A Critical Review of Leadership Theory - Coursework Example

Leadership Number Introduction As a leader, giving up control and getting to trust employees to get work done can be challenging. A leader has to be smart, the best and the most capable individual in the room. Regrettably, sometimes this approach can result to mangers underutilizing their workers and talents, suffocating creativity and limiting great ideas. On the other hand, good leaders know that when their employees are doing well, they are also excelling (Wells, 2012) A leader who is capable does not just make his employees feel smart, but also actually makes them smart and drives them to attain extraordinary outcomes (Williams, 2013). For one to be a manager who brings out the best out of the employees, he may have to make some changes to his style of leadership, be aware of the fine line that is between a boss and a friend and tone down his ego. Thus, telling workers exactly what to do and thinking that nothing will get done may not apply in all situations. Different situations and individuals call for different leadership styles (Alimo-Metcalfe, 2013). Discussion Reviewing leadership literature shows a series of schools of thought that are evolving from great men to trait theories to transformational leadership. Whereas the early theories tended to centre on traits and behaviours of leaders who are successful, later on the theories began considering the followers’ roles and the contextual type of leadership (Fairholm & Fairholm, 2009). Each of these theories takes a personal view on leadership. However, the school of thought that is getting more recognition is that of dispersed. Trait Approach This arose from the theory of the great man as a manner of identifying the major traits of successful leaders. Through this theory, it was believed that important leadership characteristics could be selected and that individuals could be recruited, chosen and appointed into leadership places (Stippler, 2011). The Behavioural School The outcome of the trait researches was not conclusive since traits are not easily measured. For example, things like honesty, diligence and integrity are not be measurable. Thus, another approach had to be developed. Following the publication of a book by the late Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, attention moved to behavioural theories. McGregor influenced all these theories, paying attention to human relationships, together with production and performance (Sadler, 2003). Contingency or Situational School Whereas behavioural theories may assist managers in development of certain leadership behaviours, they offer directions on what makes up effective leadership in diverse situations. In fact, most researchers now conclude there is no single leadership approach that is appropriate for every manager under all situations. Instead, situational theories were created to show that the approach to be used is dependent on multiple factors as situation, the nature of task being performed, an individual, the organisation and other environmental variables (Masood, et al., 2006). One of the models of situational leadership approach is Hersey and Blanchard which came up in the mid of 1970s. The centre of the theory is that a leader has to adjust his leadership approach to the maturity level and skills of his individual workers. There is nothing as no-size-fits-all when it comes to leadership. By applying the model, leaders are able to analyze the requirements of workers and apply their insight to help them adjust their leadership approach (Yeakey, 2002). This model is based on two primary concepts: the style of leadership; and the individual or the maturity level of the group. According to the model, there are four key leadership styles. One of these styles is directing. Herein, leaders tell their workers precisely what to do and how to go about it. This style is characterised by a one way communication by which the leader describes the responsibilities of every person or the group and gives the what, why, how and when a task is to be carried out (Hersey & Johnson, 1997). In coaching, a leader offers information and direction, though communication is two-way, and more focus is on communicating with subjects. Leaders “sell” their communication to get the group onboard (Hersey & Johnson, 1997). In participating, a leader pays more attention to relationships and very little on direction. The leader shares the decision-making tasks when working with a person or a team. In delegating, leaders pass most of their responsibilities to employees individually or as a group. The leaders still check the progress. However, they are less involved in choices (Houghton & Yoho, 2005). It is vital to note that none of these leadership styles are viewed as being more successful than others. The point is that a leader has to be flexible and adjust to his style to fit the maturity of the workers. If a leader is working with a group, it can be important for him to draw inspiration from the Tuckman’s Team Stage Model to know the level of maturity of the team and to adapt to it (ZagoršEk, 2004). Hersey and Blanchard state that maturity of workers can be divided into four stages. The first one is the lowest maturity stage. At this stage, the employee or group does not have the skills and knowledge that is needed for the job at hand, though the employees have a high level of commitment. According to this theory, the most effectual leadership approach when leading employees at this stage is directing. The employees at this stage require a lot of