Leadership Theories - Term Paper Example

Leadership in Organisations Introduction People are social beings living in groups and communities. The early humans found that acting in an organized fashion enabled them to better surmount the challenges of a hostile environment. Communal assistance enabled groups of people to gather food, produce clothing and build shelters more efficiently, thereby ensuring their survival. For people to act in a concerted manner there is a need for a leader to emerge, one who is better able to ensure the continuance and propagation of the community particularly when competing with other groups for scarce resources. This essay discusses only some of the various leadership theories, styles, and models that have been developed in the interest of management science. Many have been conceptualized from observing the practices of leaders and viewing them in the context of their organizational setting. While the discussion is not exhaustive, it is illustrative of the breadth of leadership theory and its situation within the larger arena of organizational management theory. Leadership theories Throughout history, nations rose and fell on account of good and bad leaders, compelling social and behavioural theorists to seek a pattern of attributes or behaviours that would account for the difference. The presumed objective is to identify what makes good leaders, and from thence to formulate guidelines by which good leaders may be identified (in the case of inborn leaders) or developed (in those cases where leaders are seen as created). A brief summary of leadership theories in modern history are shown in the table below. Great man theories espoused the view that leaders are born and not made, meaning that there are only those select few (whether chosen by the divine wisdom or by destiny) who rise above the rest and emerge as leaders. The term alludes to the early concept that all leaders are male, or women with male qualities, particularly in battle. The notion of leadership as birthright is consistent with the traditions of several nations until now, whose leaders acquire their status from their lineage. Aside from the monarchies still existing in Europe (England, the Netherlands), Asia (Japan, Thailand), the Middle East (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the emirates of the UAE), or the ethnic tribes in Africa (Zulu, Burundi, Chad), there are militarily installed dictatorial dynasties such as the Kims of North Korea and the Castros of Cuba. In such cases, the original leader is looked up to as some benign national patriarch, and his issue by rule are endowed with the mandate to be revered, even deified. Attributional or trait theories are anchored on the idea that good leaders possess a set of character traits or attributes that make them good leaders. The degree to which a leader could be made depends on the degree to which the necessary traits may be acquired. The problem with this concept is, as mentioned in the table above, enumerating the traits of good leaders usually ends up as a list of all positive or virtuous human attributes. Derue, et al. (2011) developed the integrated model of leadership traits and related them to leadership effectiveness, seen below. Behavioural theories, linked to the leadership traits and attributes above, include those theories of leadership that are guided by an understanding of human behaviour in organizations. The leader seeks to influence his/her followers’ actions by motivating them either positively (with the promise of reward) or negatively (with the threat of punishment), or engaging them. Two behavioural models are explained later in this discussion, namely McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y model, and Blake and Mouton’s Management Grid. Situational theories and Contingency theories are related to each other, in the sense that they view the ideal leadership behaviour as dependent on the context of the situation being addressed. Situational leadership responses may vary depending on the level of the organization. Contingency theories focus on the need to identify specific variables which indicate the appropriate response by the leader. Participative theories espouse a leadership view that necessitates the active involvement of subordinates in a coordinated, cooperative effort with the leadership in determining and pursuing the organization’s goals. Leadership is seen as effective under this theory when the subordinates or followers are ‘partners’ in charting the course and actualizing organizational undertakings. This may the intention of many organizations which call their employees ‘partners’, ‘collaborators’, ‘colleagues’ or some similar designation other than ‘employees.’ There are two more leadership theories in the table foregoing, the transactional and the transformational theories, which have been the subject of much discussion among managers recently because of its high degree of relevance to contemporary organizations. These two theories will be more thoroughly discussed in the subsequent section on leadership models. Types of leaders Other than leadership theories which seek to describe what makes leaders effective, there are also leadership types which pertain to the personal styles of individual leaders. Autocratic leadership describes the style wherein the leader unilaterally makes all the decisions and announces them to the organization with the expectation that all the members will follow these orders without question (Lewis, 1993; Lussier & Achua, 2009). This leadership style, although apparently oppressive, is nevertheless necessary and even indispensable in certain organizations such as those that render military service, or emergency response teams during an emergency event. Bureaucratic leadership is a style characterized by a strict adherence to rules, placing great emphasis on procedures and traditional methods without much regard for their usefulness and effectiveness in the current situation (Lewis, 1993; Lussier & Achua, 2009). This style is useful in organizations where structure and compliance conveys validity, such as adherence to strict scientific procedure in scientific research organizations, the conduct of surveys in polling operations, law enforcement and police units which pursue criminal elements and gather evidence strictly according to legal procedure, and so forth. Charismatic leadership is anchored upon the personal charisma or likeability of the leader’s personality (Lewis, 1993; Lussier & Achua, 2009). Charismatic leaders easily influence people’s sentiments and move them to undertake the desired behaviour. Sometimes, charismatic leaders are viewed as possessing supernatural powers or seen as heroes, for which reason followers vest a level of personal trust in them. Elected political leaders and heads of religious movements would do well to adopt charismatic leadership styles. Laissez faire leadership is a style where the leader generally maintains an attitude of non-interference and ‘hands-off’ policy, or is perceived to do so, for which reason Goodnight (2004) called it the style which is either the best or the worst possible alternative among the leadership styles. When the leader allows his subordinates free rein to decide for themselves only after sufficient preparation and proper guidance and direction, then this is the best possible leadership method. However, if the followers are not prepared before being deployed, then the result may be chaotic and highly unsuccessful. Democratic leadership is characterized by the leader acting as a conference leader, but the real decision-making is undertaken by the group, that is. Through the procedure moderated by the leader, the decision emerges out of a process of ideas exchange and consensus (Lussier and Achua, 2009). Democratic leadership is the leadership style of choice in most contemporary business organizations, particularly where the subordinates are knowledgeable or competent in their particular fields of specialization and whose opinions are material in arriving at the optimum solution to management problems. Specific Models Leadership models are practicable frameworks that employ one or more leadership theories for use in the discharge of managerial functions. One of the more popular models is McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y model, which is classified under Behavioural theories (Belden, et al., 2003). Under Theory X, subordinates are seen as having to be coerced to work, because left alone they would normally refuse to work. Theory Y takes the opposite position, presupposing that people have a naturally inclination to work. Theory X managers tend to use the more autocratic or bureaucratic leadership style, while Theory Y managers are more participative and democratic. The table below juxtaposes the two theories for a brief overview. Another example of a Behavioural theory model is the Blake and Mouton’s Management Grid. Organizational leaders are seen as striking a balance between concern for people and concern for production, and the appropriate style is the one best suited to the type of organization or its function (Bolden, et al., 2003). Tannenbaum & Schmidt’s Leadership Continuum is a model that combines the contingency and situational schools. It involves four or more leadership styles located along points in the continuum. At one end is the Autocratic (i.e., the Telling) style, much the same as was discussed above. This is followed by the Persuasive (i.e., the Selling) style, wherein the leader also makes all the decisions of the group, but feels the need to persuade the organization’s staff of the wisdom of the decision, in order to better motivate them. The leader “sells” the idea in the attempt to create enthusiasm for it. Thereafter along the continuum is the Consultative (i.e. the Consulting) style wherein the leader first confers with the group members before arriving at his decision. The subordinates feel a greater degree of involvement and that although their positions are not fully adopted in the leader’s decision, the feedback they gave him/her during the consultation has some influence on the final outcome. At the other end of the spectrum is the Democratic (i.e., the Joining or Sharing) style, which is the same as the