- Email: [email protected]
“Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement” — An historical assessment
“SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP: THEIR MEANING AND MEASUREMENT” -AN HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT Jon P. Howell* New Mexico State University
The publication in 1978 of this classic article outlining the theory of leadership substitutes was a logical consequence of a decade of leadership theory building and research. The dominant issue in the field of leadership during the 1970s was the notion of contingency theories. Numerous contingency models appeared and were popularized during and immediately prior to this decade. Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1967), Yukl’s Multiple Linkage Model (1971), House’s Path-Goal Theory (1971), the Vroom-Yetton Model of decision making (1973), and Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory (1977) are examples. Many of these models are still prominent in current management textbooks. As Kerr and Jermier (1978) pointed out, all these models assumed that some type of hierarchical leadership was needed and important in formal organizations. They also noted that there was wide variation in the amount of criteria variance explained by leader behaviors in empirical studies of real organizations. Contingency theorists had assumed that low explained criteria variance resulted from studying leader behaviors which were inappropriate to the situation. Kerr and Jermier questioned both these assumptions and suggested an alternative-that certain aspects of the individual, task or organization reduced the importance of formal leadership by “neutralizing” the effects of task or relationship-oriented leader behaviors. They also proposed that other situational variables not only “neutralized” these leader behaviors, but also “substituted” for them by having a direct impact of their own on criteria variables. Aspects of the situation had previously been described by contingency researchers as moderator variables whose significance came from how they influenced the impact of *Direct all correspondence to: Jon P. Howell, Management Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003. Leadership Quarterly, S(2), 113-l 16. Copyright 0 1997 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048-9843
Department,
Box 3DJ, New Mexico State University,
114
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol.
8 No.
2 1997
leadership behaviors. Kerr and Jermier highlighted the causal impacts of these situational variables and emphasized that they often acted as more than simply moderators of important leader behaviors. By focusing attention on nonleader sources of influence on followers, their model was representative of an emerging view during this period that many factors in the worker’s environment could provide guidance and good feelings needed on the job (e.g., see Hackman, Oldham, Janson & Purdy, 1975, or Rousseau, 1977). Another publication also appeared in 1978 which had a major impact on the field of leadership. James McGregor Burns, in a prize-winning book entitled Leadership, outlined a modern view of the behavior of charismatic leaders which he termed Transformational Leadership. Burns’ model spawned numerous valuable programs of research and writing during the 1980’s (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988) which partially eclipsed the work related to substitutes for leadership. This eclipsing was unfortunate since important research efforts and management programs were developing which emphasized nonleader sources of influence using several types of leadership substitutes. Manz and Sims (1980) advocated programs of individual self management as a substitute for leadership. Later the same researchers described autonomous self managed w’ork teams as incorporating substitutes such as increased workers’ ability, experience, training and knowledge and self administered performance feedback within a closely knit cohesive work group (Manz & Sims, 1987). Total Quality Management programs also became popular which included building workers’ ability and knowledge through continuous training and reliance on continuous feedback from the work task and from customers rather than from the formal leader (Walton, 1988). Telecommuting and computerized workplaces which rely on computer networks and groupware increased in popularity (Burstein & Martin, 1989). This new technology provides numerous sources of information and job guidance at the fingertips of workers, making hierarchical managers less essential for day-to-day operations. One effect of programs like these which invoke leadership substitutes has been to reduce the number of middle managers in corporate America by making workers more autonomous and self guiding in their work. Although research evidence provides mixed support for leadership substitutes theory as originally defined, statistical problems with much of this research have likely resulted in understating the prevalence of leadership substitutes (Villa, Howell & Dorfman, 1996). The widespread use of management programs like those described above which include substitutes also attests to their importance. Yukl’s Multiple Linkage Model, which is one of the most carefully developed and updated contingency theories to date, incorporates leadership substitutes and neutralizers as major explanatory variables (Yukl, 1994). Almost every leadership textbook and nearly all organizational behavior texts include a discussion of leadership substitutes and recent studies show that substitute variables often predict more variance in follower attitudes and role perceptions than a set of frequently studied leader behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie & Williams, 1993). As Podsakoff and his colleagues noted, this strongly supports Kerr and Jermier’s suggestion that substitute variables may explain why leader behaviors sometimes account for little criteria variance. Recent developments in leadership substitutes theory provide promise for more thorough empirical tests of the model in the future. Leadership enhancers (situational attributes which increase a leader’s influence on followers) have been added to the theory (Howell, Dorfman & Kerr, 1986) and leader characteristics were added as another potential source
Meaning and Measurement of Substitutes
115
of substitutes (Vecchio, 1990). A new concept called need for leadership has been proposed and used to test for the existence of substitution effects. These tests indicate support for the substitutes construct (Devries, 1995). Substitutes have been found for other leader behaviors than the traditional task and relationship oriented behaviors-including charismatic leadership-but they do not ordinarily neutralize or replace all forms of hierarchical leadership (Dorfman, Howell, Cotton & Tate, 1992). This finding supports one of Kerr and Jermier’s concluding statements: “In most organizations.. .substitutes exist for some leader activities but not for others” (p. 400). It also dispels the common misperception that substitutes for leadership make all leadership insignificant. In fact, some substitute variables may neutralize and replace one leader behavior and enhance one or more other behaviors. In summary, leadership substitute variables have been shown to play an important role in the leadership process. In complex organizations the influence process of leadership takes many forms. When leadership problems occur, substitutes theory provides an option to the normal prescriptions of leader replacement or retraining to alleviate the problem. As Yukl(1994) argues, changing the situation to make leadership more favorable by removing neutralizers or creating substitutes and enhancers may be better alternatives to remedy the problem. Modifying work situations in this manner can be a key role for formal leaders in organizations of the future.
REFERENCES Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership andperformance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bennis, W.G. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strafegies for faking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burstein, J. & Martin, E. (1989). Computer information systems. Homewood, IL: Dryden Press. Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: the elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. DeVries, R.E. (1995). Measuring substitutes for leadership using the concept of need for leadership: a cross-sectional research. Work and Organizational Research Center, Tilburg University, The Netherlands. Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J.P., Cotton, B.C.G., & Tate, U. (1992). Leadership within the “discontinuous hierarchy” structure of the military: are effective leadership behaviors similar within and across command structures? In K.E. Clark, M.B. Clark & D.P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 399-416). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theon, ofleadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hackman, J.R., 0ldha.m G., Janson, R. & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, Summer, 57-7 1. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarter/y, 16, 321-339.
Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Management Review, I I, 88-102. Kerr, S. & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22,375-403.
116
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 8 No. 2 1997
Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128. Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: a social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361-367. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Fetter, R. (1993). Substitutes for leadership and the management of professionals. Leadership Quarterly, 4(l), l-44. Podsakoff, P.M., Niehoff, B.P., MacKenzie, S.B. & Williams, W.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, l44. Rousseau, D.N. (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employee satisfaction and motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Pe@>rmance, 19( 1), 18-42. Vecchio, R.P. (1990). Theoretical and empirical examination of cognitive resource theory. Journal of Applied Psycholog_y, 75(2), 141-147. Villa, J., Howell, J.P., & Dorfman, P.W. (1996). Problems with detecting moderators in current leadership research. Presented and published in the Electronic Proceedings of the Academy of Management meeting, Cincinnati, August. Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Walton, M. (1988). The Deming management method. New York: Putnam Publishers. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G.A. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performunce, 6,414-440.
The publication in 1978 of this classic article outlining the theory of leadership substitutes was a logical consequence of a decade of leadership theory building and research. The dominant issue in the field of leadership during the 1970s was the notion of contingency theories. Numerous contingency models appeared and were popularized during and immediately prior to this decade. Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1967), Yukl’s Multiple Linkage Model (1971), House’s Path-Goal Theory (1971), the Vroom-Yetton Model of decision making (1973), and Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory (1977) are examples. Many of these models are still prominent in current management textbooks. As Kerr and Jermier (1978) pointed out, all these models assumed that some type of hierarchical leadership was needed and important in formal organizations. They also noted that there was wide variation in the amount of criteria variance explained by leader behaviors in empirical studies of real organizations. Contingency theorists had assumed that low explained criteria variance resulted from studying leader behaviors which were inappropriate to the situation. Kerr and Jermier questioned both these assumptions and suggested an alternative-that certain aspects of the individual, task or organization reduced the importance of formal leadership by “neutralizing” the effects of task or relationship-oriented leader behaviors. They also proposed that other situational variables not only “neutralized” these leader behaviors, but also “substituted” for them by having a direct impact of their own on criteria variables. Aspects of the situation had previously been described by contingency researchers as moderator variables whose significance came from how they influenced the impact of *Direct all correspondence to: Jon P. Howell, Management Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003. Leadership Quarterly, S(2), 113-l 16. Copyright 0 1997 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048-9843
Department,
Box 3DJ, New Mexico State University,
114
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol.
8 No.
2 1997
leadership behaviors. Kerr and Jermier highlighted the causal impacts of these situational variables and emphasized that they often acted as more than simply moderators of important leader behaviors. By focusing attention on nonleader sources of influence on followers, their model was representative of an emerging view during this period that many factors in the worker’s environment could provide guidance and good feelings needed on the job (e.g., see Hackman, Oldham, Janson & Purdy, 1975, or Rousseau, 1977). Another publication also appeared in 1978 which had a major impact on the field of leadership. James McGregor Burns, in a prize-winning book entitled Leadership, outlined a modern view of the behavior of charismatic leaders which he termed Transformational Leadership. Burns’ model spawned numerous valuable programs of research and writing during the 1980’s (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988) which partially eclipsed the work related to substitutes for leadership. This eclipsing was unfortunate since important research efforts and management programs were developing which emphasized nonleader sources of influence using several types of leadership substitutes. Manz and Sims (1980) advocated programs of individual self management as a substitute for leadership. Later the same researchers described autonomous self managed w’ork teams as incorporating substitutes such as increased workers’ ability, experience, training and knowledge and self administered performance feedback within a closely knit cohesive work group (Manz & Sims, 1987). Total Quality Management programs also became popular which included building workers’ ability and knowledge through continuous training and reliance on continuous feedback from the work task and from customers rather than from the formal leader (Walton, 1988). Telecommuting and computerized workplaces which rely on computer networks and groupware increased in popularity (Burstein & Martin, 1989). This new technology provides numerous sources of information and job guidance at the fingertips of workers, making hierarchical managers less essential for day-to-day operations. One effect of programs like these which invoke leadership substitutes has been to reduce the number of middle managers in corporate America by making workers more autonomous and self guiding in their work. Although research evidence provides mixed support for leadership substitutes theory as originally defined, statistical problems with much of this research have likely resulted in understating the prevalence of leadership substitutes (Villa, Howell & Dorfman, 1996). The widespread use of management programs like those described above which include substitutes also attests to their importance. Yukl’s Multiple Linkage Model, which is one of the most carefully developed and updated contingency theories to date, incorporates leadership substitutes and neutralizers as major explanatory variables (Yukl, 1994). Almost every leadership textbook and nearly all organizational behavior texts include a discussion of leadership substitutes and recent studies show that substitute variables often predict more variance in follower attitudes and role perceptions than a set of frequently studied leader behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie & Williams, 1993). As Podsakoff and his colleagues noted, this strongly supports Kerr and Jermier’s suggestion that substitute variables may explain why leader behaviors sometimes account for little criteria variance. Recent developments in leadership substitutes theory provide promise for more thorough empirical tests of the model in the future. Leadership enhancers (situational attributes which increase a leader’s influence on followers) have been added to the theory (Howell, Dorfman & Kerr, 1986) and leader characteristics were added as another potential source
Meaning and Measurement of Substitutes
115
of substitutes (Vecchio, 1990). A new concept called need for leadership has been proposed and used to test for the existence of substitution effects. These tests indicate support for the substitutes construct (Devries, 1995). Substitutes have been found for other leader behaviors than the traditional task and relationship oriented behaviors-including charismatic leadership-but they do not ordinarily neutralize or replace all forms of hierarchical leadership (Dorfman, Howell, Cotton & Tate, 1992). This finding supports one of Kerr and Jermier’s concluding statements: “In most organizations.. .substitutes exist for some leader activities but not for others” (p. 400). It also dispels the common misperception that substitutes for leadership make all leadership insignificant. In fact, some substitute variables may neutralize and replace one leader behavior and enhance one or more other behaviors. In summary, leadership substitute variables have been shown to play an important role in the leadership process. In complex organizations the influence process of leadership takes many forms. When leadership problems occur, substitutes theory provides an option to the normal prescriptions of leader replacement or retraining to alleviate the problem. As Yukl(1994) argues, changing the situation to make leadership more favorable by removing neutralizers or creating substitutes and enhancers may be better alternatives to remedy the problem. Modifying work situations in this manner can be a key role for formal leaders in organizations of the future.
REFERENCES Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership andperformance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bennis, W.G. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strafegies for faking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burstein, J. & Martin, E. (1989). Computer information systems. Homewood, IL: Dryden Press. Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: the elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. DeVries, R.E. (1995). Measuring substitutes for leadership using the concept of need for leadership: a cross-sectional research. Work and Organizational Research Center, Tilburg University, The Netherlands. Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J.P., Cotton, B.C.G., & Tate, U. (1992). Leadership within the “discontinuous hierarchy” structure of the military: are effective leadership behaviors similar within and across command structures? In K.E. Clark, M.B. Clark & D.P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 399-416). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theon, ofleadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hackman, J.R., 0ldha.m G., Janson, R. & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, Summer, 57-7 1. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarter/y, 16, 321-339.
Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Management Review, I I, 88-102. Kerr, S. & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22,375-403.
116
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 8 No. 2 1997
Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128. Manz, C.C. & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: a social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361-367. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Fetter, R. (1993). Substitutes for leadership and the management of professionals. Leadership Quarterly, 4(l), l-44. Podsakoff, P.M., Niehoff, B.P., MacKenzie, S.B. & Williams, W.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, l44. Rousseau, D.N. (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employee satisfaction and motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Pe@>rmance, 19( 1), 18-42. Vecchio, R.P. (1990). Theoretical and empirical examination of cognitive resource theory. Journal of Applied Psycholog_y, 75(2), 141-147. Villa, J., Howell, J.P., & Dorfman, P.W. (1996). Problems with detecting moderators in current leadership research. Presented and published in the Electronic Proceedings of the Academy of Management meeting, Cincinnati, August. Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Walton, M. (1988). The Deming management method. New York: Putnam Publishers. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G.A. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performunce, 6,414-440.