Business Psychology on Leadership - Essay Example

Critical Perspectives in Business Psychology on Leadership Introduction Leadership is one of the most difficult challenges anyone can face. It calls on extraordinary qualities few people possess, and it demands so much time, energy, cunning, and wit. Leadership is not just about stepping into the spotlight; it is about commanding enough charisma and influence to engender support for one’s ideas, actions, or inactions. In the hope of better understanding leadership, this paper will discuss the mainstream approaches to leadership. It shall describe the traditional methods to leadership practiced by past and even present leaders. Arguments for and against the mainstream approaches to leadership shall also be discussed in this paper. Finally, the critical perspectives on leadership approaches shall be elaborated on and explored in this paper. Mainstream Approaches to Leadership The different mainstream approaches to leadership are the following: trait, behavioural, transformational, and situational/contingency approaches. There are many other mainstream approaches to leadership, but these four approaches were chosen because they are the most common mainstream approaches to leadership. Trait Approach The trait approach to leadership focuses on the leader, not the followers. This approach “emphasizes that having a leader with a certain set of traits is crucial to having effective leadership” (Adam & Eves, n.d). In this approach, society sees qualities in individuals that they deem worthy characteristics in their leaders, and consequently they install them as their leaders. The trait approach relies on qualities of a person ranging from the superficial to the intellectual and even to the spiritual. Physical qualities in a leader could be in the person’s height, general appearance, and grooming. Less superficial traits such as intelligence, honesty, integrity, and expertise are also qualities that people expect in their leader. “In the trait approach, effective leadership is defined in terms of the traits of leaders thought to exemplify good leadership” (Vasu, et.al., 1998, p.98). This approach equates good leadership with desirable traits and qualities (such as those previously mentioned). Behavioural Approach The behavioural approach came about as a response and as an alternative to the trait approach to leadership. The focus of this approach is the behaviour of the leader, not his qualities or traits. “Effective leadership became transformed into what leaders do as opposed to what they are” (Great Visionaries, n.d.). As a result of this approach, there was a greater emphasis on training leaders to be better in their craft. In this approach, the leader’s behaviour is easier to describe because they are observable actions, as opposed to traits that may be generally characterized and reduced to single word adjectives which are difficult to measure or quantify. Transformational The transformational approach to leadership makes use of “’transactions’ as a means of motivating employees to achieve business results” (Gmelin, 2005). In the transformational approach, the leader transforms his followers by creating a goal and a vision for the organization or the group. He then influences his followers to act towards achieving their vision. The leader transforms his followers and helps them achieve their vision by focusing on five actions: clarity of vision, healthy communication between leaders and the followers, consistency in the words and actions of leaders, care and respect for employees, and creating experiences for employees to develop. Situational Approach The situational or the contingency approach to leadership postulates that there is no single way to for leaders and managers to lead. Hence, this approach was developed “to indicate that the style to be used is contingent upon such factors as the situation, the people, the task, the organisation, and other environmental variables” (Gosling, et.al., 2003, p. 8). The situation will dictate the most appropriate leadership style to follow. For instance, in situations where followers are involved in routine tasks, it is best to adapt a directive approach to leadership; and in more flexible situations, a more participative style of leadership may work best for both leaders and followers. Arguments in Favour and Against the Mainstream Approaches to Leadership Trait Behaviour There are different approaches in favour of and against the mainstream approaches to leadership. The trait approach is favoured and preferred because it is inherently appealing to most people (Adam & Eves, n.d). It implies that there are many desirable qualities that a person should have in order for him to be recognized as their leader. History has been littered with various stories about the traits that leaders possess that put them into power and into positions of responsibility. The trait approach also gives people an idea of what qualities to look for in their leaders. This is usually popularly evident during elections when the electorate assesses the qualities that candidates have or do not have in order to determine who they will vote for. However, this trait is criticized for not providing explanations to individual differences in thoughts and behaviour. The trait theory also does not focus or give an explanation to one’s personal motivations in being a leader, and how the individual characteristics of a leader can influence their individual motivations. The trait approach is being criticized by various practitioners “because it does not explain the mechanisms by which traits interact with situational factors to produce leader behaviour and outcomes” (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007, p. 151). This makes the trait approach inflexible and too general to apply in more specific situations. The trait approach puts across qualities and traits that are ambiguous and which are difficult to assess or find in a potential leader. For instance, in the characteristic of intelligence -- how exactly does one determine that a leader is intelligent? What are the parameters for intelligence? Is an ‘intelligent’ leader qualified for all tasks, and for all sorts of situations? There are many unanswered questions in the trait approach because it is founded on vague concepts, on general qualities, and on very traditional principles of leadership. Behavioural Approach The behavioural approach has various desirable qualities which make it a very ideal approach to leadership. The behavioural approach helps leaders develop their leadership skills by identifying behaviours that are effective in practice. For example, the more classical leaders can develop their monitoring and controlling behaviour; or the