11 February 2009The aim of many organizations and firms is to ensure that they fulfil the visions and missions that have been set. The success of the organization and achievement of the vision and mission strategies requires managers. These managers usually come into play with different strategies and approaches to ensure that the organization succeeds. This usually comes in terms of leadership styles accompanied by leadership theories. Various theories that govern leadership exist and are usually classified into two groups: modern and traditional theories. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to show how the modern theories of leadership compete with traditional theories.
Nevertheless, the paper also discusses motivation bringing into consideration how managers motivate their teams. How the Modern Theories of Leadership Challenge the Traditional Theories of LeadershipMostly, the traditional leadership theories are based on the ideologies that are exhibited in the Industrial Revolution. Common theory that is brought into focus is the classical championed by schools pioneered by people such as Fayol, Taylor and Weber. The theories and thoughts that these people championed ranged from bureaucracy that was advocated by Weber, administration theory exhibited by Fayol and Taylor contributed scientific theory.
Thus, traditional theories roots to a complement of these three schools of leadership. Hence, traditional theories are a form of an organism (Goethals & Sorenson 2006). On the other hand, modern leadership theories usually defined as an organization that brings into consideration diversity, self-management, self-controlled teams that are usually flexible and all the teams are networked with each other. In most cases, modern leadership teams are arranged in a horizontal architecture in which the employees in the teams have power and are fully involved in the running and accomplishment of their duties.
This approach enables continuous flow of information or dynamic information, a phenomenon that is championed throughout the given project. Planning is the paramount goal for the success of the organization and is usually associated with the management of the employees and production capabilities of the organization. The traditional theories of leadership views that worker is usually a liability and for its success should be approached in a vertical manner. The aim of organizations that rely on traditional theories of leadership is mass production so that they achieve short-term profits a philosophy that underlines planning.
This perspective differs from that of modern theories, modern theories view a worker has an investment, adhere to long-term profits, horizontal approach to leadership, the production should be elastic, and there should be trust between the leaders and workers. Thus, to modern theories of leadership, planning is a recipe of confusion and disorder. Moreover, the idea of organizing is approached and acknowledged differently by the two theories. The traditional leadership theories view division of responsibilities especially in labour as the core of success and put them into departments and skill or educational level.
Thus, superiors have authority and power and they are supposed to be valued by the entire organization. This contradicts from the approach that modern theories approach leadership. The core success in the view of modern theories is cooperation and teamwork without bias on skill, departments or any constraints that may be placed into place by traditional approach. Horizontal is the core of success to them with diversity creating strength of forward movement resulting in flexible and permeable boundaries.