democratic leadership discussed in the preceding section (Bolden, et al., 2003). The model illustration shown below includes Delegation, in which case the leader turns over to a subordinate the job of deciding or of leading the decision-making process described in the Democratic style, purportedly within the limits What makes this model different from the leadership types earlier discussed is that the T&S Leadership Model does not favour one style over the others, but allows for the adoption of any of the leadership styles depending on the situation in which each of the styles may be more appropriate than the others. Telling would be entirely justified in an emergency or crisis situation, Selling works best when it happens that the leader alone possess all the information upon which the decision rests, but which at the same time necessitates the full commitment and enthusiasm of the organization to succeed. Consulting is most appropriate under the same conditions as consulting, but with the important distinction that the nature of the responsibility for the decision is such that group members are willing to share with the leader, and for which the leader willingly accepts responsibility for decisions although he/she has not made such decisions personally. Probably the most popular debate in recent academic discussion is that between the transactional and transformational leadership models. Some authors take the view that there are only three types of leadership styles, namely the directive leadership (which encompasses all the styles discussed earlier), the transactional leadership, and the transformational leadership styles, and sees this typology as anchored on the personality traits arguments (Thepot, 2005). Directive leadership, according to Thepot, includes all styles from autocratic (“Follow what I tell you because I am the boss”) to consensus-seeking (“Let us meet to discuss the problem and arrive at the solution I wanted”). Contrary to Directive leadership, Transactional leadership does not aim to control individual behaviour, but expects the specific performance of a contract that promises a contingent reward if successfully met. It also includes management by exception, where the leader exerts his control only if a significant deviation from the plans takes place. Transformation leadership differs from the two in the sense that the leader goes beyond the immediate task and attempts to stimulate changes in the attitudes and values of the subordinates. Specific comparisons between the Transactional and Transformational leadership styles are shown in the table following. Linking leadership styles and organizations Throughout the life of the organization, different leadership styles are deemed appropriate in different stages through which the organization evolves. Organizations tend to vary in their goals, ideologies, objectives, cultures, and activities. Particular leadership styles which appear benign and even laudable, when applied in a situation requiring a direct and firm hand such as in a crisis context, will show up ineffective and disastrous. On the other hand, autocratic leadership applied to companies in their strong research and development stage, requiring creativity and an environment allowing freedom to experiment, will be unproductive and totally unsuccessful. The type of organizational structure has strong implications on which leadership styles are effectively adopted. Managers in flat organizations directly supervise more people than managers in tall organizations, thus supervisory skills (i.e., dealing directly with rank-and-file workers) are paramount, and the appropriate leadership style would be closer to the Persuasive (Selling) style (Ghiselli & Siegel, 1972). IKEA is a relatively lean organization, where only few management layers separate the workers from top management, and where the company founder Ingvar Kamprad has been in close coordination with the company’s frontliners (IKEA.com, 2013). The type of activity which the organization is involved affects the leadership style. Schmid (2006) constructed a leadership model based on two characteristics: task-orientedness, and internal-external orientation. This was best employed for human and community service organizations. Wallis and Dollery (2005) also determined that the non-profit nature of organizations promote a level of altruism in the organizations, prompting a culture where leaders seek to influence followers to develop stakeholder commitments to organizational goals. Levels of advocacy and family ownership were likewise found to be mediating factors in determining the most effective leadership behaviour (Falbe, 1984). Leaders and leadership styles There are certain individuals whom we have collectively looked up to because of their different yet highly effective leadership styles. Steve Jobs of Apple, Inc., was known to be a harsh and autocratic leader who always strove for perfection, but his style worked well with his pioneering vision. Ingvar Kamprad of IKEA was generally acknowledged as a benevolent and down-to-earth leader who nevertheless also had an exacting vision. John Alan Lasseter, chief