The full range leadership model

The full range model of leadership was developed by prominent leadership researchers Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio in the 80’s and 90’s and has been the subject of extensive research ever since.  It is presented in the figure above, and will be explained in text below.

First and foremost FRL is organized around two axes; degree of activity and degree of effectiveness. The activity axis is concerned with how active or passive the leader is in his or her way of being towards others and towards the aims and goals of the organization. Basically this axis concerns the leaders level of engagement and involvement in the leadership process. The effectiveness axis concerns the effect the specific leadership style has on follower, group and organizational outcomes such as performance, internal motivation and wellbeing.

I will walk through the different styles, beginning with the most passive and ineffective style called Laissez-faire leadership (LF in the figure) which is kind of a hands-off or absence of leadership in which the leader:

• Avoids taking stands on issues, getting involved and making decisions
• Are absent when needed
• Delays and fails to follow up
• Doesn´t emphasize results

Obviously this is not a particularly effective way of leading, which has also been demonstrated in hundreds of studies. It creates confusion, conflicts, low effort and low trust in and satisfaction with the leader.

The reasons for acting in line with laissez-faire leadership might be many. It can be the case that one has inherited a leadership position that one really didn´t want (or was suited for), that one has been tired of ones job and rather would like to go fishing or playing golf, or that one finds it difficult or uninteresting to deal with other people. Whatever the reason, for ones self and others sake, take part in a leadership development program or leave your post for someone else that is better suited.

A slightly more effective (or say less ineffective) way to lead is Management-by-Exception (MBE in the figure) which basically means to act and react before and/or after things have gone wrong by pointing out what is wrong, by threatening and by punishing shortcomings and wrongdoings. There are actually two forms of MBE, one that is passive (MBE-P) and one that is active (MBE-A). MBE-P is characterized by:

• Intervening only if/when standards are not met
• Waiting for things to go wrong before taking any action
• Reluctantly reacting to mistakes and wrong doings

Basically a MBE-P leader only shows up when things have gone wrong, and is often experienced as a ticking bomb. As these leaders are barely seen when things are going as planned everyone knows what to expect when they actually show up. This creates a kind of “brush all mistakes under the carpet until the boss has passed” mentality. MBE-A on the other hand is an active form of corrective leadership and is characterized by:

• Closely monitoring for errors and intervening before errors occur (i.e., micromanaging)
• Focusing attention on mistakes, shortcomings, deviations and complaints
• Making sure to get to know if and when things go wrong

The difference between MBE-P and MBE-A is that the latter doesn’t wait for mistakes to happen before reacting. Instead he or she checks out more or less all the time in order for mistakes not to happen in the first place. There might surely be some situations and instances where this style is appropriate. For instance in situations where everyone agrees that mistakes are very costly or even dangerous and actually ask for tight control in order to avoid such mistakes. In most situations however MBE-A is not an effective leadership style as it makes people too precautious and makes them feel controlled rather than autonomous.

Therefore, although there might be certain rare and specific situations in which the above mentioned leadership styles can be quite effective (or at least not destructive), most often they are not and should therefore be used with great caution. A much more effective way to lead is to use what is called Contingent Reward (CR in the figure) which basically is leading by the carrot (MBE is leading by the stick). In practice this means to reward, in some way, the behaviours that are in line with stated performance expectations. The contingent rewarding leader:

• Sets goals together with and for his or her coworkers that are specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented and time bound
• Specifies which rewards that are to be expected for attaining the goals
• Asks for and suggest pathways for the group and for each individual to meet performance expectations
• Monitors progress toward goals actively and provides supportive feedback
• Provides rewards when goals are attained

This is a highly goal directed form of leadership that, if performed consistently, creates a high level of clarity about what is expected and a high degree of trust in the leader as he or she delivers agreed upon rewards contingent on attainment of specified expectations. This kind of leadership is related to a good level of job satisfaction and satisfaction with the leader, as well as a lot better job performance than the previous mentioned leadership styles. However this kind of leadership also has some potential pitfalls, not least with regard to its influence on human motivation, which we deal with below.

The MBE and CT leadership styles constitutes what is called transactional leadership which means that, in essence, they are built on a transaction between the leader and the follower/subordinate/co-worker etc. who perform in accordance with leader expectations and thereby receives some kind of reward (CR) or avoids some kind of punishment (MBE) that the leader is in the position to administer. Basically it is built on extrinsic or controlled motivation, as the reward and/or punishment becomes the main reason for performing the task, not the task in itself. Although contingent rewards can be quite effective for getting people to perform their work tasks, they have also been found to have an undermining effect on intrinsic/autonomous motivation.