guidance, but not a lot of motivation, as they are committed already (Masood, et al., 2006). At the next stage which is M2, the competence of the employees is progressing but it still does not have all the required skills to perform the job successfully. The level of commitment decreases. At the next stage of M3 the employees are ready and willing in helping in the tasks and their skills are above those of the M2. However, they are still not confident of their abilities. Finally employees get to M4 level. They are in a position to work on their own, have high confidence and strong skills. These employees are usually committed to task. According to Hersey, diverse leadership styles have to be applied at different maturity level of employees (Masood et al., 2006). For example, at the low maturity level, employees need to be told and directed on everything they ought to do. At medium maturity level, the coaching or selling leadership style can be applied. Participating or supporting workers’ leadership style will be effective when it comes to employees who are at the medium maturity level and have higher skills, even though there may be a lack in confidence. At high maturity level, delegation can be applied as workers have the skills and confidence. To apply Hersey’s model, a leader has to reflect on the maturity of persons in his team (Masood, et al., 2006). For example, if an officer may be leaving, his tasks may be handled by an experienced person who is familiar with his responsibilities and is committed to the task. However, a leader spends hours trying to build a detailed list of tasks for which the worker will be responsible and give instruction on how to go about them. The outcome is that the work will be done (Hanbury, Sapat & Washington, 2004). A leader should spend time trying to know his team. This is prior to him facilitating the team. He ought to establish workers’ requirements. He then has to break down all the tasks that very individual has to accomplish. The list ought to be simple and the leader should resist the urge to get too detailed by having and using small steps (Berce, 2011). The leader should then assign “development level” for an individual on every item on the task list created. This is according to the four developmental levels. The next step is for the leader to choose a leadership style that corresponds with each developmental level of every employee. This can be a good guideline on how he should lead every individual in the accomplishment of a specific task (Dorn & Mcnulty, 2012). A leader should then build a plan with the individual who is able to accommodate their level of development and the style of leadership for every task. A leader should also schedule himself a day on which he will do some follow-up with the individual. The plan should be reviewed and changes made if necessary. Changes may be needed based on the level of maturity of the individual (Derue, et al., 2011). Conclusion All teams and all their members are not created the same. Hersey and Blanchard argue that leaders are more effective when they apply a leadership style that suits an individual or a group that they are leading. Leaders should start by identifying who they are leading. This means that leaders have to ask themselves if: the subjects have the knowledge of the task ahead; subjects have the willingness and excitement of doing the work, employees have been rated on the M1 to M4 maturity scale; and the leadership style that is most appropriate has been applied. Apart from all these, a leader has to involve employees in his leadership plans or else it may be difficult for him. References Alimo-Metcalfe, B. 2013. A Critical Review of Leadership Theory. 13-47. Berce, J. 2011. New leadership approach for better public management. Mei Zhong Gong Guan Li. 9, 290-302. Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. 2011. Trait and Behavioural Theories of Leadership: An Integration and Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Personnel Psychology. 64, 7-52. Dorn, B. C., & Mcnulty, E. C. 2012) Improving situational awareness: a meta-leadership approach. Disaster Recovery Journal. Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. W. 2009. Understanding leadership perspectives theoretical and practical approaches. New York, Springer. Hanbury, G. L., Sapat, A., & Washington, C. W. 2004. Know Yourself and Take Charge of Your Own Destiny: The “Fit Model” of Leadership. Public Administration Review. 64, 566-576. Hersey, P., & Johnson, D. E. 1997. Situational leadership in the multicultural organization. The Organization of the Future / Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, Richard Beckhard Editors. Houghton, J., & Yoho, S. 2005. Toward a Contingency Model of Leadership and Psychological Empowerment: When Should Self-Leadership Be Encouraged? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 11, 65-83. Masood, Syed A., Dani, Samir, Burns, Neil D., & Backhouse, C.J. 2006. Transformational leadership and organizational culture: the situational strength perspective. 941-949. Sadler, P. 2003. Leadership. London, Kogan Page Ltd. Stippler, M. 2011. Leadership: approaches, developments, trends. [Gütersloh, Germany], Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. Wells, J. 2012. Building effective teamwork. FIRE ENGINEERING. Williams, C. 2013. Effective management. Australia, South-Western. Yeakey, G. W. 2002. Situational Leadership. Military Review. 82, 72. ZagoršEk, H. 2004. Assessing the universality of leadership: a three-level approach. Economic and Business Review. 6. Read More