TRAIT LEADERSHIP THEORY - Assignment Example

? Leadership Theory Word Count: 1998 words Leadership Theory Before the 1930s, there was little academic interest in the leadership area. In the 1800s, Fredrick Taylor conceptualised scientific management, later named Taylorism, which was a management theory used in the analysis and synthesis of workflows. Taylor’s main goal was to attain economic efficiency. On the other hand, sociologist Max Weber’s contribution to the management theory was his concept that ideal bureaucracies comprise several characteristics such as efficiency, division of labour, promotion based on performance, written codes of conduct, impersonality, and hierarchy of authority. Therefore, his conclusion was that a leader obtained power through his position. In the 1920s, another management theorist Mary P. Follett proposed the notion of participatory management, i.e. the abandonment of ‘power over’ and adoption of ‘power with’ by managers. According to Simon, Smithburg, and Thompson (1991), Luther Gulick’s major administrative issue was to determine how to attain control and coordination that was necessary to achieve an organisation’s goals. He proposed the introduction of a powerful chief executive to counter the discordant features that were associated with increasing levels of division of labour and specialisation. In his Notes on the Theory of Organization, he introduced the PODSCORB concept. His main argument was that the roles of the executive include planning, organising, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting. Leadership R. Dernhardt and J. Denhardt (2006) pointed out that Chester Barnard, who was a business executive, defined leadership as ‘the ability of a superior to influence the behaviour of subordinates and persuade them to follow a particular course of action’. There are many definitions of leadership. However, a common thing amongst these definitions is the concept that a leader should yield power to influence people in an organisation. Fiore (2004) stated that in 1968, John French and Bertram Raven described five different types of power that leaders use in pursuit of their objectives. Although other classifications exist, this remains the most useful and includes: a) Legitimate power: This is power that a leader holds virtually due to the position in the organisation. b) Reward power: This is power that a leader holds to the ability to promote, offer salary increases and allocate interesting challenges. c) Expert power: A leader possesses this power from having superior knowledge in a matter that is beneficial to the organisation. d) Referent power: This is power associated with charismatic personalities, which makes followers identify and respect their leader. e) Coercive power: This is power that establishes a leader’s capacity to punish non-compliant subordinates or exhibition of undesirable behaviour. Effective leaders form an important element that determines the existence and accomplishments of an organisation. This type of leadership will transform possibilities into realities through revealing the potential that lies in an organisation and its employees. Leaders should offer direction by proposing new paradigms when existing ones lose their effectiveness. Therefore, leadership is a significant way through which persons transform other people’s minds to enable organisations to move forward and attain their objectives. Over the years, various management theorists have suggested different leadership theories, and this paper will focus on one of these theories – the trait leadership theory. Trait Theory of Leadership According to Marquis and Huston (2009), the trait theory was amongst the leadership theories that formed the basis for research up to the 1940s. Trait theory assumes that certain people yield some personality traits or characteristics that give them leadership abilities. Therefore, some people are better leaders than others. Researchers evaluated the lives of prominent individuals in history to help them identify the traits that define great leaders. However, they ignored the impacts of followers and the situation. This research was guided by psychological focus of the time, and the researchers assumed that if they identified people with similar traits they could also make great leaders. Present-day critics of this theory argue that leadership skills are not just inherited but can be developed. Even though trait leadership theory has apparent shortcomings such as the neglect of other people in the leadership role, it is still a relevant theory as most of the identified characteristics still describe prominent leaders today. Northouse (2010) posited that trait theory elicited a lot of criticism due to the assumption about ‘universality of leadership traits’. For instance, in 1948 Stodgill argued that a consistent group of traits could not differentiate leaders and non-leaders in a range of situations. Therefore, his argument was that a person who exhibited leadership traits in one situation may not be a leader in a different situation. Therefore, leadership was re-conceptualised from a quality possessed by individuals to a relationship between individuals in a social situation. Nonetheless, individual factors that determine leadership maintained their importance, but the researchers held the view that such factors should be considered as situational requirements. Stodgill conducted another survey in 1974. His first survey sought to analyse 124 studies of traits that had been conducted in the period between 1904 and 1947. The results pointed out that an average person holding a leadership role is different from an average person in a group with regard to eight traits, i.e. sociability, self-confidence, persistence, initiative, responsibility, insight, alertness and intelligence. Furthermore, the findings indicated that a leader does not only become a leader because of the traits that one possesses, but the traits must be applicable to the situation in question. The second survey evaluated 163 studies and made comparisons with findings from the first survey. This second survey had more balanced descriptions of leadership and trait roles. While the first survey had indicated that leadership was solely determined by situational factors, the findings of the second survey revealed that both situational and personality factors influenced leadership. Therefore, the second survey corroborated the initial trait theory that the characteristics of a leader formed part of leadership. Therefore, Stodgill identified traits that could be positively linked to leadership. The list comprised ten characteristics: a) Motivation for completion of tasks and responsibility; b) Persistence and energy in pursuit of objectives; c) Originality and risk-taking in problem solving; d) Motivation and initiative in social situations; e) A sense of individual identity and self-confidence; f) Readiness to accept the consequences of actions and decisions; g) Willingness to manage inter-personal stress; h) Readiness to bear delays and frustrations; i) The capacity to influence the behaviour of other people; and j) The ability to organise social interaction structures to current situations. Behavioural Theory of Leadership The next type of leadership theory to look at is behavioural leadership theory. The trait theory discussed shortly was prominent in the first half of the 20th century; by the 1950s leadership research started to slowly change its paradigm. This shift included a change from