transactional leaders can develop skills in influencing others; the visionary leaders can develop skills in communicating their goals and visions to their followers; and the more organic leaders can enhance their team and communication skills (Avery, et.al., 2004, p. 74). This approach allows for a broader development of leadership skills based on what situations call for, and based on the needs of the organization or the followers. The behavioural approach however has been criticized by various authors for various reasons. “Some authors regard the fundamental division into relationship and task behaviours as too broad and unspecific” (Avery, et.al., 2004, p. 74). The skills needed to be developed for the categories of leaders mentioned previously are not actually mutually exclusive. Skills needed for one leader category may be needed for other categories. One’s communication skills need to be developed for almost all categories of leadership. Some skills mentioned in some of the categories also do not fit in perfectly with the leader-category. For example, a leader’s ability to communicate his vision to his followers does not really help him become a great visionary leader when he cannot even persuade his followers to share his vision. Although this approach came about as a response to the trait approach to leadership, it still suffers substantially the same weaknesses and shortcomings as its predecessor. Transformational Approach The transformational approach is favoured by many authors and leaders because it has been subjected to extensive research and study. On the onset, the transformational leader has a popular appeal to followers because he represents a vision; a goal bigger than all of them. “Transformational leaders involve subordinates: the needs of others are central to the theory” (Northouse, 2000, p. 4). The transformational approach gives followers a chance to be a part of the group and organization dynamics. However, this approach is disfavoured by other authors and leaders because its principles and tenets are still not perfectly clear. Some believe that this approach is actually a personality trait, not a behaviour that can be learned or can be taught to followers and constituents. This approach is also difficult to actually apply and implement in the organization. How does one go about transforming followers? How does one really go about influencing them to share your goal or vision? This approach is also not favoured by many leaders and authors because of its potential for abuse. History has shown that many people who have the powerful charisma to influence other people to share a common vision or goal have abused that power to further their own selfish ends. Situational Approach The situational approach is favoured by various authors and leaders because it is very practical and easy to understand. It is also very flexible and does not rely on precedents and norms in deciding the course of action of leaders in an organization (Northouse, 2000, p. 3). The application of leadership skills is dependent on each individual situation, not on fixed and standards of behaviour as set and prescribed in the organization or by the leader. Similar situations may not be acted upon in the same way as other situations that have come before it, but they shall be judged based on their circumstances, based on the people concerned, and based on other relevant factors involved. However, the situational approach is criticized and disfavoured by other authors because of its determinism and reification. Determinism is seen when leaders try very hard to influence their followers into their way of thinking. Reification is “representing a human being as a physical thing deprived of personal qualities or individuality…[and], according to Marx, treating labor as a commodity…” (Wordnet, 2006). This theory assumes that leaders act rationally and as a reaction to organizational threats and changes. However, this is not always the case because some leaders and managers may also act politically or pursue personal agendas which are not in keeping with the goals of the organization (Robbins, et.al., 2007). Critical Perspectives to Leadership Approaches Most, if not all of the leadership approaches mentioned above, focus on the leader. They emphasize on the pivotal role of the leader in the organization, where the followers are merely that – followers. The critical perspectives to leadership approaches present alternatives to the leader-centric approaches to leadership. They offer innovative and more change-centric, and follower-centric perspectives to leadership. Change-centric Perspective The change-centric perspective to the leadership approaches sees the mainstream approaches as having lopsided and uneven views of leadership. The change-centric perspective focuses on the efforts toward change in the organization, not on the leaders of the organization. According to the change centric approach, the leaders should only be in the organization as facilitators and instruments of change. They believe that the trait approach and the other mainstream approaches to leadership focus too much on the leader as a “’hero’ providing the ‘solution’” (Kee & Setzer, 2006, p. 6). For the change-centric perspective, the leaders must provide the direction for the organization and facilitate the actions of the members of the organization. This perspective criticizes the mainstream approaches for putting so much faith on the leader; instead, they stress that the leader must also be a learner and a listener. The leader must create opportunities for the members of the organization to learn from. The change approach criticizes the mainstream approaches for being unilateral and uneven. This approach focuses on a more “comprehensive approach that builds trust and community among affected interest groups, users, communities and potential partners and collaborators” (Attwood, et.al., 2003 as cited by Kee & Setzer, 2006, p. 12). Follower-centred Perspective The follower-centred perspective to leadership approaches criticizes the mainstream approaches to leadership as being too hierarchical and bureaucratic. The follower-centric approach stresses on a bottom-up approach to leadership, not a top-down approach. In this sense, changes in the organization are initiated from the members and followers, from the grassroots level, not the higher rungs of the organization. This approach criticizes the mainstream approaches for being too focused on the leader; it emphasizes that when it comes to change processes in the organization, the leaders should step back and let the lower level members control the change process. In contrast to the leader-centric approaches to leadership, the follower-centred perspective stresses that one of