creative officer of Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios, on the other hand very much practiced a laissez faire leadership style and run a free-wheeling digital animation enterprise that blossomed with creativity and innovation. Ursula Burns, CEO of Xerox, was one of the unique women who employed positive motivation in turning around an ailing company and brought it to success. Likewise, Katherine Graham, CEO of the Washington Post took over the position left by her husband when he died, and carved a name and reputation for the Washington Post as a periodical of note. To the question, therefore, as to the best leadership theory, style or model to use, the simple response is that there is no single, one-fits-all answer. The type of organization, its business or activities, the nature of its ownership and culture, as well as the personality of the individual himself, are all important determinants of the success of a leadership endeavour. It is therefore incumbent upon the would-be leader to perceptively determine for himself or herself the likely alternative that would lead to success. References Bass. B M 2000 ‘The Future of Leadership in Learning Organizations.’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 7, 3: 18-40 Blake, R R & Moutin, J S 1964 The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Bolden, R; Gosling, J: Marturano, A; & Dennison, P 2003 ‘A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks.’ Centre for Leadership Studies. University of Exeter Chanchai, B, Supachok, W, & Matchakarn, Y 2012, Leadership Roles on Employee Retaining Practice in Nongovernment Organizations (NGOs): The Case of Thailand, International Journal Of Business & Social Science, 3, 8, pp. 199-203, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Derue, D S; Nahrgang, J D; Wellman, N; & Humphrey, S E 2011 ‘Trait and Behavioral Theories of Leadership: An Integration and Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity.’ Personnel Psychology, 64. 7-52, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dulles, E 1936, Leadership Within Industrial Organizations, Harvard Business Review, 14, 2, pp. 161-171, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Egri, C, & Herman, S 2000, Leadership In The North American Environmental Sector: Values, Leadership Styles, And Contexts Of Environmental Leaders And Their Organizations, Academy Of Management Journal, 43, 4, pp. 571-604, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Fairholm, M R 2009 ‘Leadership and Organizational Strategy’ The Innovation Journal: the Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14, 1, article 3 Falbe, CM 1984, Leadership Behavior and Organization Performance: A Model of Social Influence at the Macro Level, Academy Of Management Proceedings (00650668), pp. 173-177, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Ghiselli, E, & Siegel, J 1972, Leadership And Managerial Success In Tall And Flat Organization Structures, Personnel Psychology, 25, 4, pp. 617-624, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Goodnight, R 2004 ‘Laissez-Faire Leadership’. Encyclopedia of Leadership, 820-823 Sage Publications. Daft, R. 2003 Management, 6th ed. Thomson South-Western Den Hartog, D.N. & Koopman, P L 2011 ‘Leadership in Organizations.’ Handbook of Industrial Work 7 Organizational Psychology. 2, 2001, Sage Publications. 16 February. Lewis, A 1993 Leadership Styles. American Association of School Administrators Lussier, R N & Achua, C F 2009 Leadership: Theory, Application & Skill Development. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Ogundele, O, Hassan, A, & Doyin-Hassan, A 2012, Leadership Styles of Male and Female Managers in Nigerian Organizations, Business & Management Review, 2, 5, pp. 1-9, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Schmid, H 2006, Leadership styles and leadership change in human and community service organizations, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17, 2, pp. 179-194, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Scott, CJ 2012, Leadership Perceptions in the Marketing Organization and Technological Uncertainty, Journal Of Marketing Development & Competitiveness, 6, 1, pp. 11-21, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Shyamsunder, A, Anand, S, Punj, A, Shatdal, A, Vyas, B, Kumar, B, Philip, B, Reddy, C, Sarmma, C, Mahapatra, G, Srikhande, G, Kartikeyan, V, Jaiswal, M, Chawla, N, Rao, P, Nair, P, Kaipa, P, Krishnan, R, Krishnan, R, & Sar, R 2011, Leadership Development in Organizations in India: The Why and How of It (Part I), Vikalpa: The Journal For Decision Makers, 36, 3, pp. 61-118, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Stogdill, R 1974 Handbook of Leadership, New York, NY: Free Press. Thépot, J 2008, Leadership Styles and Organization: a Formal Analysis, Revue Sciences De Gestion, 65, pp. 287-306, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Wallis, J, & Dollery, B 2005, Leadership and Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organizations, Review Of Policy Research, 22, 4, pp. 483-499, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 February 2013. Read More