Comparison of the Strengths and Limitations of Two Approaches to Theorizing Leadership - Term Paper Example

Table of Contents DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 3 Key characteristics of these two theoretical approaches 3 Aims of Theorists who developed the theories3 Assumptions of theorists and implications of theory for organisational members 4 Key terms of theories and the logical relationship between then 5 Applications to organizational behaviour 6 Criticism on Theories 7 Consistency of theories with personal leadership experience 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 10 INTRODUCTION A number of leadership theories and models have been proposed by various researchers. Some of the most popular leadership theories are Great Man Theory, Trait Theory, Behavioural Theories, Participative Theories, Situational Theories, Contingency Theories, Transactional Theories and Transformational Theories. The leadership theories and models are considered very important to improve the leadership effectiveness of organisations and its influence on followers. However, different leadership theories have covered different aspects of leadership. If some theories have evolved from the previous leadership theories then some theories also oppose the key concepts of the other theories. The purpose of this report is to critically compare the strengths and limitations of two different approaches to theorizing leadership as sources of prescription for good managerial practice in organizations. The theories which I have selected for the critical analysis include Transformational Leadership Theory of Bass and Contingency Leadership Theory of Fiedler. The contingency theory has been presented by Fred Fiedler. Fred Fiedler was born in 1992 and he was recognised as one of the leading researchers in the industrial and organisational psychology of the 20th century (Righthealth). The transformational theory has been presented by James MacGregor who is an American historian and Politian and born in 1918 AD and recognised as a Pulitzer prize-winning Presidential biographer (S9.com). Both the contingency theory and transformation theory of leaderships are considered very significant to study the effectiveness of leaders in the organisational contexts. When Fiedler presented his theory of contingency, most of the work has been done on the traits and behaviours of the leaders to enhance the group performance. On the other hand, transformation theory of Bass highlighted the ways through which the leaders would be more influential and impact their followers. The contingency theory argues that effectiveness of leaders is increased when the traits and behaviours of leaders best match the situation whereas, transformational theory argues that leaders can influence the followers if they convey the individuals the importance of tasks, get their focus on organisational goals rather than their personal interests and stimulate their high-order goals. The two opposite approaches of the two theories and the importance of both of the theories in the organisational contexts are the two major reasons because of which I selected these two approaches for critical analysis. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Key characteristics of these two theoretical approaches The contingency theory states that efficiency of a leader to ensure high performance of the group is based on the motivational system of the leader and the extent to which he controls and influences the situation. The three situational factors defined by Fiedler include leadership style, situational favourableness and contingency model (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2007). In short, the effectiveness of leadership is the result of personal traits of leader, his behaviour and factors in leadership situation. Bass has presented the Transformational Leadership Theory, in which he states how leaders can affect the followers. The transformational leadership theory has identified three ways through which the leaders can transform their followers. First, by increasing the awareness of task importance and value for the followers; second, by encouraging the followers to achieve team or organisational goals rather than pursing their personal interests; third, by stimulating their higher-order needs (Changingminds Org). Bass has also made some changes in the transformational leadership in terms of moral foundation. He argues that authentic transformation leadership has four components of moral foundation including idealised influence, intellectual motivation, inspirational motivation and individualised consideration. The contingency theory actually argues that leaders can increase the performance and motivation level of their followers through their personal traits and behaviours which may vary based on the situations. On the other hand, the transformational leadership theory suggests the ways through which leaders can effectively influence their followers, regardless of the situation. The contingency theory is different from transformational leadership because contingency theory suggests that there is no standard set of traits or behaviours which could be used to influence followers in all situations. Aims of Theorists who developed the theories When the efforts to determine the most effective leadership traits and set of behaviours for all situations failed, the researchers started considering leadership behaviour as contingent on the situation, Fred Fiedler and his colleagues conducted a research for two decades to develop a contingency theory of leadership (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2007). On the other hand, the current leadership theories give more focus on effectiveness of leaders in terms of their role to transform organisations. James MacGregor Burns (1978) worked on the role of political leaders and presented the transformational leadership theory (Chance & Chance, 2002). However, the term transformational leadership was first used by