Thompson Work Organisations A Critical Introduction (3rd ed)

262 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

communication may lessen debate and conflict along with the ability to express new ideas, while communications will be more precise and deliberate and policies and standards easier to formulate and monitor.

The assumptions and inferences made by senders and receivers in conditions of open versus closed communication have been analysed by Sussman (1991) in terms of the variables given in Figure 17.2.

As the extremes of the closed condition are approached, the level of meta-commu- nication is said to increase so that all messages are scrutinised for the hidden agendas and meanings they might convey. At such a level the interpersonal politics of linguistic gameplaying might become of greater importance than the overt content of communications themselves. This in turn links the study of communication directly into debates on the dimensions of power in organisations, which can be seen in Kirkbride’s (in Hartley and Stephenson, 1992: 77) discussion of power in the employment relationship. Kirkbride cites various sources to illustrate the point that the use of rhetoric and argument are part of the ‘tactical dimension’ of power by which meaning is manipulated, both in the pursuit of legitimising control mechanisms and in underwriting political resistance. In particular he cites Czarniawska-Joerges and Joerges who examine ‘organisational talk’ as a form of ‘unobtrusive control’ in which linguistic devices in the form of labels, metaphors and platitudes can ‘enable [management] to manage meaning by explaining, colouring and familiarising, as opposed to the traditional methods of commanding, fighting and punishing’ (1992: 77). The aspects of communication involved here are well summarised in Hosking and Morley (1991: 30, citing De Cindio et al., 1988) as pragmatic (conversing on commitments to actions), structuring (conversing on commitments to roles and co-ordination) and semantic (conversing on meanings of words).

Returning to the links between communication and power, the oft-cited notion of

Closed		Message			Open
Guarded		transmission			Candid
Defensive		and reception			Supportive
		is linked to:
Low		Trust			High
Hidden		Agendas			Shared
Intent to		Objectives			Intent to
conceal					reveal

F I G U R E 1 7 . 2 C o m m u n i c a t i o n o p e n n e s s

Source: P. Hellriegel, J. W. Solcum Jr and R. Woodman (1992) Organizational Behaviour, 6th edn, St Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, p. 400.

O P E N TO P E R S UA S I O N : CO M M U N I C AT I O N A N D L E A D E R S H I P • 2 6 3

communication as the ‘energy’ of an organisational system has led to much research directed towards understanding organisational rather than interpersonal communication, particularly in relation to management information systems (MIS). Saunders (1981) has proposed a theoretical linkage between the use of MIS, communication and the relative power of organisational departments or groupings. The use of MIS in critical tasks is said to increase power by their ability to decrease uncertainty stemming from lack of information, to increase nonsubstitutability (the extent to which activities cannot be carried out by some other group), and to increase the ability to cope with higher levels of pervasiveness (the number of communication links with other departments). Though largely untested, this model does point to the importance of communications in maintaining power and role relationships in increasingly complex organisational structures.

The relation of managerial roles to communication has been seen as intimately associated with systems of shared and – more often than not – informal meanings. In her powerful study of computerisation in the workplace Zuboff (1988) traces this relation back to Chester Barnard in the 1930s (1988: 101–2), who characterised organised communication in terms of the means (that is, the people involved) and the system (the positions they hold). From this, Zuboff argues that managerial executives are responsible for communicating their ‘action context’ from their own particular facet of the organisation to other executives and ‘so contributing to a shared sense of the whole’ (1988: 102). Such ‘sharing’ demands a high degree of informal and face-to-face contact. For Barnard this requirement underwrote the notion that, regardless of formal competencies, the selection and promotion of executives was driven by the interpersonal politics of whether a candidate would ‘fit’ into the community they must perforce interact with (as we argued in Chapter 15). Zuboff’s analysis of the computerisation of managerial information/control systems indicates that managers, in becoming dependent on these systems, may become insulated from ‘organisational realities’ outside their own networks and community of interest. Through this they might become less adept at the reciprocal communicative relationships they need to maintain up and down the organisation for effective control. She argues that not only do workers face new demands from new technologies, but that:

Managers also are likely to face new communicative demands – for sharing interpretations, problem-solving, and making sense of complex and interdependent forms of data about people and events. (Zuboff, 1988: 361)

