Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Leadership Development - Conditional Outdoor Leadership Theory


Image Credit: Paddle Golden Gate 

Simon Priest and Robert Chase (1989) took the notion of situational leadership and adapted it specifically for outdoor practitioners. The Conditional Outdoor Leadership Theory (COLT) postulates that leaders must go beyond the dimensions of relationship, task, and group readiness and look at all the levels of conditional favourability (Martin et al., 2006; Priest and Gass, 2005). The COLT model presents a continuum of leadership styles from autocratic, through democratic, to abdicratic (Lewin et al., 1938; Katz et al., 1950; Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973) depending on whether the power to make decisions rests with the leader, is shared between the leader and group, or is abdicated to the group (Priest, 1986; Priest and Gass, 2005; Ogilvie, 2005).


Figure 1: COLT Model (Priest & Gass, 2005, p 248)

According to this model, with increasing concern for a task, or getting the job done, good leaders adopt an autocratic leadership style. With increasing concern for relationships, effective leaders employ an abdicratic style. When these concerns are equally important, the model predicts that good leaders will utilize a democratic style. These styles are spread across a typical orientation matrix of (X-axis by Y-axis) concern for task and concern for relationships (Stogdill and Coons, 1957; Blake and Mouton, 1978; Hersey and Blanchard, 1982). 

The proportion of style expressed also 'flexes' in response to a spectrum of factors (Z-axis) encompassing the favourability of conditions (Fiedler, 1967; Ogilvie, 2005). 

Image Credits: Mark Tozer Collection

The degree to which there is a high or low 'favourability' within each of these conditions - environmental dangers, leader proficiency, group cohesion, member competence, and decision consequences will create circumstances conducive that shift the style in one direction or another.

Low favourability: Dangers are extreme; leadership is deficient; the individuals are incompetent; there is poor group cohesion; consequences of decisions are major. A more autocratic style might be necessary.

Medium favourability: Dangers are acceptable; the leader is proficient; individuals are reasonably responsible; the group gets along fairly well; the consequences of decisions are mostly recoverable. Style depends on the "pull" of concerns.

High favorability: Dangers minimal; the leader is highly proficient; the are very competent; the group gets along very well; the consequence of decisions are minor. A more abdicratic style may be favorable.

In other words, immediate danger can require autocratic leadership, though a united and competent group may well flourish under an abdicratic leader, even under adverse conditions (Martin et al., 2006; Priest and Gass, 2005; Ogilvie, 2005). 

The key point to pick up here is that no one style can be right all the time. The most effective style for ‘good leadership’ is one that is flexible within changing situations (Priest and Dixon, 1991, Tozer et al, 2007).

Ogilvie (2005) makes the remark that the model is a sophisticated one and considerable effort is required to grasp the essential meaning sufficiently to be of any use in practice. 

However, the COLT model is considered to be more finely tuned to the needs of outdoor learning where levels of concern for the care and well being of the individual are likely to be higher than in the cut-and-thrust realms of industry and commerce from which most other models and theories about leadership have originated.

Image Credits: Mark Tozer Collection

Reference List

Blake and Mouton (1978)

Fiedler (1967)

Hersey and Blanchard (1982)

Katz et al., (1950)

Lewin et al., (1938)

Martin et al. (2006)

Ogilvie (2005)

Priest and Chase (1989)

Priest and Dixon (1991)

Priest, S., and Gass, MA (2005). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Human Kinetics.
Stogdill and Coons, 1957

Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973)

Tozer (2007)

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ogilvie (2005)....where might I find this citation? Googling the citation yields no correct hits.

Cheers,

Brad

Sea Kayak Mark said...

The reference you need is:

Ogilvie, K. C. (2005) Leading and Managing Groups in the Outdoors (2nd edition). Penrith, Cumbria: Institute for Outdoor Learning

Matt Dalziel said...

why is there a direct relationship between task and relationship orientation? It doesn't make sense to me that you could be low on both (unless you're a poor leader and don't care about task or orientation) or that you can be high on both, or that you can have limits on how much you care or how much you want to achieve. It only makes sense if the individual leader's preoccupation or orientation is proportionally completely task or completely relationship oriented, or some point in between.

Unknown said...

If you fail it doesn't mean you are weak, you fail because there are things that are not meant for you or not meant to happen. Accept failures and take it as a challenge to become a better person. Visit my site for more information. Thank you and have a nice day.

n8fan.net

www.n8fan.net

003047 said...

Awesome stuff would be good though if you could chuck in the book or link in references at the end other then just the names and year for us students as Priest and Gass have done loads of articles! Good work though really helped thanks!! :)