Theories of Leadership - Assignment Example

Theories of Leadership Name Institution Date Course Question 1 Theories of leadership Introduction Organizations have increasingly become interested in the type of leaders that run their operations and the significance of good leadership continues to take centre stage for the success of these organizations. In the past, there have been several questions that risen regarding leadership and the leaders. What is leadership? Why do we need good leaders? These are some of the questions that are asked. Researchers faced with these questions have sought to find their answers and as a result have developed different theories that have described the effective leader. They have discussed those qualities that make one become an effective leader. This paper seeks to investigate and discuss the leader, leadership qualities and leadership effectiveness by reviewing literature materials and presenting the findings of different leadership theories. Leadership Theories Many theories of leadership have been developed and adopted in many organizations. James MacGregor Burns greatly contributed to the discipline of leadership with his contribution and conceptualization of transforming and transactional leadership, which provided the base for revolutionary thinking regarding the role and the purpose of leadership. Other researchers like Robert Greenleaf and Bernard Bass also made their contributions. In the following sections, therefore, we discuss some of these theories and adequately analyse the underlying principles that make effective leaders. Leadership has been greatly discussed among the social sciences topics (Bennis, 2007; Bass, 1990). Initially, researchers focused on hereditary characteristics that differentiated leaders from the non-leaders. Therefore, the early researchers marked the beginning of the trait paradigm of leadership research. More recent research works have revealed that individual characteristics like demographics, abilities and skills, as well as personal traits, indicate possession of leadership effectiveness (Judge et al, 2002). Other researchers have disagreed with the trait paradigm (Mann, 1959; Jenkins, 1947) and have prompted scholars to shift attention beyond leader traits. Scholars now consider how the leader’s behaviours indicate leadership effectiveness that has led to emergence of structure and consideration approaches and behaviour paradigm of leadership research (Stogdill, 1963). As Derue et al (2011) further notes that the influence of leadership behaviour paradigm is noticeable across the leadership theories including the views of Fieldler with his contingency model, and the managerial grid as well as the works on transactional and transformational leadership. According to Judge & Picco (2004), the leadership behaviour paradigm did not only provide the basis for a new theory, but the evidence within this line of thought also suggested that leaders are critical indicators of leadership effectiveness. Trait theories of leadership The trait approach has been in existence for a long time having arisen from the “Great Man” theory. The approach sought to identify dominant characteristics of successful leaders. Those who implemented this approach believed that it was possible to identify critical leadership traits and isolate them and that those with these traits could then be selected, recruited and installed into positions of leadership (Bolden et al, 2003). These were some of the first theories that were developed. As House and Aditya (1997) point out, this approach to leadership identifies physical characteristics as well as psychological traits that make the difference between effective leaders and non-leaders. The authors further assert that a significant proportion of personal characteristics such as physical energy, gender, appearance and height, which form part of the trait theories, and psychological traits and motives like intelligence, need for power; authoritarianism and need for achievement are personal characteristics that signify possession of leadership capabilities and effectiveness. While investigating the trait theories, House and Aditya (1997) explain that charismatic leaders exude self confidence and are motivated to a great extent so that they can attain and assert influence and that they possess strong conviction in the moral righteousness of their beliefs. Contingency theories Syque (2007), while attempting to distinguish between situational and contingency theories of leadership, argues that the latter takes a broad perspective so that it includes situational factors about the skills and capabilities of the leader in addition to other variables depending on the situation at hand. This approach has been considered to present a more rigid or relatively inflexible approach that may suggest that it could be extremely difficult, for a dictator to vary his style and become a participative leader or employee oriented. Therefore, this category of leadership styles could suggest that if a school head aimed at being successful or effective, then the officials within the concerned Ministry of Education who are charged with the responsibilities of deploying and re-deploying the school heads should have the capabilities of diagnosing the situation at the school and then manage to get a leader that possess the appropriate style that will match the situation at hand. Fielder, in his ‘Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness’, argues that the effectiveness of the leader will greatly depend on his/her style of interaction and the characteristics