Perhaps the most enduring view on research into communication comes once again from Whyte in The Organisation Man. Whyte was so unconvinced by the state of knowledge on communication at the time that he argued that ‘it has no business whatsoever as a basic undergraduate discipline’. Notwithstanding the many advances in the area, his remarks on the ‘technicians’ who ‘mentor’ this process still ring true today:

Many of these people don’t even like the language.They torture it with charts,they twist it with equations and they have so little respect for the devices they recommend as the avenue to the masses that they never demean themselves with their use. Rarely has brevity been advocated so interminably. (Whyte, 1957: 94)

What we need here is an approach that can get beyond the problems Whyte raises and

264 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

begin to place communication in the context of the relations of subjectivity we highlight. Though there is no fully formed perspective that can do this, insights from social identity and self-categorisation theory (see Chapter 16) at least give us a start in this area. Haslam (2000: 144) argues that from these perspectives communication is a ‘complex intersubjective achievement’ and that:

Only when individuals define themselves in terms of a common sense of ‘we-ness’ will their motivation and attempts to communicate ultimately ensure a full transfer of meaning. In this way communication produces and is produced by a shared cognitive network that has the capacity to transform potentially idiosyncratic inputs into co-ordinated action. (Haslam, 2000: 145)

Haslam, in a detailed exposition of the social identity approach to communication, asks, ‘Why do people in organizations communicate?’ (2000: 125) and concludes that it is ‘necessarily oriented towards and structured by our social self-definition in any given context’ (2000: 130). The key function of communication in self-definition is seen in exerting influence over others, along with reducing uncertainty, gaining feedback, coordinating group performance and serving affiliative needs. Organisational communication, on the other hand, is often these days a tool of ideological influence, and relies heavily on the ability of individuals to underpin their actions within systems of belief. Ideological systems are important to groups as well as individuals (see Chapter 21), but for the moment we turn to the ways in which the capacities, techniques and skills of interpersonal influence are employed to provide self-definition through the effort of surviving and pursuing our personal agendas in organisations.

Interpersonal influence

Influence can be pursued through coercion, the exercise of various forms of power and so on, but the success of such endeavours is in turn reliant on the interpersonal skills of the participants. Arnold, Robertson and Cooper (1998: 45) identify leadership, assertiveness, negotiation, group working and relationship-building as key interpersonal skills, though the implication here is that influence is essentially a set of characteristics which people either have or can acquire. Likewise, persuasion is most often viewed through its effects on the communication process and on attitude change (see Chapter 15). The other main area in which interpersonal influence is considered in OB is that of leadership (for example, in terms of leadership style or the management of meaning for subordinates, see Chell, 1993: 143, 157). Our interest here is more in the techniques, tactics and strategies used to influence others. These can vary from the deployment of argument, rhetoric and metaphor, to the less obvious but equally important skills of impression management, through which we negotiate a consistent image to the world (see Chapter 21).

The basic tactics of influence have been summarised by Forsyth (in Martin, 1998: 521) as:

•promising

•bullying

•discussion

•negotiation

O P E N TO P E R S UA S I O N : CO M M U N I C AT I O N A N D L E A D E R S H I P • 2 6 5

•manipulation

•demand

•claiming expertise

•ingratiation

•evasion.

More complex models of influence in terms of ‘political behaviour’ have been proposed (for example, see Rollinson et al., 1998: 399) and cross-cultural comparisons have also been put forward (for example, see Fisher, 1993: 416). The former still tend to be lists of tactics, and the latter to be little more than stereotypical continua of characteristics. All the same, managers, organisational consultants and theorists have become more aware of the tactical importance of influence strategies at the same time as individuals and groups have become more adept at using them to pursue their own goals (for example, in interviewing and testing, and communication and presentation skills). Books on how to influence others through self presentation and psychological technique are becoming ever more common, the best being Cialdini (2001), who examines the social psychology of influence and compliance, taking experimental and participant observation research and using examples from a wide range of ‘influence practitioners’ from the police to consumer and marketing agencies. He takes a wide-ranging view of the practical strategies of influence and the theories underpinning them:

•fixed-action patterns; scripts; compliance

•reciprocation; obligation; repayment (even if uninvited); rejection–retreat; unequal exchange

•consistency; initial commitment, ‘foot-in-door’; rationalisation; low-ball

•social proof (consensus, modelling); uncertainty; ambiguity; similarity

•liking; physical attractiveness; similarity; praise; familiarity; association

•conformity pressure; socialisation; adaptivity; symbols

•scarcity, limited edition, deadlines; reactance and loss of freedom (teenagers!); access; newness, competition.