J. V. Downton in 1973. MacGregor considered transformational leadership as an ongoing process rather than a set of specific behaviours. Actually he was influenced by Abraham Maslow’s Theory of Human Needs and defined the model of transformational leaders in terms of more ethical and moral dimensions which has never been introduced by any leadership theory prior to 1978. Barnard Bass was the disciple of MacGregor Burns who defined the transformational leadership theory (Covey, 2007). The transformational leaders as defined by Bass was necessary because of increasing sophisticated demands of leaders and Van Maurik (2001) argues that such demands are fulfilled under high degree of uncertainty in today’s world (Doyle & Smith, 2001). Assumptions of theorists and implications of theory for organisational members The major assumption in the contingency theory is that there is no simple one right way to define most effective leadership style (Value Based Management). Since leaders in organisations come across various situations therefore, they are expected to behave inconsideration to the particular situation. It has also been assumed that leaders may have high or low preference for tasks or relations, based on their personality types. Moreover, effectiveness of leadership is derived by three important factors and they include leader-member relationships, task structure and power position. There are two assumptions of transformational leadership theory. First, this theory has assumed that in organisational behaviour, the awareness of the importance of tasks and goals motivated the individuals. Second, in an organisation, the focus on group and team work enhanced the work performance (Changingminds Org). Moreover, I have determined another assumption of transformation theory which focuses on the intentions of followers. Since Bass has mentioned that followers intend to trust, admire and respect the leaders who influence them therefore, followers’ attitude towards leaders is another assumption of transformational theory. The theory presented by Fiedler has been developed by studying the styles of many leaders. Since Fiedler selected the leaders from different backgrounds especially military organisations therefore, contingency theory can be applied to all leaders. Fiedler and his colleagues conducted the empirical research and first assessed the leaders’ styles and then analysed the situations in which they were working. Finally after analysing the styles of hundreds of leaders, Fiedler identified the best and worst traits of leaders in different situations thereby, arguing that leadership traits or behaviours are contingent to particular situations (Northouse, 2009). As mentioned above, data for transformational leadership has been collected by Bass by studying various political leaders and he conducted a descriptive study. In an organisational context, contingency theory is applicable to study the leaders. On the other hand, the transformational theory is applicable to study both the leaders’ styles and their influence on their followers. Key terms of theories and the logical relationship between then Fielder has defined two types of personalities of the leaders as relationship motivated and task motivated and to determine the personality type of a particular leader, he also introduced Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) score. Fielder has provided a quantitative approach which can be easily used by any individual to analyse the leadership personality type. LPC score is determined by asking a person to describe two persons with whom the leader of the entity has been least well and most well (Chance & Chance, 2002)). In addition, in the contingency theory, Fiedler has identified three variables which are important to situational dimensions and influence the leaders’ effectiveness. These variables include leader-member relations, task structure and position power (Swlearning). Fielder has defined the three variables very explicitly. The logical relation between the variables defined by Fiedler is also very strong. The determinants of leader’s efficiency are leader-member relations, position power and task structure and these determinants have a strong relationship such as position power of leader directly determines the behaviour of the leader in particular situations. In the transformational theory, Bass has described the ways through which leaders influence their followers and the key terms of the theory include awareness of tasks, focus on organisational goals, personal interests and higher-order needs. Bass has clearly mentioned how these strategies influence the attitude of the followers. Moreover, transformational theory logically explains a strong relationship between the key variables. For examples, by increasing the awareness of the tasks and their importance, by getting the workers to focus on team goals rather than their own interests and by stimulating the higher-order needs, leaders influence followers. Applications to organizational behaviour When Fiedler was conducting research with his colleagues, he identified that individuals have different dominant leadership qualities and they are inflexible and well-established. Therefore, leaders effectiveness could be only improve if they are placed in such situations that are best suitable for their orientations. Fiedler believes that theory of contingency defined the personality types of leaders and by applying this theory a leader can ensure his personality type and enhance his effectiveness (Borkowski, 2010). Avolio and Bass (1991, cited in Bass & Riggio, 2006) argue that transformational theory is very significant in convincing trainees that transformational leader have both participative and directive orientations and it is not a secretive attempt to discourage participative leadership. In order to increase the implications of the transformational theory, Bass and Avolio have also defined the qualities which separate the transformation leaders from the transactional