership became the focus of the majority of leadership research. [13]

Definitions

Substitutes for leadership theory

Substitutes for leadership theory states that different situational factors can enhance, neutralize, or substitute for leader behaviors [2] (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

Substitutes

Substitutes are variables that make leadership unnecessary for subordinates [5] and reduce the extent to which subordinates rely on their leader [9]

Examples of substitutes

  • Characteristics of the subordinate
    • Subordinate ability [1]
    • Subordinate's professional orientation [1]
  • Characteristics of the task
    • Unambiguous and routine task (when all subordinates are performing menial labor, there is little role leadership can play; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001)
    • Task that provides its own feedback as to how well the task is being done [1]
    • Task that is intrinsically satisfying [1]
  • Characteristics of the organization
    • Cohesive work groups (a tight-knit group of employees has less need for a leader; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001)
    • Organizational formulation (clear job goals that are written down, performance appraisals that are written down; [14] Kerr and Jermier, 1987)
    • Self-managed work teams (employees rely on each other, not their leader) [15]

Enhancers

Enhancers are variables that serve to strengthen leaders influence on subordinate outcomes [12] [5] (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001

Examples of enhancers

  • Characteristics of the subordinate
    • Subordinates having experience (those more experienced will be able to translate even the most ambiguous instructions into results [12]
  • Characteristics of the task
    • Task is non-routine [1]
  • Characteristics of the organization
    • Having group norms that encourage cooperation with leaders (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001)
    • Leader having the ability to reward subordinates [12]

Neutralizers

Neutralizers are variables which serve to weaken, or block leader influence on subordinate outcomes [5] (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001

Examples of neutralizers

  • Characteristics of the subordinate
    • Subordinates are indifferent when it comes to rewards [1]
  • Characteristics of the organization
    • Whether or not subordinates are rewarded is not the leader's decision [1]
  • Kerr & Jermier never specified an example of a task characteristic that acts as a neutralizer. [1]

Scales used to measure

Kerr and Jermier [1]

The original scale to measure the effects of various substitutes was developed by Kerr and Jermier. They assessed leadership substitutes via a questionnaire that contained thirteen subscales with a total of 55 items. The items were on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost always untrue or completely untrue), to 5 (almost always true or almost completely true).

The subscales included were:

  1. Ability, experience, training, and knowledge
  2. Professional orientation
  3. Indifference towards organizational rewards
  4. Unambiguous, routine, and methodically invariant tasks
  5. Task-provided feedback concerning accomplishment
  6. Intrinsically satisfying tasks
  7. Organizational formalization
  8. Organizational inflexibility
  9. Advisory and staff functions
  10. Close-knit, cohesive, interdependent work groups
  11. Organizational rewards not within the leader's control
  12. Spatial distance between superior and subordinates
  13. Subordinate need for independence

Kerr and Jermier tested nine of these subscales in a lab setting and found that they were independent and had adequate internal reliabilities. They claim that the subscales produce easily interpretable data that describe the extent to which substitutes for leadership are present or absent in a given work situation. [16] They went on to test their subscales in a field setting using police officers and concluded that the subscales met acceptable standards of reliability, and can be used to assess the validity of the substitutes for leadership construct in future studies.

Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, and Williams

Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, and Williams noted that studies testing the substitutes for leadership model had not been fully supportive of the theory, and believed that one reason for this may be that the quality of the scale developed by Kerr and Jermier to measure the substitutes constructs may be to blame. In response to this, they designed their own 74-item measure of substitutes for leadership. To test their scale, they administered it to 372 business students. Their analyses of the psychometric properties of the revised measure revealed their scale to be superior to Kerr and Jermier's scale, as evidenced by better dimensionality and reliability of the revised scale. [17]

Consequences

Kerr and Jermier proposed that substitute variables should render leader behaviors unable to predict subordinate outcomes. [16] Researchers that have tested this characteristic of substitutes have found mixed results. [14] [4]