Transformational leadership, which is the highest level of leadership with regard to activity level and effect on individual, group and organizational outcomes, differs from transactional leadership in the sense that it is more based on trying to increase the degree of intrinsic or autonomous motivation. The transformation is manifested in a motivational change in people, going from performing the job tasks because one have/must to, to performing them because one wants to. Transformational leadership consists of four subcategories of behaviours (often called the 4 I’s). These are Individualized Consideration (IC in the figure), Intellectual Stimulation (IS in the figure), Inspirational Motivation (IM in the figure), and Idealized Influence (II in the figure).

Leaders who are individually considerate (IC) see every person as unique and build personal and special relations with each individual based on his or her strengths and preferences. In essence, the IC leaders:

• Consider individuals as having different needs, abilities and aspirations
• Treat others as individuals and not only members of a group or organization
• Listen attentively to others ideas and concerns
• Help others to identify and develop their strengths
• Coach others actively and regularly
• Promote self-development
• Genuinely care for others and show this compassion in actions

Individual consideration makes the follower feel needed and important, It means taking the internal frame of reference of the employees in order to facilitate autonomous motivation.

Intellectually stimulating (IS) leaders on the other hand emphasize the value of follower’s intellect and rational thoughts and actively encourage followers to:

• Challenge old ways of doing things
• Seek different perspectives when solving problems
• Challenge taken-for-granted assumptions
• Feedback the leader and each other
• Come up with new ideas
• Spend time to brainstorm creative ideas and solutions
• Always try to develop new and slightly better ways of performing the job – in a lot of small steps rather than in a few quantum leaps

Creating a climate where it is allowed to come up with and share ideas and to challenge old ways of doing things as well as ones own (as a leader) behaviours promotes peoples need for autonomy, which is essential for intrinsic/autonomous motivation. People who dare to think and express their thoughts and ideas without the risk of being punished will naturally come up with more ideas and think more about how to gradually develop new and better work methods. These are absolutely essential qualities for a successful workforce of today.

If intellectual stimulation is concerned with the stimulation of rational thoughts the next component of transformational leadership, inspirational motivation (IM) is more focused on emotional stimulation. Inspirationally motivating leaders:

• Talk optimistically about the future and articulate compelling visions
• Use a strong and evocative language
• Express confidence in others abilities to reach visions and goals
• Talk about the mission or purpose for the group or the organization
• Align individual goals and aspirations with the vision for the organization

Leaders who are very inspirationally motivating are often seen as strong and charismatic, a quality that if used for wrong and immoral reasons can be absolutely devastating. It is important to balance the inspirational part of leadership with individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation and, perhaps most important, the final component, which is idealized influence (II) and which means to:

• Walk the talk
• Talk about ones most important values and take a strong stand for them
• Ask others about their most important values and search for shared values – then sacrifice oneself for the sake of these shared values
• Consider the moral consequences of one’s decisions
• Not giving oneself advantages others are not given

Idealized influence is the main ingredient in serving as a role model and is absolutely essential in order to gain the trust from others that are needed in order for them to work hard on attaining the vision. By showing that the leader does not give him or her any advantages as compared to others and that he or she is consistently acting in line with shared values his or her level of trustworthiness increases.

Every leader displays each of the leadership styles in the Full Range Leadership Model to some extent, in certain situations and/or towards certain individuals. That is probably unavoidable and probably even to some extent a good thing. Actually, the idea of situational leadership has been around for decades, suggesting that some behaviours are more appropriate in certain situations, for certain individuals/groups and for certain tasks, while other behaviours are more effective at other times. This is also the case when it comes to the FRL. Even if transformational leadership in general is more effective than other leadership styles, there are probably situations in which it might be better (or at least not worse) to use contingent rewards or to act on exceptions.

An example of utilizing the scale of Full Range Leadership depending on the situation is in how the leader acts with regard to safety in the workplace. Idealized influence is probably the most efficient way to promote a long-term change and over time develop a safety culture in the unit and/or organization. The leader needs to show by example, with own behaviours, that he/she puts safety issues high up on the priority list. But, if there is a serious safety hazard going on that can escalate, a MBE-A behaviour gives a better result in safety for the moment (situation).

In summary then, a leader demonstrates all the styles to some extent, in some situations, which also is a good thing. By analysing different situations alone and in cooperation with other managers as well as ones followers, one can get an idea of appropriate behaviours for particular situations. That said, the critical question still is what style/-s the leader demonstrates most of the time, in the majority of situations and towards most people. Or, in other words, what is the leaders main or dominant leadership style. If it is laissez-faire or managing by exception it is bad news for everyone around. If it is contingent rewarding it is better news. If it is transformational it is even better news. Finally, if it is contingent rewarding, combined with transformational, it is probably the very best news.