trait theory to focusing on the responsibilities of the leader or what they did on the job. In a continuous research to settle on the best approach to leadership in all situations, researchers tried to come up with a difference in the conduct of effective versus ineffective leaders. In brief, behavioural leadership theories try to expound on distinctive styles employed by effective leaders, or to describe the nature of their work. Behavioural research endeavours to come up with a means to categorise behaviour that will ensure effective leadership. Multiple studies have tried to scrutinise the relationship between leadership performance and measures of leadership efficiency. However, there was no conclusion on a particular behaviour that would be appropriate for all known situations. All the same, it was concluded that there are two generic dimensions of leader behaviour: people and task oriented leadership which are paramount in rating leadership effectiveness. Leadership as Behaviour Focusing on leadership as behaviour is very much an aspect of behavioural leadership. This perspective is based on the view that it is of less significance to possess a specific set of personal qualities than it was to participate in leadership behaviours that would achieve required results from followers (Vinzant & Crothers, 1998). Following behavioural models, it was concluded that leadership behaviour that showed concern for employees and was accommodative of their views would result in improved performance. Alternate models hold that leaders should participate in behaviours that were both employee oriented and directive. As part of these studies conducted by Ohio State and Michigan Universities, it was found out that leadership behaviour would be set into two sub-categories, initiating structure and consideration (Lussier, 2010). Structure referred to the extent to which the leader shapes his / her roles and the responsibilities of the subordinates in completing a task. On the other hand, consideration referred to the extent to which a leader demonstrates concern for the subordinates and remains supportive. In support of behavioural approaches, it is held that the effectiveness of leadership can be explained through a look at leadership successes and failures (McCauley, 2013). Contrasting the Approaches There is a clear distinction in the two approaches: trait theory looks at leadership as something inherent, found in individuals at birth. On the other hand, the behavioural leadership approach looks at leadership as acquired through observation or practice. Irrespective of these key differences, it is clear that the two approaches appear to agree on the fact that leadership is exhibited through practice. It is by being in a position of leadership that traits are exhibited and one also gets to observe peers in leadership who favourably affect their leadership approaches. This way individuals are able to improve their leadership approaches and are in a position to become better leaders and affect others who aspire to hold such positions. As an example, it has been demonstrated that leaders who look after the needs and desires of their subordinates and accord support to them tend to bring worker satisfaction, loyalty and trust factors, which enhance performance. Since behaviour is acquired, it is possible to train an individual to behave as leaders, thus enabling the development of a worker to a leader. In contrast to trait theory, behavioural theory simply explains that people are not prisoners of their personalities. Another clear difference is that behavioural theory specifically focuses on skills, resources, tools and techniques. In doing this, the theory lays much more emphasis on the role of leadership as opposed to trait theory (Vinzant & Crothers, 1998). After all, leaders are expected to act; they are supposed to take on initiatives in order to attain their goals. Behavioural theory, in a more complete sense, accounts for the things that leaders undertake than does trait theory. Trait theory gives greater consideration to the person and not the duties or tasks (Lussier, 2010). Lastly, behavioural theories are more thorough in explaining leadership. By drawing focus on behaviour and leaders’ actions as they labour to influence their workers, the theories avail a more complete account of leadership in action (Lussier & Achua, 2010). As a result, behavioural theories avail a more realistic and action oriented framework within which employees can be understood. These differences notwithstanding, it is important to note that each of the theories provides a major ground that can be employed in understanding leadership. Most importantly, we should note that none of the explanations provided by the theories are adequate in explaining leadership. Thus, it is paramount that those who bear the leadership traits try to incorporate best practice as a means to be better and more refined leaders. Similarly, those who have ‘learnt’ leadership should also seek to examine and develop qualities and traits exhibited by the so-called born leaders. In conclusion, it is clear that each of the leadership theories has a new look that seeks to explain leadership. It is quite difficult to clearly state that one theory is completely invalidated by the other. In any case, there are practical examples of people whose traits demonstrate leadership, and others who have learnt to become leaders. These realities make it difficult to draw a clear line on the most potent theory. In light of this reality, it is then important that proper leadership practices be developed by amalgamating best practices from each of the highlighted theories. References Dernhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2006). The dance of leadership: The art of leading in business, government and society. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Fairholm, M. R., & Fairholm, G. W. (2009). Understanding leadership perspectives: Theoretical and practical approaches. New York: Springer. Fiore, D. J. (2004). Introduction to educational administration: Standards, theories and practice. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Goethals, G. R., & Sorenson, G. L. J. (2006). The quest for a general theory of leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Lussier, R. N. (2010). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development (5th ed.). New York, NY: Cengage Learning. Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2010). Leadership: Theory, application, skill development. Australia: South Western / Cengage Learning. McCauley, B. P. (2013). Transforming your STEM career through leadership and innovation: Inspiration and strategies for women. London, UK: Academic Press. Marquis, B. L., & Huston, C. J. (2009). Leadership roles and management functions in nursing: theory and application. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Marshall, E. S., & Marshall, E. S. (2011). Transformational leadership in nursing: From expert clinician to influential leader. New York, NY: Springer. Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from sagepub.com: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/30933_Northouse_Chapter_2.pdf. Simon, H. A., Smithburg, D. W., & Thompson, V. A. (1991). Public administration. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. Vinzant, J. C., & Crothers, L. (1998). Street-level leadership: Discretion and legitimacy in front-line public service. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Read More