A study involving hospital personnel found that tasks that gave feedback regarding performance were negatively correlated with job satisfaction. Routine repetitive work tasks were correlated with organizational commitment. Intrinsically satisfying work, organizational formulation, and cohesive workgroups were substitutes that were significantly correlated with both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, they found little evidence that substitutes prevented or replaced a leader's effect on subordinate job satisfaction or organizational commitment. The only substitute that served as a replacement was the organizational formulation, which replaced leader behavior's predictive power in explaining subordinate job satisfaction and organizational commitment. [14]

Another study looked at 1,235 employees working for 265 leaders in a variety of job settings. Among their findings were that intrinsically satisfying tasks were positively related to subordinate satisfaction, indifference to rewards was negatively related to organizational commitment, and the organizational formulation was negatively related to subordinate perceptions of role ambiguity. The researchers in this study concluded that substitutes for leadership were useful in predicting subordinate outcomes, but leader behaviors and substitutes should always be studied together because together they explained about a third of the total variance insubordinate outcomes in their sample. [4]

A more recent study conducted by Dionne and colleagues [3] collected data from 940 subordinates. Unsatisfied with the fact that prior studies had tested substitutes, enhancers, and neutralizers as moderators, they tested the effect of substitutes as mediators as well as moderators. Testing a variety of different substitutes and outcomes, the researchers found only very weak evidence that substitutes make a difference and concluded that leader behaviors are the only important variable in predicting employee outcomes.

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer conducted a meta-analysis in which they took the results of 22 studies that examined the main effect of substitutes for leadership on the relationship between leader behaviors and subordinate outcomes. They found evidence supporting the theory taking into account both leader behaviors and the effect of substitutes accounted for more of the variance in subordinate outcomes than taking into account leader behaviors alone. [18]

Applications

Autonomous work groups

Bass (1990) suggested that autonomous work groups can substitute for formal leadership. In this scenario, employees are divided into groups that are responsible for managing their own day-to-day work (i.e. collective control over the pace, distribution of tasks, organization of breaks, recruitment, and training; Gulowsen, 1972). A quasi-experiment found that implementing autonomous workgroups of 8 to 12 shop-floor employees in a manufacturing setting positively affected both the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction of employees while obviating some supervisory positions. [19]

Self-management

Self-management is defined by Thoresen and Mahoney (1974) as occurring when an individual behaves in a way he would not normally behave, and there are no external forces dictating that the person maintains that behavior. Self-management requires self-observation (e.g., keeping a log of what one has discussed with others on the phone), specification of goals (e.g., being responsible for setting one's own schedule and priorities), cueing strategies (e.g., putting a checkout board by the exit to remind an employee to let their secretary know where they are going and when they expect to return), rehearsal (e.g., recording one's presentation to clients and making corrections as needed), self-evaluation (e.g., using a chart to keep track of work quality and quantity), and self-reinforcement (accomplished by building intrinsic rewards for the performance of tasks; Bass, 1990; Manz & Sims 1980). These strategies can be understood as being substitutes for leadership. Instead of requiring that a supervisor monitor a subordinate's progress on a work task, a subordinate can self-manage by utilizing one of the strategies listed above. This makes the supervisor's guidance unnecessary for the subordinate.

Criticisms and methodological problems with research

Common-source bias

Dionne and colleagues argued that significant effects of substitutes found in prior studies may be a statistical artifact due to common-source bias , or bias occurring when independent and dependent variables are collected from the same person or group of people. In a study sampling 49 organizations, Dionne and colleagues controlled for the effect of common-source bias and found no moderating or mediating effects of substitutes on the relationship between leader behavior and group effectiveness. [3]

In a study by Podsakoff and Mackenzie, the predictor variables, as well as the job attitude and role perception variables, were both taken from individual employees, while the performance measures were taken from supervisors. They found that their predictors accounted for a higher proportion of variance in job attitudes and role perceptions than in employee performance. They posit the reason for this was that their predictors shared a common source with the job attitudes and role perception criterion measures, but not with the employee performance criterion measures. They suggested that common-source bias may not be the only reason for this, but that it should be controlled in future research. [4]

Lack of longitudinal studies

Keller conducted a longitudinal study in which he pointed out that the vast majority of studies conducted on substitutes for leadership theory are cross-sectional in nature, making it more difficult to discern a causal relationship between substitutes and their effects on employee performance. Cross-sectional research is focused on finding relationships between variables at a specific point in time, whereas longitudinal studies involve taking multiple measures over a longer period of time. Keller's longitudinal study of the effect of substitutes on Research & Development teams found that two of the seven substitutes (ability and intrinsic satisfaction) affected team performance over time. [20]