Cialdini notes that most strategies rely on the simple observation that people can usually be pushed into making decisions based on very limited information, and by gaining small commitments it becomes possible to manipulate a person’s self-image (2001: 74). Others link influence to meticulous preparation for interpersonal encounters and more recently to nonverbal behaviour. An example of both of these is McCann’s (1988) notion of influence through psychoverbal communication, which is in turn largely based on the therapeutic techniques of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), which is itself becoming popular in the area of management development (from Bandler and Grinder, 1976, or see Knight, 1999 for a good introduction). McCann links the NLP techniques of strategic and operational pacing to a traditional model of personality (1988: 8–9) based on the Margerison and McCann Team Management Wheel (1986) to produce prescriptions on how to achieve influence in different situations. Strategic pacing involves the planning of conversations based on knowledge of your subject, and operational pacing involves techniques originally taken from hypnosis and relying on establishing a feedback rapport with the subject which then allows you to take a leading role in the interaction. NLP has moved on from the therapeutic arena and continued to grow in popularity. What is seldom emphasised in the management and training literatures,

266 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

however, is the amount of training needed to utilise pacing techniques successfully, and that they work best in highly controlled situations. There are also a plethora of ‘airport’ style books on offer which indicate that when uncertainty and contingency make it difficult to predict what will work best in any given situation, the only recourse is to the interpersonal skills and techniques which underwrite social and organisational politics.

As noted above, those most dependent on the power of communication and the application of influence are perhaps those who need to convince us that their construction of reality is somehow more powerful than our own. All managers need to do this to some extent, and the most successful are those who appear to be able to achieve this through the exercise of the mysterious power known as leadership.

Leadership, might or myth?

Leadership is defined by Buchanan and Huczynsci (1985: 389) as ‘a social process in which one individual influences the behaviour of others without the use or threat of violence’. Explanation in this area has focused on personality traits, styles of leadership and more recently on situation-contingent styles and relations between leaders and group members. It is assumed that the threat of violence is not commonly relied upon nowadays to maintain positions of leadership, though the continuing use of threats to, and sanctions on, financial and job security in organisations means that the ‘social process’ of leadership must be understood in its intimate relationship with the exercise of power (and possibly in the continued existence of bullying, sweatshops and slave labour). According to Fiedler (1967: 108), ‘the acid test of leadership theory must be in its ability to improve organisational performance’. The study of leadership is then directly related to the improvement of management control strategies and to the refinement of the tactical options open to managers in the day-to-day practice of regulating workplace behaviour. This can be seen in the notion that managers, in dealing with problems and subordinates in differing situations, can adopt various ‘leadership styles’. In addition, leadership also serves as an almost perfect exemplar of how behavioural theory is incorporated into managerial discourse only up to the point where it becomes too complex for easy assimilation into ideology and practice, with the consequence that the managerial literature then tends to fall back on prescriptive generalities based on theory and research that has been long discredited or overtaken.

Katz and Kahn (1978) refer to leadership in terms of three sets of meanings that are often used simultaneously: first, there are the attributes of the occupancy of a position in a social structure; second, the qualities or characteristics of a particular person; and last, the categories of behaviour associated with a particular person. Occupancy of position essentially refers to the position power (see section on ‘Contingent leadership’ below) of a person in an organisational hierarchy: for example, regardless of their characteristics, soldiers are to obey officers, no matter who and what they are like. Characteristics and behaviours associate particular qualities with individuals in terms of their recognition as a leader by a particular group. Thus an officer may have the power to lead but may not be recognised as a leader.

The historical study of leadership tended to focus on the habits, sayings and characteristics of those recognised as great leaders, hence the Great Man notion of leadership theory that is also referred to as the Zeitgeist (literally: ‘Spirit of the Age’) theory. According to this notion, leaders were born to lead and would rise to power and

O P E N TO P E R S UA S I O N : CO M M U N I C AT I O N A N D L E A D E R S H I P • 2 6 7

influence like the cream on the milk, or the scum on the pond, depending on whether you were a follower or a victim of their cause. People could ‘rise from the ranks’ if they had the necessary qualities, but of course this view did tend to favour those already in positions of social dominance in that they would be better fed, housed, educated and have access to resources and social networks unavailable to others. However the search for what leaders had in common only managed to establish the range of variation possible in leaders, from the short, balding French Emperor to the handsome, gay Macedonian one.