of the situation, which he defined as leader-member relations, leader-position power and task-structure (Fielder, 1976). Fielder then proposed that when these characteristics are combined in any given situation, they will permit the classification of three situations. These are: very favourable situation, where all the three elements are high; intermediate favourableness, where some of the situational indicators are poor/low while others remain high; and unfavourable situation where all three components are low/poor. Seyranian (2009) also identifies two centres of focus of the contingencies theory: the leaders’ task or relations motivation as well as aspects of the situation. Seyranian (2009) further explains that the approach used the Least Preferred Co-worker scale (LPC) to measure the leader’s task or relations. With this scale, the leader is asked to recall a co-worker that he/ she worked with least well and then use the memory to characterize this particular individual with ratings that range within 8-point bipolar adjectives. Leaders that enter high scores indicate more positive descriptions of the least preferred co-worker while those with low scores depict more negative perceptions. According to Fielder, individuals with high LPC scores are highly motivated and keen and are able to maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships that could lead to effective leadership. They are more sensitive to how others feel, are concerned with personal relationships and have the capabilities of heading off conflicts. With their good relations, these leaders can easily influence the team members and get the job done effectively. They are also better at dealing with complex issues when making decisions. Those with low LPC scores indicate leaders with motivation to focus on task accomplishments but are not dependent on the support of the group. They will mostly be eager and impatient to proceed with their work and will quickly organize the job with a no-nonsense attitude regarding their work (Seyranian, 2009). Controversies have, however, arisen from the interpretation of what exactly is meant by the scores on the LPC. Robert Rice, for example, raised the suggestions that the LPC represents attitudes and values, while other scholars believe that the high and low scores of the LPC are linked to the task versus relations behaviours of leadership. Sticking to his belief that task and relations motivations are traits that could not be easily changed, Fielder points out that attempting to encourage a low or high LPC leader to modify tactics in response to changing situations would be extremely difficult, if not futile. Therefore, this model encourages matching a high and low LPC leader to the situation that is right for him/her, so as to optimize the possibility of effectiveness in the group (Seyranian, 2009). He further recognized two leadership styles: task-oriented and relationship oriented and stressed that the two leadership styles are relatively inflexible and that not any one of them will be appropriate for all situations. He believed that both types of leaders could be effective each given the right situation. To ensure effective results, Fielder proposed that the manager’s style of leadership should be matched to the situation at hand and in the case the leader’s style does not match the situation, then he/she should be trained to change tactics and fit within the requirements of the situation. This leadership approach, therefore, concludes that task oriented leaders will likely be more effective than those that are relationship oriented in two of the three situations – unfavourable and highly favourable conditions. Relationship oriented leaders will be more effective in those situations where there is intermediate favourableness (see appendix) (Peretomode, 2012). Transformational vs. Transactional leadership theories From the late 1980s onwards, theories of charismatic and transformational leadership have been ascendant. Researchers have also proposed several versions of transformational leadership. Although a good number of researchers are in agreement regarding the difference in concept and practice between transactional and transformational leadership, many authors hold the belief that transformational leadership greatly augments transactional leadership, and results in increased levels of group, individual, and organizational performance (Howell & Avolio, 1993). There are others who suggest that transactional leadership is a subset of transformation leadership (Weihrich et al, 2008). Transformational leadership Odumeru and Ifeanyi (2013) describe a transformational leader as one who stimulates and inspires (transform) his/ her followers so that they achieve extraordinary outcomes. The leader is able to give special attention to the needs of individual juniors; they are able to change the awareness of their followers of matters by giving them sufficient help and support to look at past problems in a new way. These leaders have the capabilities of arousing, exciting, and inspiring followers to give extra effort and enable the group perform beyond expectation. Transformational theory, therefore, proposes a leadership that creates positive change that encourages followers to take care of one another’s interests and act in a manner that serves the interests of the whole group. The initial concepts of this approach to management and leadership was introduced by James Macgregor Burns in his work on political leaders in 1978, but the practice has been spread into organizational psychology and management with subsequent