leaders in an organisational context. These qualities include creativity, team-orientation, teaching, recognition, responsibility and appreciation. Bass and his co-worker believe that by applying these characteristics in the organisational transformation process would successfully bring the transformation to an end (Simić, 1998). Weibler (2004) argues that transformational leadership has high acceptance in management sciences. The result of Weibler study (2004) shows that perception of transformational leaders can be explained on systematic discrepancies of behaviour and personality of followers therefore, the characteristics of followers affect the acceptance and perceptions of transformational leadership. The results also highlighted that theoretical assumption of transformation theory which emphasis on similarity between leaders and followers is also true. Supporting Research Work Fred E. Fiedler (1972) conducted a research based on the contingency model of leadership effectiveness and they have found that group performance depends on the fit between the leaders control and influence and situational favourableness. Through training and experience, a change in situational favourableness can increase or decrease the performance of some leaders to influence the followers. Peters, Kartke and Pohlmaan (1985) conducted a research to study Contingency Model of Fiedler and they found that this theory has been suitable induced from the studies on which it was based. Transformational leadership research has very significance however, while conducting research little focus has been given on contextual influences on transformational leaders. Therefore, by analysing transformational leadership as an organisational process and studying it in relation to contextual framework, the implications of transformational leadership theory can be further improved (Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir (2002) conducted a longitudinal randomised field experiment to determine the influence of transformational leaders. They selected 54 military leaders, 724 indirect followers and 90 direct followers and categorised the leaders into two groups. In the Experimental groups, the leaders were given transformation leadership whereas, in the Control Group, leaders had eclectic leadership training. The results showed that the experimental group leaders had a more positive impact on the performance of their direct and indirect followers as compared to the control group leaders. Criticism on Theories Researchers usually critique the theory of Fiedler and they consider it as short of flexibility. They argue that the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scores defined by contingency theory have failed to reflect personality traits as it was supposed to reflect. Bass (1990) criticised the model validity of contingency theory (Smith). The contingency theory is also criticised because it lacks the ability to explain the solution when an organisation faces the mismatch between a leader and situation at workplace (Northouse, 2009). In my opinion, the contingency theory builds a strong relationship between the leader personal traits or behaviour and situations and it reflects that by changing the leader, the outcomes of the situation can be changed. Moreover, I am of the view that by only changing leaders, one cannot ensure high group performance. The critics argue that transformational leadership theory is discriminatory and antidemocratic (Bass & Riggio, 2006). They argue that this theory increases the influences of the leaders on their followers and leaders can treat them for their different needs for growth. Hall, Johnsom Whysocki and Kepner (2002 cited in Hay) argue that transformation leadership can contribute to abuse of power. Moreover, leaders when adopt a transformation style, they motivate the followers by attracting their strong emotions to achieve the ultimate outcomes without considering the positive moral values. Another criticism on transformational leadership theory is related to negative implications of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The critics argue that this questionnaire has many flaws and it is parallel to ambiguity of measurement criteria (Reid, 2009). In my opinion, these criticisms can be considered to improve the transformational theory however, based on these critics, considering transformational theory of Bass as a failure is not fair. The supported research work of the current researchers and empirical research work mentioned above shows that transformational leadership theory has significant implications in organisations. One only needs to have a quick look at the research materials available online, in books and libraries which show the contributions of transformational leadership. Therefore, in my opinion, improvements should be made in both approaches of the two selected theories however; leaving these theories at the mercy of those who consider these theories as flaws for their own subjective interests is actually not fair. Consistency of theories with personal leadership experience Contingency theory has many implications in the organisational work and in my opinion it can help to understand the questions like the ineffectiveness of a person in a specific situation. I have also experienced that contingency theory actually helps to understand how the traits and behaviours of a leader in one organisation will be effective for another position in another organisation. CONCLUSION When it comes to analyse the two theories in terms of their good managerial implications, I believe that both of the theories have strong implications. Contingency theory can help the managers to identify the underlying beliefs about the people such as whether they see the other individuals with high LPC or low LPC. It also helps to understand whether a leader is more task-oriented or relationships-oriented. In consideration to the scores of LPC, the leaders can achieve the balance between task and relationships. The implications