Leadership Theory Taxonomy - Essay Example

Leadership Theory Taxonomy Leadership Theory Taxonomy Introduction Leadership in an organization is different from management as it involves the provision of support to the organization in setting up a vision and a mission whereas management involves supporting of the organization in the formulation of plans, planning of the budget and coordination. The leadership theory taxonomy consists of various leadership theories that are used in organizations which include; the Situational or Contingency Theory, Transformational Theory, Leader Member Exchange (LMX) Theory and the Path-Goal Theory. In each theory, leadership styles are discussed, and where they can fit in different leadership positions especially in business organizations. The various types of leadership styles such as, supportive, directive, participative and goals oriented leadership styles are recommended in the different theories altogether (Avolio, 2007). Situational/Contingency Theory The Contingency Theory explores the behaviors of the leaders but also includes the situational factors. In this case, the best outcomes of the organization are only realized when there is a good match between the behavior of the leader, the followers’ characteristics and the situation. The Contingency Theory contributes to the recognition that different situational/environment variables require different leadership styles in order to have positive outcomes. The leader’s degree of control of a situation and his/her behaviors determines the performance of the group he/she is controlling. The leader, therefore, ought to be task-oriented in order to achieve better group performance (Avolio, 2007). According to Avolio (2007), the leadership style chosen by a leader mainly depends on the capability of the subordinates in performing tasks and thus their level of maturity. A leader will, therefore, decide on the best leadership style with regard the maturity level of the subordinates. The Vroom and Yet ton Theory is a prescriptive theory, which helps the leaders to make decisions on which appropriate leadership styles to adopt before going ahead to direct the members/followers. The most common leadership styles used in the Contingency Theory includes; supportive and results oriented directive and participative leadership styles. The Contingency Theory is used to assess the leaders when they are being allocated to manage different situations especially in the military sector. In this theory, the situations depends on the tasks allocated, the powers of the leader and the leader-member relations. In order to determine the capability of a leader there is use of Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale which helps in measuring the leadership style of a person. The leader’s LPC score and the situational variables are the used to predict whether that leader is going to be successful in the tasks given (Sims et al, 2008). A typical example of where Contingency Theory of leadership applies is in the case of military soldiers in the course of their operations. A commandant, who is a leader of the soldiers’ troops will adopt the style of directing the soldiers in case he/she encounters a sticky situation. For example, when they are boomed with hand grenades in the midst of the attackers. This situation is different from other attack positions; therefore, an immediate move must be taken in order to concede the attack. Transformational Theory The transformational theory tries to explain how the leaders influence their group members to perform hard tasks in order to achieve more than it was expected before. This usually happens in those organizations are experiencing change and uncertainties. The leaders’ focus is to ‘motivating ordinary people to do extraordinary things’. Transformational leadership focuses mostly on leaders to perform tasks and roles aimed at enhancing organizational change and improving the overall performance, and exceed what is expected of employees’ performance (Ronit et al, 2003). Those leaders who adopt the transformational leadership style usually engage in intellectual stimulation, which is aimed at promoting organizational cultures so as to enhance the innovative skills of the employees. They also engage in inspirational motivation; this involves motivating the employees to focus on the vision of the organization. In addition, they tend to portray individual consideration that involves engagement in the mentoring of the members of the staff. They also take part in idealized influence; this involves allocation of role models at all staff levels. Transformational leadership elevates the level of maturity of the members of staff by giving them hard tasks in order to achieve the expected high work performance (Dvir et al, 2002). Transformational leadership has been criticized because leaders are given less attention by the management on how they shape their groups of employees and their task oriented behaviors, which might not be good. Despite these criticisms, transformational leadership has been found to be the widely accepted leadership style in organizations. Charismatic leadership is closely related to transformational leadership; it is differentiated by the fact that a charismatic leader changes the interests of the subordinates to match with those of the leader while a transformational leader transforms each of the subordinate’s interests towards the whole group. Transformational leadership is common in ministries and departments of government where the leaders keep on changing. For instance, in the ministry of health a new leader will tend to improve the health sector through giving employees hard tasks for higher outputs as compared to those of the previous leaders (Ronit et al, 2003). Leader Member Exchange (LMX) Theory The LMX has a long history of development from other theories such as the Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory (VDL). The key point is the quality of relationship between the leader and the followers. The relationship existing between the followers and the leader is the determinant of the leader’s effectiveness at the place of work. Outcomes such as the turnover intentions are predictable by use of the quality of the leader-member relationship. The relationships are brought about by the material resources, information and emotional support exchanged between the leader and his/her members. Therefore, high LMX relationship is determined by social exchange between the two parties which means that the leader must ensure the provision of those resources desired by the members and that both parties must view that exchange as fair (Sims et al, 2008). The LMX relationship is based on the features of the working relationship between the leader and the members but not their personal relationships. The work turnover is dependent on this relationship which is varied by many issues like the workers attitudes to their leader and the vice versa. LMX is a more ‘relational theory’ as it involves the leader and the member and accounts for the differences in subordinates’’ relationships. In a school context, the teachers are coordinated by their principals whereas the principals are centrally managed district education boards. The output of the teachers in the classes is determined by the quality of relationships between them and their principals. If the quality of resources provided by the principal does not satisfy the teachers and they are not comfortable with it, the LMX is low. High LMX means that there is a good relationship between the teachers and the principal hence a higher work output mostly defined by the students’ performance. High LMX means that there is sharing of views between the principals and their district coordinators, which yield high out measured by the overall schools’ performance in that district (Sims et al, 2008). Path-Goal Theory Path- Goal theory explains how leaders motivate their subordinate of achieve the set goals in an organization. Leadership under Path-Goal Theory is aimed at enhancing the overall employee performance and their satisfaction through motivation. This theory focuses on the relationship between the style of leadership adopted by a leader, subordinates’ characteristics and the tasks being carried out at the place of work. Subordinates are motivated through the provision of adequate resources and their social welfare, but this depends on the leadership style adopted by their leader (House, 1971). The path-goal leadership in an organization usually sets a path for the workers to use in order to achieve a high level of productivity. It also defines the goals and objectives of the organization so that they can be clear to all employees. This leadership also provides support to the workers which can be allocating them with better facilities at the place of work, paying them better salaries and on time and ethical guidance (House, 1971). The leadership behaviors under Path-Goal Theory include: Supportive leadership; this is whereby the leader can be easily approached, and he/she is also friendly to the employees. The leader supports the well being of workers and treats them equally at the place of work. Directive leadership; it is whereby the leader gives instructions, timelines and performance standards expected from the subordinates. Participative leadership; the leader in this case involve their subordinates in decision making where workers share their opinions and suggestions. Achievement-oriented leadership; the leader ensures that the subordinates perform to their fullest. The leader focuses on continuous improvement in performance of the workers. In big companies offering services such as banking, insurance and provision of beverages in hotels, the path-goal leadership is the best in improving the productivity and hence high profits. In the case of banking, bank managers will define the firm’s goal to the employees and set paths for them to follow in achieving high productivity. All types of leadership styles discussed above apply here. Motivation of workers is very crucial in the banking industry as it yields high output (House, 1971). References Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist 62(1), 25-33. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J. & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of Transformational Leadership on Follower Development and Performance: A Field Experiment. Academic Management Journal 45(4), 735-744. House, R. J. (1971). A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 16(3), 321-339. Ronit, K., Boas, S. & Gilad, C. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2), 246-255 Sims, H. P., Faraj, S. & Yun, S. (2008). When should a leader be directive or empowering? How to develop your own situational theory of leadership. Business Horizons 52(2), 149-158. Read More