Conceptual weakness

Yukl (1998) pointed out that it is hard to identify specific substitutes and neutralizers for broad behavior categories, and that an improvement on the theory would be to use more specific behaviors in place of "supportive and instrumental leadership behaviors." Yukl said that recent studies testing the theory have used specific behaviors (e.g., contingent reward behavior and role clarification), however, the development of the theory does not reflect these developments.

Contingency model

The contingency model of leadership was developed by Fred Fiedler in the 1960s after Fiedler spent 12 years collecting data from over 800 groups of employees. This model predicts that the most effective method of leadership will vary depending on the situation. A study that supported the model was one Fiedler did with 48 petty officers and 240 recruiters at a Belgium naval training center (Fiedler, 1965). Fiedler found that a leader's fit with the group and the task was more important in predicting outcomes than the leader's characteristics. For example, controlling leaders went best with heterogeneous groups with low position power. [6] (Fiedler, 1965). There are many different theories within the contingency paradigm, which differ on what situational factors change leadership effectiveness. The most influential theory within this model is the path-goal theory (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

Path-goal theory

Proposed by Robert House in 1971, path-goal theory predicts that subordinates will be satisfied with their leader if they feel their leader's behavior will lead them to satisfaction. Also, subordinates will be motivated when they feel that their satisfaction depends on their performance and their leader acts in a way to help them reach goals (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001, House, 1971). Path-goal theory predicts that when goals and the paths to those goals are clear, subordinates may not need leader guidance (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).

See also

Related Research Articles

Industrial and organizational psychology "focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I-O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations." It is an applied discipline within psychology and is an international profession. I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leadership</span> Quality of one individual or group influencing or guiding others based on authority

Leadership, both as a research area and as a practical skill, encompasses the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or entire organizations.

In organizational behavior and industrial and organizational psychology, organizational commitment is an individual's psychological attachment to the organization. Organizational scientists have also developed many nuanced definitions of organizational commitment, and numerous scales to measure them. Exemplary of this work is Meyer and Allen's model of commitment, which was developed to integrate numerous definitions of commitment that had been proliferated in the literature. Meyer and Allen's model has also been critiqued because the model is not consistent with empirical findings. It may also not be fully applicable in domains such as customer behavior. There has also been debate surrounding what Meyers and Allen's model was trying to achieve.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job satisfaction</span> Attitude of a person towards work

Job satisfaction, employee satisfaction or work satisfaction is a measure of workers' contentment with their job, whether they like the job or individual aspects or facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision. Job satisfaction can be measured in cognitive (evaluative), affective, and behavioral components. Researchers have also noted that job satisfaction measures vary in the extent to which they measure feelings about the job. or cognitions about the job.

 Reviewing request.

The path–goal theory, also known as the path–goal theory of leader effectiveness or the path–goal model, is a leadership theory developed by Robert House, an Ohio State University graduate, in 1971 and revised in 1996. The theory states that a leader's behavior is contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of his or her subordinates. The revised version also argues that the leader engages in behaviors that complement subordinate's abilities and compensate for deficiencies. According to Robert House and John Antonakis, the task-oriented elements of the path–goal model can be classified as a form of instrumental leadership.

Organizational behavior or organisational behaviour is the "study of human behavior in organizational settings, the interface between human behavior and the organization, and the organization itself". Organizational behavioral research can be categorized in at least three ways:

In industrial and organizational psychology, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a person's voluntary commitment within an organization or company that is not part of his or her contractual tasks. Organizational citizenship behavior has been studied since the late 1970s. Over the past three decades, interest in these behaviors has increased substantially.

A contingency theory is an organizational theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation. Contingent leaders are flexible in choosing and adapting to succinct strategies to suit change in situation at a particular period in time in the running of the organization.