of transformational leadership in organisational context are also important because theory helps the leaders to understand how effectively they can influence their followers. This theory emphasises on the role of leaders as an agent to change. Rather than considering the role of followers, this theory encourages the leaders that their role and strategies can transform their followers. Therefore, the contingency theory can be prescribed to understand the leadership traits and behaviours and their effectiveness for particular situations whereas, the transformational theory can be prescribed to increase the positive influence of the leaders on their followers through three strategies presented in the theory. As long as my analysis on convincing nature of two theories is concerned, I believe that contingency theory is more influential as compared to the transformational theory. I am of the view that contingency theory has strong underlined assumptions and its focus, that effectiveness of leadership traits and behaviours vary based on situations, is very convincing. However, the least preferred co-worker score methodology might have got outdated because of the changing nature of leadership. Therefore, I consider contingency theory as having significant implications in good managerial practices. The analysis of transformational theory individually and its comparison with contingency theory has made me to believe that transformational theory is relatively less convincing. First, the underlying assumption that followers always trust and admire their leaders is not always true. Second, personal interests of the individuals in organisations are most of the times greater than organisational goals; therefore, a leader can never get the focus of the individuals to the organisational goals. However, I do agree with the fact that in consideration to the assumptions of transformational theory, the three points get effective. Therefore, I am of the view that a leader can make his best efforts to achieve the three aims mentioned in the theory throughout his leadership tenure however; he might never be able to achieve the three goals. Finally, the critical analysis of the two theories has helped me to admire the fact that leadership theories and models have very significance in organisational behaviour. The managers and the leaders in the organisations can consider the models as benchmarks and right directions to better manage their organisations. It is admitted that because of assumptions made on organisational behaviour, a leader may not be able to get the same outcomes as defined by the theory however, theorising leadership as a ‘Guide’ for managerial practices in organisation can be very effective. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership, Edition 2. Routledge. Borkowski, N. (2010). Organizational Behavior in Health Care, Edition 2. U.S.: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Chance, P. L., & Chance, E. W. (2002). Introduction to educational leadership & organizational behavior: theory into practice. New York: Eye on Education. Changingminds Org. (n.d.). Bass Transformational Leadership. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://pirun.ku.ac.th/~g4986083/article2.pdf Changingminds Org. (n.d.). Bass Transformational Leadership Theory. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/theories/bass_transformational.htm Covey, S. (2007). The Transformational Leadership Report. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://www.transformationalleadership.net/products/TransformationalLeadershipReport.pdf Doyle, M. E., & Smith, M. K. (2001). Classical leadership. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htm Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of Transformational Leadership on Follower Development and Performance: A Field Experiment. The Academy of Management Journal , 45(4), 735-744. Fiedler, F. E. (1972). The Effects of Leadership Training and Experience: A Contingency Model Interpretation. Administrative Science Quarterly , 17(4), 453-470. Hay, I. (n.d.). Transformational Leadership: Characteristics and Criticisms. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/transformationalleadership.htm LUNENBURG, F. C., & ORNSTEIN, A. C. (2007). EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION: CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES, Edition 5. USA: Cengage Learning. Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and Practice. SAGE. Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The Nature and Implications of Contextual Influences on Transformational Leadership: A Conceptual Examination. The Academy of Management Review , 22(1), 80-109 . Petersa, L. H., Hartkeb, D. D., & Pohlmannc, J. T. (1985). Fiedlers Contingency Theory of Leadership: An Application of the Meta-Analysis Procedures of Schmidt and Hunter . Psychological Bulletin , 97(2), 274-285. Reid, M. (2009, January). A critique of Transformational Leadership Theory. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://gre.academia.edu/MJReid/Papers/252203/A_critique_of_Transformational_Leadership_theory Righthealth. (n.d.). Fred Fiedler. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.righthealth.com/topic/Fred_Fiedler S9.com. (n.d.). Burns, James MacGregor . Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.s9.com/Biography/Burns-James-MacGregor Simić, I. (1998). TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES. Economics and Organization , 1(6), 49 - 55. Smith, K. (n.d.). Fiedler Contingency Theory. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/7184187/Fiedler-Contingency-Method Swlearning. (n.d.). Leadership Theories: An Overview. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.swlearning.com/management/leonard/leonard_9e/Text_14-1.pdf Value Based Management. (n.d.). Contingency Theory. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_contingency_theory.html Weibler, J. (2004). New Perspectives on Leadership Research. Rainer Hampp Verlag. Read More