Traits and characteristics

The failure of the search for common physical characteristics led to an effort to find common psychological factors in the trait approach. The ideas that particular traits can predict leadership ability and that leaders can be selected still hold fast in conventional wisdom, though in effect all this approach did was to further establish the wide range of possible characteristics that leaders can have. Stodgill’s (1974) review of research on traits did not bring up any reliable correlations between leadership ability and particular traits, and found that traits in general were ambiguous and ill-defined. A good contemporary example of this is the so-called ‘helicopter ability’ (Handy, 1980: 109), which is taken as the ability to ‘rise above the situation and see the big picture’. Where we still see lists of leadership traits in the managerial literature, their most abiding feature is that they are generally more representative of those traits thought to be stereotypically male, such as dominance, aggressiveness and rationality, rather than traits stereotypically associated with women such as passivity, nurturance and emotionality. This emphasises the point that leadership qualities can function as legitimising ideological support for the notion that it is the duty and obligation of the manager/leader to direct those not blessed by access to their particular sources of power. When viewed through the kind of assumptions made by managers in McGregor’s ‘Theory X’ (see Chapter 19) and the managerial control imperative of scientific management, the continuing popularity of this largely discredited approach is completely understandable. Indeed Selznick (1957) identified leadership as partly founded on ‘morally sustaining ideas’ and ‘socially integrating myths’. The former mobilise support for the notions of compromise and restraint underpinning management’s search for meaning and security. The latter are the superordinate goals which leaders appeal to in order to unite organisational members behind managerial strategies.

The fashionable ‘Japanese’ management styles of the 1980s (discussed in Chapters 11 and 12) worked to lock both managers and workers into appearing to make the organisation successful for the good of all. This was manifested in the single-status canteens and dress, and the workgroup-based discussion circles that channelled perceptions of the organisation towards superordinate goals. Possibly the most interesting pieces of evidence from the trait line of research were the somewhat disconfirmative findings on the acceptability of leaders to group members, which appear to show that groups prefer high-status members as leaders and that the characteristics of followers determine the acceptability of leadership characteristics (Stodgill, 1974: 208–14). The most predictive factors in the characteristics of any given leader would then be their apparent status and the values, interests and personalities of their followers. What is indicated here is that leadership is a relationship with a group of followers or subordinates, a role and not a set of characteristics.

268 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

Styles and roles

The work of Likert at Michigan, and more significantly Stodgill’s work at Ohio State, meant that that rather than being limited to selecting people with leadership traits, leaders could be trained in the form and style of their behaviours and relationships with their followers or subordinates. The Michigan work followed on from the work of Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) which related three styles of leadership to the emotional climate and hence the assumed effectiveness of work groups. This followed in the trait tradition in that the styles are assumed to be universal or at least enduring attributes. The first of these styles, autocratic leadership, continues the tradition of strong personal control and rule-bound relationships, while democratic leadership is less regulatory and emphasises collaboration and responsive relationships. This latter style can be firmly linked to the human relations tradition in OB and shifts the view of leadership away from duty and direction towards responsibility and co-ordination. The managerial assumptions here are perhaps best exemplified in McGregor’s ‘Theory Y’ and human relations in general, though interestingly Stodgill (1974: 365) relates ‘Theory Y’ more closely to the third style, laissez-faire leadership. This third style did not provoke as much research effort as the first two, which is easily understood in that it is described as a style in which the leader ‘fails’ to accept the responsibilities of the position.

The Ohio work stepped away from the trait approach in describing leader behaviour which was open to modification and not an attribute of a person. Two specific forms of behaviour were identified: initiating structure, aimed at defining roles, patterns of communication, organisation and action; and consideration, aimed at developing working relationships, trust and respect. The only essential difference between these and the autocratic and democratic styles was that any given leader could rate high or low on either or both forms of behaviour. Overall, these bodies of work led to research and training programmes aimed at changing the leadership climates of organisations and the behaviour of leaders – climate being found to have more enduring effects on behaviour than training. This led to assumptions about managerial behaviour shifting for a time towards the notion that it was the duty of managers to co-ordinate rather than direct effort.