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership where a leader works with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify needed change, creating a vision to guide the change through influence, inspiration, and executing the change in tandem with committed members of a group; This change in self-interests elevates the follower's levels of maturity and ideals, as well as their concerns for the achievement. It is an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model. Transformational leadership is when leader behaviors influence followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results. It gives workers autonomy over specific jobs, as well as the authority to make decisions once they have been trained. This induces a positive change in the followers attitudes and the organization as a whole. Transformational leaders typically perform four distinct behaviors, also known as the four Is. These behaviors are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is a relationship-based approach to leadership that focuses on the two-way (dyadic) relationship between leaders and followers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Situational leadership theory</span> Business model


Situational Leadership is the idea that effective leaders adapt their style to each situation. No one style is appropriate for all situations. Leaders may use a different style in each situation, even when working with the same team, followers or employees.

The history of contingency theories of leadership goes back over more than 100 years, with foundational ideas rooted in the mechanical thought of Taylorism. Later, management science began to recognize the influence of sometimes irrational human perceptions on worker performance. This led to taxonomies of leadership behavior and to contingency theories to adapt leadership behavior to the situation.

Civic virtue is one of the five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) identified in Dennis Organ's prominent 1988 definition of the construct. Originally, Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) first proposed two dimensions: altruism and general compliance. Later, Organ (1988) deconstructed the dimension of general compliance and added additional dimensions of OCB. This resulted in a five-factor model consisting of altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue.

Work motivation is a person's internal disposition toward work. To further this, an incentive is the anticipated reward or aversive event available in the environment. While motivation can often be used as a tool to help predict behavior, it varies greatly among individuals and must often be combined with ability and environmental factors to actually influence behavior and performance. Results from a 2012 study, which examined age-related differences in work motivation, suggest a "shift in people's motives" rather than a general decline in motivation with age. That is, it seemed that older employees were less motivated by extrinsically related features of a job, but more by intrinsically rewarding job features. Work motivation is strongly influenced by certain cultural characteristics. Between countries with comparable levels of economic development, collectivist countries tend to have higher levels of work motivation than do countries that tend toward individualism. Similarly measured, higher levels of work motivation can be found in countries that exhibit a long versus a short-term orientation. Also, while national income is not itself a strong predictor of work motivation, indicators that describe a nation's economic strength and stability, such as life expectancy, are. Work motivation decreases as a nation's long-term economic strength increases. Currently work motivation research has explored motivation that may not be consciously driven. This method goal setting is referred to as goal priming.

Person–environment fit is the degree to which individual and environmental characteristics match. Person characteristics may include an individual's biological or psychological needs, values, goals, abilities, or personality, while environmental characteristics could include intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, demands of a job or role, cultural values, or characteristics of other individuals and collectives in the person's social environment. Due to its important implications in the workplace, person–environment fit has maintained a prominent position in Industrial and organizational psychology and related fields.

The task-relationship model is defined by Donelson Forsyth as "a descriptive model of leadership which maintains that most leadership behaviors can be classified as performance maintenance or relationship maintenances". Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership are two models which are often compared, as they are known to produce varying outcomes under different circumstances. Task-oriented leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the tasks that need to be performed in order to meet certain goals, or to achieve a certain performance standard. Relationship-oriented leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the satisfaction, motivation and the general well-being of the team members.

Philip Michael Podsakoff is an American management professor, researcher, author, and consultant who held the John F. Mee Chair of Management at Indiana University. Currently, he is the Hyatt and Cici Brown Chair in Business at the University of Florida.

Job characteristics theory is a theory of work design. It provides “a set of implementing principles for enriching jobs in organizational settings”. The original version of job characteristics theory proposed a model of five “core” job characteristics that affect five work-related outcomes through three psychological states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Full range leadership model</span> Theory of leadership

