[1] The theory states that different situational factors can enhance, neutralize, or substitute for leader behaviors[2] (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.
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).
Steven Kerr and Anne Harlan was one of the researchers publicly expressing his frustrations with current leadership theories.
[9] 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.
[9] In 1973, Kerr was the first to coin substitutes for leadership as elements in the work setting that lessened leader effectiveness on subordinate outcomes.
They claim that the subscales produce easily interpretable data that describe the extent to which substitutes for leadership are present or absent in a given work situation.
Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, and Williams noted that studies testing the substitutes for leadership model had not been fully supportive of the theory, and believed that one reason for this may be that the quality of the scale developed by Kerr and Jermier to measure the substitutes constructs may be to blame.
[17] Kerr and Jermier proposed that substitute variables should render leader behaviors unable to predict subordinate outcomes.
[14][4] A study involving hospital personnel found that tasks that gave feedback regarding performance were negatively correlated with job satisfaction.
However, they found little evidence that substitutes prevented or replaced a leader's effect on subordinate job satisfaction or organizational commitment.
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer conducted a meta-analysis in which they took the results of 22 studies that examined the main effect of substitutes for leadership on the relationship between leader behaviors and subordinate outcomes.
In this scenario, employees are divided into groups that are responsible for managing their own day-to-day work (i.e. collective control over the pace, distribution of tasks, organization of breaks, recruitment, and training; Gulowsen, 1972).
Self-management requires self-observation (e.g., keeping a log of what one has discussed with others on the phone), specification of goals (e.g., being responsible for setting one's own schedule and priorities), cueing strategies (e.g., putting a checkout board by the exit to remind an employee to let their secretary know where they are going and when they expect to return), rehearsal (e.g., recording one's presentation to clients and making corrections as needed), self-evaluation (e.g., using a chart to keep track of work quality and quantity), and self-reinforcement (accomplished by building intrinsic rewards for the performance of tasks; Bass, 1990; Manz & Sims 1980).
Dionne and colleagues argued that significant effects of substitutes found in prior studies may be a statistical artifact due to common-source bias, or bias occurring when independent and dependent variables are collected from the same person or group of people.
They found that their predictors accounted for a higher proportion of variance in job attitudes and role perceptions than in employee performance.
[4] Keller conducted a longitudinal study in which he pointed out that the vast majority of studies conducted on substitutes for leadership theory are cross-sectional in nature, making it more difficult to discern a causal relationship between substitutes and their effects on employee performance.
Also, subordinates will be motivated when they feel that their satisfaction depends on their performance and their leader acts in a way to help them reach goals (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001, House, 1971).