modifications by Bass and Avalio (Odumeru & Ifeanyi, 2013). Researchers have identified four components of this leadership style: Charisma or idealised influence: This describes that extent to which the leader’s behaviour is admirable and convincing so that he/she takes stands that motivate followers to identify with the leader. Inspirational motivation: The extent to which the leader can communicate a vision that appeals to the followers and inspires them with optimism about goals and at the same time creates meaning for the task at hand. Intellectual stimulation: The extent to which leaders can challenge assumptions, stimulates and encourages their followers to be creative by establishing a framework that encourages followers to connect and find ways to creatively overcome any obstacles in the way of the mission Personal and individual attention: The leader should be able to attend to the needs of all the followers and be their mentor. The leader should respect and appreciate the contribution of the individual group members (Warrilow, 2012). Transactional Leadership Transactional leadership, is also referred to as managerial leadership, adds greater weight to supervision, group performance and organization. For effective leadership, this approach encourages the leader to promote compliance of the junior members of the team through establishment a system that rewards good work and punishes poor performance (Odumeru & Ifeanyi, 2013). With this approach, the leadership generally involves an exchange between the leader and follower where the follower benefits from certain valued outcomes when their actions are considered good by their leaders (Hartog, Muijen & Koopman, 1997). Unlike their transformational counterparts, transactional leaders do not aim at changing the future; rather, they prefer to keep things the same. They pay attention to the work in order to discover faults and deviations. This approach to leadership is very effective in times of crisis and emergency where it is critical that work is done in a particular way and errors cannot be tolerated. It is also preferred when projects need to be carried out in a given specific fashion. Conclusion The discussion above reveals different approaches to effective leadership that have been developed and implemented to great success. The trends in leadership qualities shifted over time from the traditional focus on physical and traits to characteristics that could be adaptable according to the uniqueness of the situation at hand. It is evident that specific leadership approaches work better within certain situations and not general approach has been proposed for all situations. These theories, therefore, offer valuable advice for leaders who need to enhance the effectiveness of their leadership approaches by proving explanations about the best strategies adoptable for particular working conditions. List of References Seyranian, V, 2009, Contingency Theories of Leadership, Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Ed. John M. Levine and Michael A. Hogg. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 152-56. Bennis WG, 2007, The challenges of leadership in the modem world—Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 62, 2–5. Warrilow. S (2012) Transformational Leadership Theory - The 4 Key Components in Leading Change & Managing Change, retrieved on 8th May 2014 from Peretomode O, 2012, Situational And Contingency Theories Of Leadership: Are They The Same? IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 4(3): 13- 17 Fiedler, FE, 1976, The leadership game; matching the man to the situations, Organizational dynamics, (Winter); 6 – 16. Weihrich, H, Cannice, MV & Koontz, H, 2008, Management (12th ed.) Mc Graw Hill, New Delhi Howell, JM, & Avolio, BJ, 1993, Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902. House, RJ & Aditya, RN, 1997, The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473. Bolden R, Gosline J, Marturano A & Dennison P, 2003, A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks, Edited Version of a Report for Chase Consulting and the Management Standards Centre Hartog, DN, Muijen JJV & Koopman PL, 1997, Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70: 19-34 Odumeru JA & Ifeanyi GO, 2013, Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership Theories: Evidence in Literature, International Review of Management and Business Research, 2 (2): 355-361 Judge TA, & Piccolo RF, 2004, Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768. Bass BM, 1990, Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3 ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Mann RD, 1959, A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270. Syque, R. (2007). Leadership vs. management, retrieved on 8th May 2014 from Derue DS, Nahrgang JD, Wellman N & Humphrey SE, 2011, Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity, Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52 Judge, TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW, 2002, Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780. Jenkins, WO, 1947, A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military problems. Psychological Bulletin, 44, 54–79. Stogdill RM, 1963, Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire: Form XII, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration. Fielder’s contingency theory, retrieved on 8th May 2014 from < http://sacbusiness.org/marketing/john%20materials/Bus%20120/Fiedler.pdf> Appendix Effectiveness for task oriented and relationship oriented leaders (source: Fielder’s contingency theory) Read More