the roles of a servant leader is to “delegate authority and power to subordinates in order to improve the employees’ leadership skills and abilities (Northouse, 2004, as cited by Kee & Setzer, 2006, p. 10). As a result, the changes in the organization may not be what the leader envisions for the organization, and yet the changes will have more support from the members of the organization. The follower-centred approach takes the focus and attention away from the leader and devolves them to the members of the organization. This approach criticizes the mainstream approaches for the concentration of power on a few individuals in the organization; it instead calls for the building up of group dynamics which consequently make group members feel like valued members of the entire organization. Summary/Conclusion There are various mainstream approaches to leadership. Each approach has its own focus and leadership strategy. These mainstream approaches are the trait, the behavioural, the transformational, and the situational or contingency approach. The trait focuses on desirable traits that followers seek in determining their leaders. The behavioural approach focuses on the behaviour of leaders, not on what they are, but what they do in the organization. The transformational approach sees leaders as visionaries for the organization; and as leaders who will help change and influence the followers in order to transform the organization. The situational or contingency approach relies on individual circumstances and situations in the organization to determine the direction of leadership. These mainstream approaches are being criticized for not being specific enough for purposes of application. The trait approach is too broad in the traits that it prescribes for its leaders. The same is true for the behavioural and transformational approaches. The situational approach, on the other hand, is criticized for being a healthy fodder for potential dictatorship and abuse by its leaders. On the other hand, many authors favour these mainstream approaches for some of their desirable qualities. The trait approach is lauded for its appeal to the masses. It is a very desirable approach because it represents ideals for members to seek in their potential leaders. The behavioural approach is favoured because it represents skills that leaders can develop and aim for in order for them to be considered good leaders. The transformational approach helps mold the organization goals; they offer specific goals for the members and leaders to follow in the organization. Finally, some authors favour the situational approach because it is easy and simple enough to understand and relate to. It is also very flexible and adaptable to a dynamic organization. The mainstream approaches are criticized by other authors and organizations because they are too leader-centric. The critical perspectives to these leadership approaches present the change-centric and the follower-centric approaches to leadership. Both approaches emphasize the role of the members of the organization, and de-emphasize the role of the leader. They stress that the leader is only a facilitator in the organization. Changes should be initiated by the members, not the leaders. These approaches emphasize that greater participation from the members can make the latter feel more valued and consequently more willing to participate in the organization. The time for traditional and conventional approaches to leadership has come to pass. We are slowly entering into a world of less leader-centric leadership. There is a need to draw away from these traditional approaches and instead focus on what roles each of us can play in our own organizations. In order for ultimate success and harmony in the organization to be achieved, our leaders must be good followers and vice versa. Works Cited Adam & Eves (n.d), “Trait Approach”, University of Minnesota, Duluth, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://209.85.175.132/search?q=cache:AK92P96gk-0J:www.d.umn.edu/~stau0106/group/Trait%2520Approach%2520of%2520Leadership.ppt+trait+approach+to+leadership&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ph Avery, G., et.al., 2004, “Understanding Leadership: Paradigms and Cases”, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Behavioural Approach (n.d), “Great Visionaries”, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://www.greatvisionaries.com/behavioural_appraoch.html Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 2007, “Personality and Individual Differences”, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. Denhardt, R., et.al. 2008, “Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organizations”, Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Gmelin, D., 23 June 2006, “Leadership: A Transformational Approach”, Business First of Louisville, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://louisville.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2006/06/26/editorial3.html Gosling, J., et.al., June 2003, “A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks”, University of Exeter, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://www.leadership-studies.com/documents/mgmt_standards.pdf Julien, M., et.al. (n.d), “Songs from the Circle: Leadership Lessons Learned from Aboriginal Leaders”, Faculty of Business, Brock University, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:Tc6eZVbOfUMJ:www.bus.brocku.ca/faculty/documents/AboriginalLeadership.pdf+mainstream+approach+to+leadership&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ph Kee, J. & Setzer, W., March 2006, “Change-Centric Leadership: Managing the Risks of Public Sector Change”, George Washington University School of Public Policy and Public Administration, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://www.gwu.edu/~tspppa/docs/ChangeCentricLeadership.pdf. Northouse, P., 2000, “Leadership theory and Practice, National College for School Leadership”, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media-f7b-97-randd-leaders-business-northouse-2.pdf. Ratzburg, W. 9 January 2005, “A Behavioral Approach to Leadership”, Athens Forum, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1650/htmlleaderbehavioral.html “Reification” (n.d), WordNet, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reification Robbins, et.al, (n.d), “Contingency theory”, Finn Track, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://finntrack.co.uk/finntrack.com/management_centre/contingency_theory.htm#leader Vasu, M., et.al., 1998, “Organizational Behavior and Public Management”, New York: Marcel Dekker Western, S., 2007,” Leadership: A Critical Text”, SAGE, viewed 13 January 2009 from http://www.sagepub.co.uk/upm-data/17175_teachingguideLCT.pdf Read More