Is there a difference in the dominant leadership style between technical and non-technical superiors? Which leadership style of superiors will give their subordinates more freedom on the job? By using House's Path-Goal Model [1] in a study involving a survey of subordinates of 100 technical and 100 non-technical companies in Singapore, I found that technical superiors tend to adopt a supportive leadership style, while non-technical superiors adopt a more achievement-oriented one. This manifests in significant differences between the two kinds of superiors in the extent of the leader's position power (formal authority), the degree of autonomy subordinates want, and the extent subordinates control their goal achievements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HouseR. J., A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness, Administrative Science Leadership Review, 16, pp. 321–339, 1971.
2.
BassB. M., Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, New York Free Press, New York, 1990.
3.
LussierR. N., Human Relations in Organization, Dow Jones Irwin, Homewood, 1990.
SaalF. E. and KnightP. A., Industrial/Occupational Psychology, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, California, 1988.
6.
de VriesKets M., Leaders Who Make a Difference, European Management Journal, 15: 5, pp. 486–493, October 1996.
7.
GebertD. and SteinkampT., Leadership Style and Economic Success in Nigeria and Taiwan, Management International Review, 31: 2, pp. 161–171, 1991.
8.
McDonoughE. F.III and BarczakG., Speeding Up New Product Development: The Effects of Leadership Style and Source of Technology, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8: 3, pp. 203–211, September 1991.
9.
GlissonC. and DurickM., Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment in Human Service Organization, Administrative Quartgerly, 33, pp. 61–81, 1988.
10.
SaveryL. K., Attitudes to Work, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 15: 4, pp. 12–18, 1994.
11.
ZeffaneR., Patterns of Organisational Commitment and Perceived Management Style, Human Relations, 47: 8, pp. 977–1010, August 1994.
12.
PageN. R. and WisemanR. L., Supervision Behaviour and Workers' Satisfaction in the United States, Mexico, Spain, The Journal of Business Communication, 30: 2, pp. 161–180, 1993.
13.
SwansonR. G. and JohnsonD. A., Relation between Peer Perception of Leader Behaviour and Instructor-Pilot Performance, Journal Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 198–200, April 1975.
14.
FiedlerF. E., Factor Analysis of Psychoanalytic, Nondirective, and Adlerian Therapeutic Relationships, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 156, pp. 32–38, 1951.
15.
FiedlerF. E. and GraciaJ. E., New Approaches to Effective Leadership: Cognitive Resources and Organisational Performance, Wiley, New York, 1987.
16.
TannenbaumR. and SchmidtW., How to Choose a Leadership Pattern, Harvard Business Review, 36, pp. 23–29, 1958.
17.
VroomV., Work and Motivation, John Wiley, New York, 1964.
18.
HerseyP. and BlanchardK. H., Life Cycle Theory of Leadership, Training and Development Journal, 23: 5, pp. 26–34, 1969.
19.
GraeffC. L., The Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical View, Academy of Management Review, 8, pp. 285–291, 1983.
20.
HouseR. J. and MitchellT. R., Path-Goal Theory of Leadership, Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, pp. 81–97, 1974.
21.
MaslowA. H., Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York, 1954.
22.
FattTeng James Poon, The Value of Linguistics to Technical Authors in a Digital World. The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 30: 3, pp. 269–276, 2000.
23.
James Poon Teng Fatt, Perceptions of Information Technology in Higher Education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31: 2, pp. 115–142, 2002–2003.
