science

Substitutes for Leadership Theory

Substitutes for Leadership Theory is a science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Substitutes for Leadership Theory rather than just read about it. In short: 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.

Key takeaways

Substitutes for Leadership Theory belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Substitutes for Leadership Theory to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Substitutes for Leadership Theory from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

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. The theory states that different situational factors can enhance, neutralize, or substitute for leader behaviors (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). It has received criticism for shortcomings due to perceived methodological issues. 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. The contingency model stated that various leadership styles would be more or less effective depending on the situation. (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. 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. 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 and proposed leadership constructs such as consideration and initiating structure (put forth by the Ohio State Leadership Studies). 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. Leaders are high on initiating structure to clarify their own roles and their subordinates’ roles in obtaining a goal. 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. In 1973, Kerr was the first to coin substitutes for leadership as elements in the work setting that lessened leader effectiveness on subordinate outcomes. Further publications 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. 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. 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.

Definitions

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

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

Examples of substitutes Characteristics of the subordinate Subordinate ability Subordinate's professional orientation 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 Task that is intrinsically satisfying 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; Kerr and Jermier, 1987) Self-managed work teams (employees rely on each other, not their leader)

Enhancers Enhancers are variables that serve to strengthen leaders influence on subordinate outcomes (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 Characteristics of the task Task is non-routine Characteristics of the organization Having group norms that encourage cooperation with leaders (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) Leader having the ability to reward subordinates

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

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Substitutes for Leadership Theory

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Substitutes for Leadership Theory claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Substitutes for Leadership Theory before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Substitutes for Leadership Theory ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Substitutes for Leadership Theory

In research: Substitutes for Leadership Theory appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Substitutes for Leadership Theory in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Substitutes for Leadership Theory is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Leadership studies, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Substitutes for Leadership Theory outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Substitutes for Leadership Theory” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Substitutes for Leadership Theory in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Substitutes for Leadership Theory means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Substitutes for Leadership Theory out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Substitutes for Leadership Theory in simple terms?

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.

Why does Substitutes for Leadership Theory matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Substitutes for Leadership Theory?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Substitutes for Leadership Theory.