One theory of leadership suggests that, in many situations, leaders’ actions are irrelevant. Experience and training are among the substitutes that can replace the need for a leader’s support or ability to create structure. Organizational characteristics such as explicit formalized goals, rigid rules and procedures, and cohesive work groups can replace formal leadership, while indifference to organizational rewards can neutralize its effects.

Neutralizers make it impossible for leader behavior to make any difference to follower outcomes. Sometimes the difference between substitutes and neutralizers is fuzzy. If I’m working on a task that’s intrinsically enjoyable, theory predicts leadership will be less important because the task provides motivation. But does that mean intrinsically enjoyable tasks neutralize leadership effects, substitute for them, or both? Another problem is that, while substitutes for leadership matter to performance, that doesn’t necessarily mean leadership doesn’t matter. Leadership is simply another independent variable that affects employee performance.