The full range of leadership model (FRLM) is a general leadership theory focusing on the behavior of leaders towards the workforce in different work situations. The FRLM relates transactional and transformational leadership styles with laissez-faire leadership style.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kerr, Steven; Jermier, John M. (1978). "Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 22 (3): 375–403. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5.
  2. 1 2 Avolio, Bruce J.; Walumbwa, Fred O.; Weber, Todd J. (2009-01-01). "Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions". Annual Review of Psychology. 60 (1): 421–449. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621. ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   18651820.
  3. 1 2 3 Dionne, Shelley D.; Yammarino, Francis J.; Atwater, Leanne E.; James, Lawrence R. (2002). "Neutralizing substitutes for leadership theory: Leadership effects and common-source bias". Journal of Applied Psychology. 87 (3): 454–464. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.454. ISSN   1939-1854. PMID   12090603.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Podsakoff, Philip M.; MacKenzie, Scott B. (1995). "An examination of substitutes for leadership within a levels-of-analysis framework". The Leadership Quarterly. 6 (3): 289–328. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90011-X.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Schriesheim, Chester A. (1997). "Substitutes-for-leadership theory: Development and basic concepts". The Leadership Quarterly. 8 (2): 103–108. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90009-6.
  6. 1 2 Hunt, J.G. (1967). "Fiedler's leadership contingency model: An empirical test in three organizations". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 2 (3): 290–308. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(67)90023-2.
  7. ↑ House, Robert J. (1996). "Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory". The Leadership Quarterly. 7 (3): 323–352. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7.
  8. ↑ Kerr, Steven; Harlan, Anne (1973). "Predicting the effects of leadership training and experience from the contingency model: Some remaining problems". Journal of Applied Psychology. 57 (2): 114–117. doi:10.1037/h0037122. ISSN   1939-1854. PMID   4784755.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Kerr, Steven; Schriesheim, Chester A.; Murphy, Charles J.; Stogdill, Ralph M. (1974). "Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 12 (1): 62–82. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(74)90037-3.
  10. ↑ House, Robert J.; Kerr, Steven (1973). "Organizational independence, leader behavior, and managerial practices: A replicated study". Journal of Applied Psychology. 58 (2): 173–180. doi:10.1037/h0035664. ISSN   0021-9010.
  11. ↑ Kerr, Steven (1973). "Ability-and willingness-to-leave as moderators of relationships between task and leader variables and satisfaction". Journal of Business Research. 1 (2): 115–128. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(73)80002-5.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Howell, Jon P.; Dorfman, Peter W.; Kerr, Steven (1986). "Moderator Variables in Leadership Research". The Academy of Management Review. 11 (1): 88. doi:10.2307/258333. JSTOR   258333.
  13. ↑ Dionne, Shelley D.; Yammarino, Francis J.; Howell, Jon P.; Villa, Jennifer (January 2005). "Substitutes for leadership, or not". The Leadership Quarterly. 16 (1): 169–193. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.012.
  14. 1 2 3 Howell, J. P.; Dorfman, P. W. (1981-12-01). "Substitutes for Leadership: Test of a Construct". Academy of Management Journal. 24 (4): 714–728. ISSN   0001-4273. JSTOR   256171. PMID   10253689.
  15. ↑ Villa, Jennifer R; Howell, Jon P; Dorfman, Peter W; Daniel, David L (2003). "Problems with detecting moderators in leadership research using moderated multiple regression". The Leadership Quarterly. 14 (1): 3–23. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00184-4.
  16. 1 2 Kerr, Steven; Jermier, John M. (1978). "Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 22 (3): 375–403. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5.
  17. ↑ Podsakoff, Philip M.; Niehoff, Brian P.; MacKenzie, Scott B.; Williams, Margaret L. (1993). "Do Substitutes for Leadership Really Substitute for Leadership? An Empirical Examination of Kerr and Jermier′s Situational Leadership Model". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 54 (1): 1–44. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1001.
  18. ↑ Podsakoff, Philip M.; MacKenzie, Scott B.; Bommer, William H. (1996). "Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance". Journal of Applied Psychology. 81 (4): 380–399. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.380. ISSN   1939-1854. PMID   8751455.
  19. ↑ Wall, T. D.; Kemp, N. J.; Jackson, P. R.; Clegg, C. W. (1986-06-01). "Outcomes of Autonomous Workgroups: A Long-Term Field Experiment". Academy of Management Journal. 29 (2): 280–304. ISSN   0001-4273. JSTOR   256189.
  20. ↑ Keller, Robert T. (2006). "Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance". Journal of Applied Psychology. 91 (1): 202–210. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.202. ISSN   1939-1854. PMID   16435950.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.