Other work, such as that of Vroom and Mann (1960) found that style preferences depended more on the situation, autocratic styles being preferred where objectives centre on task accomplishment. Further developments in this direction appeared to show that autocratic styles were more acceptable in stressful or crisis situations, where the speed of decision-making may be more important than the quality of the decision. Stodgill’s impressive review and summary of these approaches (1974: 403–7) concluded that ‘In view of the complexity of leader behaviour and the variety of situations in which it functions, a conditional and multivariate hypothesis seems more reasonable than a simplistic, bipolar view of the leader–follower relationship’ (1974: 407). In general, then, no one form of leadership could be guaranteed to produce increases in group productivity.

The notion that leadership is a role performed in a group context can be related to work such as that of Benne and Sheats (1948) on group roles, Tuckman (1965) on group formation, Bavelas (1950) and Leavitt (1951) on communication networks and Bales (1950) on the interaction analysis of group performance. Though these bodies of work tend to suffer criticisms stemming from the artificiality of their methods, a synthesis of their general principles rather than their detailed prescriptions can provide useful insights into the processes by which leaders may emerge from newly formed groups.

O P E N TO P E R S UA S I O N : CO M M U N I C AT I O N A N D L E A D E R S H I P • 2 6 9

This is especially the case when related to the often-disregarded notion of leadership ‘acts’, where leadership is seen as a series of acts or behaviours that can be performed by any member of a group regardless of status and power. Acts tend to fall into two major categories, as in Bales’ group functions or Benne and Sheats’ group roles, which are task maintenance and group maintenance. The first of these relates to preventing irrelevant behaviour, overcoming goal barriers and rewarding performance. The second emphasises defusing tensions, offering support and encouraging and rewarding participation. The consistent and competent performance of acts in these categories increases the likelihood of particular individuals emerging as either task or group-oriented leaders as they internalise the success of their actions.

The performance of leadership acts within the arena of group formation could be seen as an input to Tuckman’s process of role differentiation in the group (see Chapter 20), and similarly as a mechanism by which members come to have differential access to and control of communication networks. In this sense an emerging leader would be the group member who most consistently performs leadership acts in the forming stage and influences the setting of interaction patterns in the group in the norming stage. From the development of Bales’ work we also get the notion that a group may effectively have two leaders. Since both task and group maintenance roles are necessary to group functioning, even where a formal leader is appointed to a group, an informal and subsidiary leadership role or ‘second-in-command’ may emerge. This would be occupied by the member most consistently performing leadership acts of the opposite type to the formal leader (in this case most probably the group maintenance or socio-emotional role).

Another strand of often-ignored work adding to this synthesis is Hollander’s (1964, also see Katz, 1982) notion of idiosyncrasy credit. Here the consistent compliance of a leader with the norms and expectations of a group (and consistent performance of leadership acts?) gains ‘credit’ from the group which subsequently permits them to deviate from group norms. This is a simple concept with great explanatory power, again viewing leadership as a specifically group-oriented role, but a role that allows the leader to act outside the normal social and task maintenance processes of the group in order to serve its interests. A leader may have to represent the group outside its own context, or bring demands to the group that do not fit its norms or expectations. As such, the ability to act idiosyncratically and innovatively may be of benefit to the group as a whole. This concept could be extended to include the acceptability of leadership behaviours such as the selective reward and punishment of group members. As long as they have credit with their group, leaders can act in a manner that might not be acceptable from other members. When a leader is seen to act incompetently or deviates too far from group norms, ‘credit’ may pass to the member performing the subsidiary leadership role and shift the power relations in the group.

Contingent leadership

Many other elements could be added to a synthesis of the kind introduced above, which though grossly overgeneralised does highlight the notion that leadership is a process in which power, influence and role definitions are conferred on or competed for by group members in the mundane performance of tasks and getting on with others. A major fault of such a synthesis is that it cannot easily account for situational and contextual variables, and in considering these factors alongside leader behaviour, leadership theory moved towards contingency models, best exemplified in Fiedler’s (1967) theory of

270 • W O R K O R G A N I S AT I O N S

leadership effectiveness. This was based on his use of his least-preferred co-worker scale (LPC), with research based on real-world groups of many kinds from bomber crews to basketball teams. Leaders were asked to rate their most and least preferred co-workers (MPC and LPC). Those rating them similarly were designated ‘high LPC’ and found to be less controlling and more group-oriented, those rating LPCs more negatively were designated ‘low LPC’ and tended to be more autocratic and task-centred. (For a discussion of this see McKenna, 2000, or Smith, 1991.)

Leadership effectiveness was seen as dependent on situational favourableness, which was in turn contingent on levels of task structure (the more structured, defined and routine the more favourable), leader–member relations (the more trust and liking for the leader the more favourable), and the leader’s position power (the more power to coerce, reward and punish the more favourable). Of these factors, leader–member relations were assumed to be the most significant and in situations of mixed favourableness the high LPC, employee-centred leader was found to be most effective. In very favourable or very unfavourable situations the low LPC, task-centred leader was more effective. Additionally, Fiedler also noted that groups might tend to have more than one leader, and in stable or mature group structures the best combination might be for a low LPC leader, with a high LPC second-in-command.

Though many studies have cast Fiedler’s conclusions into doubt, the model does sit well with the notions that democratic leaders are preferred in most situations and that autocratic leaders will be more acceptable in crisis situations. What is less understandable in Fiedler’s model is why the autocratic leader should be more effective in highly favourable situations. However, the notion that a leader’s behaviour could be adjusted to fit the situation or that conditions could be adjusted to fit the leader remains a powerful influence in the field of study, offering as it does the idea that leadership is a variable that can be manipulated to achieve organisational objectives. Other models which extend the themes of situational and behavioural contingency are those of House and Mitchell (1974) and Vroom and Yetton (1973), which both bring in factors relating to the acceptability of leaders by subordinates. House’s path–goal model is termed a transactional theory as it considers the balance of exchange between leaders and followers, accounting for follower attitudes and expectations. It gives four dimensions of leadership behaviour, subdividing the traditional autocratic–democratic split into directive, achievement-oriented, supportive and participative.

Vroom and Yetton’s model extends the notion of leader–member relations to consider the quality of leader decisions and the information and skill requirements of subordinates. They give four styles similar to those of House and Mitchell: autocratic, delegative, group dominated and consultative. The achievement-oriented and delegative styles offer a partial explanation of Fiedler’s finding that autocratic leaders could be more effective in highly favourable situations in that a mature, effective and cohesive group might prefer a leader who simply sets goals or delegates tasks and leaves them to get on with it. This form of leadership might represent the return of the laissez-faire leader to the extent that it is exemplified in the ‘hands-off’ approach often used with high skill or status groups such as research and design teams.

The style elements of leadership will also be significantly influenced by the ideological elements of organisational climate or culture. Purcell (1987) has summarised such effects on employee relations in a model of management style in which dimensions of individualism versus collectivism give rise to a range of behavioural and strategic options for managers. (See Rollinson, 1998: 693 for a discussion of this.) (See Figure 17.3.)

O P E N TO P E R S UA S I O N : CO M M U N I C AT I O N A N D L E A D E R S H I P • 2 7 1

High

Individualist dimension

Low

Employee development focus

Paternalist

focus

Labour control focus

Unitarist		Adversarial	Co-operative
focus		focus	focus
Low				High
		Collectivist dimension

P u r c e l l ’s s c h e m e f o r m a p p i n g m a n a g e m e n t s t y l e s

F I G U R E 1 7 . 3

Source: reproduced from D. Rollinson, A. Broadfield and D. J. Edwards (1998) Organisational Behaviour and Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Harlow, Essex: Addison-Wesley. After J. Purcell (1987) ‘Mapping Management Styles in Industrial Relations’, Journal of Management Studies, 24. 5: 535–48. © Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

The Purcell model serves to remind us that the contingent nature of managerial behaviour is itself routinely exploited in the regulation of employees and that managerial labour itself has to be transformed in the face of situational contingencies.

Transforming leadership

The Vroom and Yetton model is known as a ‘normative’ or ‘prescriptive’ model in that it specifies leader behaviours further than the four basic styles and links these to decisionmaking approaches to be used in relation to a range of individual or group problems and situations. The decision-tree methodology used to decide which approach is the most appropriate is still in use as a heuristic to explain how decisions might be reached, but has less practical applicability in that it is complex to use because the variables are difficult to map onto real situations and produce few non-obvious results. The increasing complexity of leadership theory and research was recognised in Stodgill’s conclusions to his review (1974: 411–29), where he noted that directions for future research would best be pursued under a conditional or contingency model, but warned that studies would have to account for interactions between more than 30 variables summarised below: