References

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R. S., Averill, J., & Opton, E. (1970).

Towards a cognitive theory of emotion. In M. Arnold (Ed.), Feelings and emotions. New York: Academic Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819-834. Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21.

LEADERSHIP, THEORIES OF. The earliest investigation of leadership that is regarded as uniquely psychological is attributed to the Italian statesman Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-

1527) in his 16th century book "The Prince." As defined in psychological research, the term leadership involves the notion of persuading people to ignore their individual concerns and devote themselves instead to a common goal that is important for the welfare of the group. In another definition, leadership refers to the direction, supervision, or management of a group or an organization. Originally, leadership was thought to be a fixed attribute of a person, trait, or a series of traits. Leaders may be "emergent" (i.e., informally acknowledged and elected by the group) or "appointed" (i.e., chosen by the organization of which the group is a part). Empirical research on leadership has evolved from the simplistic search for leadership traits (and the best way to relate to group members) to the relatively complex view that different situations require different types of leader personalities or behaviors. Theories of leadership may be classified as those stressing leader traits/behaviors, those emphasizing contingencies/environmental influences, those dealing with transactional encounters, and those emphasizing cognitive processes. From the early 1900s to about 1940, leadership research focused on the traits and personal characteristics that distinguish leaders from followers. The general trait theory viewpoint also has been called the great man/great woman theory of leadership. For instance, in the great woman theory proposed by the American psychologist Florence Harriet Lewion Denmark (1932- ), an attempt is made to account for the observable sex differences in the number of men and women who are recognized leaders by emphasizing the significance of personality traits and qualities where cultural and social, rather than gender, factors are predominant. There have been studies in support of the trait theory of leadership, some of which have yielded positive results, but the differences found between leader and followers were quite small and of little practical or theoretical value. In one case (Lewin, Lippitt, and White, 1939), it was indicated that a democratic, participative leadership style produced better involvement and member satisfaction than either an autocratic or laissez-faire leadership style. In another case (Stogdill and Coons, 1957), using leader behavior rating scales, two behavior factors emerged (consideration - concern for the welfare of subordinates, and structuring - assigning roles, setting standards, and evaluating performance) that helped to understand the leader's role in shaping the group's interaction. In a humanistic approach (McGregor, 1960), Theory X is described which contains an assumption about the nature of the worker (i.e., that human nature is basically lazy and externally motivated) and, also, Theory Y is described which contains the assumption that human nature is basically responsible and self-directed. Another more recent orientation describes Theory Z (Ouchi, 1981), which combines some of the positive features of the Japanese workplace with some of the realities of the American workplace. Theory Z suggests that American firms - such as the Japanese "paternalistic" firms - offer workers long-term (if not lifetime) employment when possible and restructuring (when necessary) to avoid layoffs, both of which would enhance workers' loyalty. Many of the leader behavior theories have had a major impact on management thinking, but they have not been consistently supported by empirical research. The Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership theory is based on the amount of direction (task behavior) a leader must provide given the situation and the "level of maturity" of the followers. The contingency leadership theories (e.g., Fiedler, 1967) assert that the leader's environment is an important determinant of the leader's performance. The contingency model views the leadership situation as giving high, moderate, or low degree of power, influence, and control to the leader. In this approach, the effectiveness of the leader is contingent on both the leader's personality and the characteristics of the situation (cf., idiosyncrasy-credit model - a leadership model which assumes that a leader is able to depart from group standards to the degree that the leader has built up and amassed "credits" or prestige over a period of time by adherence and conformity to group norms; and saw-toothed theory - holds that task-oriented leaders are most effective when faced with highly unfavorable or highly favorable conditions, and relations-oriented leaders are most effective when situations are only moderately favorable; contributing factors in these leader ship situations are esteem and power of the leader and structure of the particular setting). Although the contingency theories have generated controversy, there appears to be substantial support for this approach. The path-goal theory (House, 1971) is a contingency model involving the interaction of behavior and situation that states that the leader must motivate the subordinate individuals by stressing the relationship between the subordinates' needs and the organizational goals and by facilitating the "path" that subordinates must take to fulfill their own needs and the organization's goals. Research supports this approach concerning employee job satisfaction and motivation, but the theory's predictions concerning performance have not been well supported. Another contingency model, called the normative decision theory (Vroom & Yet-ton, 1973), deals with the conditions under which leaders should take an autocratic role when making decisions. This theory assumes that individual decisions are more time-effective than group decisions, that subordinates who participate in the formulation of a decision are more committed to it, and that complex/ambiguous tasks require more information and consultation to achieve high-quality decisions. Further research is needed concerning the predictive validity of the normative decision theory, but the theory does indicate the best leadership style to use under various decision-making conditions. The newer transactional theories of leadership have replaced the older situational theory approach, which argued that leaders are best viewed in terms of the task faced by the group and the general situation within which it must operate. The situational theory tended to see leadership as a kind of "one-way" street; that is, it assumed that leaders influence and direct their groups but are not, in turn, affected by their followers. Many recent studies suggest, however, that leaders' behaviors are often strongly affected by the actions and demands of other group members. With more current transactional theories, leadership is viewed as a reciprocal process of social influence in which leaders both direct followers and are, in turn, influenced by these individuals (cf., attribution theory of leadership - suggests that leaders are influenced by their subordinates, with leaders showing sensitivity to the attitudes of subordinates and continuously adjusting to them; cognitive resource theory - holds that leadership performance depends on the leader's control over the group's processes and outcomes; and distributed-actions theory of leadership - refers to the performance of acts that help the group to complete its task and to maintain optimal working relationships among group/team members). Transactional theory also calls attention to the importance of the perceptions of both leaders and followers regarding the relationship between them (e.g., do the followers perceive the leader's position as legitimate or illegitimate?). The transac-tional viewpoint argues, also, that both characteristics of the leader and situational factors (such as the task faced by the group) must be taken into account. Thus, the transactional approach adopts a highly sophisticated account of the leadership process, and is much more complex than previous approaches. Also, leadership theorists have begun increasingly to study the cognitive processes inherent in leadership situations. Leadership theory and research is likely to continue in the study of both noncognitive and cognitive variables in the leader-member relationship, as well as show increasing interest in the role of task characteristics in the determination of effective group and member performance. See also ATTRIBUTION THEORY; MACHIAVELLIAN THEORY; OCCUPATION THEORIES; ORGANIZATIONAL/INDUSTRIAL/SYSTEMS THEORY; PERSONALITY THEORIES. REFERENCES

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299. Coffin, T. (1944). A three-component theory of leadership. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 39, 63-83. Stogdill, R., & Coons, A. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338. Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership.

New York: Free Press. Osborn, R., & Hunt, J. (1975). An adaptive-reactive theory of leadership. Organization & Administrative Sciences, 6, 27-44. Denmark, F. H. (1977). Styles of leadership.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 99-113.

Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Strube, M., & Garcia, J. (1981). A metatheo-retical analysis of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 307-321.

Hersey, P. (1985). The situational leader.

New York: Warner. Hogan, R., Curphy, G., & Hogan, J. (1994).

What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D.

E. (2000). Management of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Olmstead, J. A. (2000). Executive leadership: Building world-class organizations. Houston, TX: Cashman Dudley. Olmstead, J. A. (2002). Leading groups in stressful times: Teams, work units, and task forces. Westport, CT: Quorum books.

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS EFFECT/ PHENOMENON/HYPOTHESIS/THEORY. The American psychologist Martin E. P. Seligman (1942- ) and his associates demonstrated that when reinforcing outcomes are independent of an organism's responses, the individual learns that it will get the same out comes whether it responds or not and, thereby, finds that responding is useless. In effect, the organism has learned to be inactive or to feel "helpless." Constant and unavoidable punishment eventually causes organisms to give up and quietly submit to the punishment. In the original experiments on learned helplessness, dogs were first restrained in harnesses and given a series of severe, inescapable shocks. The next day, the dogs were placed in a simple, discriminated-avoidance situation. On each trial, when a conditioned stimulus (such as a tone) came on, shock followed after 10 seconds unless the dogs jumped over a low barrier. If they failed to jump, the conditioned stimulus remained on, and shocks continued for 50 seconds. Using this procedure, the dogs had an opportunity either to avoid or escape from the shock by jumping the barrier. Dogs that did not have "day-before" exposure to inescapable shock had no difficulty learning first to escape from shock and then to avoid it by jumping as soon as they heard the conditioned stimulus. On the other hand, the dogs that were pre-trained with inescapable shock almost invariably failed to jump at all. Similar effects have been shown in experimental situations with a variety of species and different aversive stimuli. The effects often generalize from one highly aversive stimulus (such as water immersion) to another stimulus (such as shock). This pattern indicates that the aver-siveness of the situation is the crucial aspect for most animals. The learned helplessness effects may be thought of as involving the long-known phenomenon of Einstellung (or set), which is defined as rigidity produced by earlier experience with testing/training conditions (e.g., Luchins, 1942). A certain amount of controversy occurred for a number of years concerning whether learned helplessness is simply an effect of the suppression of punishment (of effective responses), or whether in some cognitive sense the organisms actually learn or really "know" that they have no control over what happens to them. The cognitive interpretation is called the learned helplessness (LH) hypothesis and is distinguished from the experimentally-based learned-helplessness effect. There is no doubt about the "effect," but the status of the "hypothesis" is less certain. Apparently, a great deal of inter est in learned helplessness derives from Selig-man's arguments that learned helplessness presents a model for understanding the ubiquitous malady of human depression. The theory of learned helplessness has been challenged, however, by other investigators who have explained the phenomenon in other ways. The issue is whether learning to be helpless in a particular situation generalizes only to similar situations or to a wide variety of them. For instance, McReynolds (1980) observed that when people experience a situation in which reinforcements are not contingent on their responding, their responding extinguishes. If the situation then changes to one where responding will be reinforced, the individuals will continue not to respond unless they perceive that the schedule of reinforcement has changed. The more similar the second situation is to the first, the more likely the person will act "helpless." Thus, the phenomenon of learned helplessness may be viewed as a failure to discriminate between the situation under which responding is reinforced and the situation under which it is not reinforced. Further research may determine whether learned helplessness is a stable personality trait, as Seligman argues, or whether it can be explained by instrumental/operant conditioning principles. See also DEPRESSION, THEORIES OF; MIND/MENTAL SET, LAW OF; SKINNER'S DESCRIPTIVE BEHAVIOR/ OPERANT CONDITIONING THEORY. REFERENCES

Luchins, A. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54, No. 248.

Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 63, 23-33.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 1-9.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression development and death. San Francisco: Freeman.

Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105, 3-46. Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74. Huesmann, L. (Ed.) (1978). Learned helplessness as a model of depression. (Special Issue). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 1. McReynolds, W. (1980). Learned helplessness as a schedule-shift effect. Journal of Research in Personality, 14, 139157.

Roth, S. (1980). Learned helplessness in humans: A review. Journal of Personality, 48, 103-133. Seligman, M. E. P., & Weiss, J. (1980). Coping behavior: Learned helplessness, physiological activity, and learned inactivity. Behavioral Research Theory, 18, 459-512.

Understanding Mind Control

Understanding Mind Control

This book is not about some crazed conspiracy thinkers manifesto. Its real information for real people who care about the sanctity of their own thoughts--the foundation of individual freedom.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment