How Leadership Thinking Evolved from Traditional Great Man Theories to More Contemporary Theories - Essay Example

Ways in which leadership thinking evolved from traditional ‘great man’ theories to more contemporary theories of leadership Number: University: Course: Date: How has leadership thinking evolved from traditional ‘great man’ theories to more contemporary theories of leadership? Introduction The study of leadership has been in existence for a long time in a bid to understand what makes a good leader. While leadership theories and concepts continue to evolve, there are numerous trends that symbolize leadership thought over the 19th through the 21st century. The theories do not pursue a firm sequential pattern, although the models may be grouped by era. Leadership has evolved through eras of the Great Man theory, trait theory, behavioral theory, situational theories and contemporary theories. Great men theory suggests that some people were naturally born leaders. Trait theory looks at the elements that are common among famous leaders. Behavioral theories assert that behaviors are the single most characteristic that makes up a leader. Contingency and situational models uphold that the interaction involving leader’s characteristics and conduct and the situation at hand make the leader. Other contemporary theories focus on interpersonal elements that look at followership (Ballus, 2010, para 5). Great man theories/ Trait theories Trait theory was one of the systematic attempts to study leadership in the early 20th century. In the approach, traits of great leaders such as Winston Churchill were studies to determine what makes great leaders. The theories developed were referred to as ‘great man’ theories as they focused on spotting the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by political, social and military leaders. Prominent leaders’ traits greatly contribute to the trait theory such as Mahatma Gandhi, Bonaparte napoleon and Abraham Lincoln. It was widely believed that people intuitive with these qualities and that simply the “great” people have them. Some of the traits put forward are such as intelligence, alertness, responsibility, insight, self confidence, sociability, motivation, persistence, initiative, tolerance, cooperativeness and drive. Others are such as cognitive abilities, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and social and emotional intelligence. In the mid 20th century, the trait theory of leadership was questioned on the basis of universality of leadership traits. It was held that no consistent set of traits differentiated leaders from non-leaders in an assortment of situations. A person with leadership traits in one circumstance may not be a leader in another situation (Daft, 2008, p 22). Behavioral theories The limited ability of traits to forecast effective leadership led researchers to review a person’s behavior rather than personal traits as a means of increasing leadership effectiveness. Behavioral theories proponents believed that leaders may well be identified by what they do rather than what they have. Certain behaviors such as the degree of flexibility, extent of control, concern for task accomplishment and concern for the followers determine the kind of leadership to exercise. For instance, McGregor held that leaders treat subordinates depending on the postulations they hold with regard to what energizes workers. In his theory X, McGregor presents a pessimistic view of workers whilst theory Y presents a fairly optimistic view of human nature. Leaders who subscribe to theory X consider that workers need to be controlled and threatened to make them work, which results in adoption of an autocratic style of leadership. Theory Y style of a leader believes that workers are rational people who consider work as part of everyday life. As such, the leader uses a participative/democratic style of leadership. Leader attributes in behavioral theories morphed from inherent to particular and teachable. Apparently, leadership styles could be learned as behavioral theorists created training programs. Behavioral theories had major drawbacks in that they help managers develop leadership behaviors, although they failed to offer direction for what valuable leadership under and across different circumstances (Dalton, Hoyle & Watts, 2010, p 253). Contingency theories/ situational As theorists carried on with research on the best leadership; they acknowledged that leaders needed to adapt different leadership styles to situations at hand. Leaders perform differently in differing situations; thus, organisations ought to take every situation into consideration before assigning leaders. The reason is that the same individual may be effective in be situation but ineffectual in another. Situational theory flows from the verity that behavioral theory is not sufficient for the intricate organisational world and societies. The reason is that behaviors are only useful in particular situations. Situational theory upholds that circumstances determine what leaders do, and that behaviors ought to be in congruence with the particular environment at hand. This theory prioritizes critical factors in the environmental situation that impacts leader behavior, in which individual leaders operate. Eventually, organization size, employee maturity work complexity and other critical contingencies form leadership. Situational theory holds that situational factors are finite and change in accordance to various contingencies. A certain leader can be effective in only certain kinds of situations and not other. Contingency proponents and theorists put forward the criticality of discrete elements in the situation in which individual leaders operate. Discrete elements influence leaders’ behavior, implying that leadership should change with the situation or the situation should change to the kind of leadership exercised (Fairholm & Fairholm, 2009, p 22). Skills approach Skills approach emerged in the early 1990s, which is a revitalization of the traits approach. For leaders to be effective in contingent situations, they need to possess certain skills. These are the technical skills, conceptual skills and human skills. Technical skills are the skills needed to perform a particular task. These skills are significant at leadership levels that are closest to the actual work being done. Conceptual skills are also known as administrative or big picture skills. They entail the capacity to think theoretically, analyze problems and handle bureaucracy. Conceptual skills are extremely significant when a leader is in an ever-increasing level of greater responsibility. Planning and coordinating the entire activities of an organisation and its resources necessitates a capacity to perceive the operations from an entire perspective and forecast, as well as, solve problems. Human relations skills are significant across all levels of leadership. They include the ability to communicate efficiently, motivate, inspire and applying empathy and fairness when dealing with the followers. Human relations skills are used in the workplace in as long as two or more people are interacting. Other competencies needed in the human relations skills are the group dynamics, problem solving and goal setting (Dalton, Hoyle & Watts, 2010, p 254). Influence theories Influence theories examine the influence processes between leaders and followers. Charismatic leadership falls under this category, where leadership is not founded on a position or formal authority, but on the qualities and charismatic personality of the leader. Charismatic leaders influence their followers to change by offering an inspiring vision for the future and values required to achieve the vision. Max Weber introduced the concept of charisma into the social sciences to describe leaders who are distinguished as endowed with extraordinary abilities. Charismatic leaders are highly expressive and emotionally appealing, and followers want to identify with them. The win of 2008 U.S presidential elections attracted a fresh examination of charismatic leadership. In a bid to answer why Obama won elections, researcher have established that Obama was able to influence voters through his charismatic personality, his vision of “yes we can”, as well as the effective delivery of the vision (Bligh & Kohles, 2009, p 485). Relational theories Ever since the late 1970s, numerous ideas of leadership have centered on the relational element, that is, how leaders and subordinates/followers relate and influence one another. Rather than being viewed as something a leader does to a subordinate; leadership is perceived as a relational process that expressively engages all participants and enables every individual to contribute towards vision attainment. Interpersonal relationships are seen as the most significant facet of leadership effectiveness. Transformational and transactional leadership models are the most significant relational theories. Leaders build relationships through motivation and empowerment, team leadership and diversity in situational theories world (Bass & Bass, 2009, p 50). In transactional leadership, Max Weber posited that chain of commands that are clear lead to effective leadership when rewards and/or punishments are used to influence subordinates in one way or another. This point was founded on worker motivation, and a transactional leader is driven by the need to attain a set of given organisational goals. Transactional leadership sets goals and objectives, and directions are presented on the particular course of action to be followed in pursuing these objectives. Transformational leadership is a contemporary style of leadership integrates inherent personal attributes and learned and developed to motivate, inspire and mentor followers. Vision setting, enthusiastic practices and passion leveraging inform transformational leadership. Post heroic leadership is a stress on leadership as a communal course world (Bass & Bass, 2009, p 50). Post heroic leadership is viewed as a vibrant, multi-directional and a joint activity a process than a personal practice. Human interactions are key in this concept since leadership is viewed as something that arises in and through associations and networks of influence. There are several images employed to illustrate these leadership connections, from bottom-up images of authority to servant leadership. Traits related to conventional great man leadership are masculine, although both men and women can display them. However, traits such as assertiveness, individualism and dominion are socially ascribed to men and are commonly taken as masculine. The post heroic leadership has feminine traits, though males and females may display them. This recognition has given rise to a body of literature known as ‘female advantage’. The alignment involving typecast feminine behavior and new leadership practices is taken to give women an advantage in the contemporary business (Fletcher, 2003, p 7) Conclusion The shift of leadership thoughts throughout the years have been characterized by an immense deal of improvements in the practices and processes of leadership. The concept of leadership has shifted from being restricted to inherent personal attributes to motivational and inspirational leadership. This has resulted following the identification of leadership gaps and pitfalls as needs, subjects and concerns have given rise to dynamism and diversity in leadership. As a result, progressive changes in the performance of leadership have been achieved. Trait (great man) model and skills approach to leadership are interrelated in that the latter looks at leadership as being learned and developed. Skills, knowledge and expertise have thus become critical elements in leadership. Inherent attributes (traits) are subjected to corresponding aspects of learning and knowledge. Conventional leadership models continue to be used to date, though they have been improved to be yield effective results. Various schools of thought based on leadership have also emerged through the years as the world economy and globalization effects changes. Leadership schools of thought can be traced back in the industrial revolution era by scholars like Fredrick Taylor and Henri Fayol. Factories created an environment for which people could exercise management and leadership skills. This led to the emergence of leadership thinking. The evolution of leadership thoughts from the conventional great man theories to the present day theories has resulted in more than ten models of leadership. Some include dictatorial, egalitarian, charismatic, servant, situational, behavioral, transactional, transformation and post heroic leadership approaches. Individual and professional growth and development of each kind of leadership is reliant on the actual leadership theory/ theories that a leader embraces alongside him/her preferred leadership style. The evolution of leadership thoughts created diversity and dynamism that enables leaders to place value on modern insights of leadership while at the same time opting to incorporate or leave out the great man theory. Charismatic leadership is a conventional model of leadership put forward by Max Weber, and views leaders as having the charisma that attracts followers and makes them want to identify with the leader. This model is also popular to date and received worldwide review following president Obama’s election in 2008. Many view him as a charismatic leader who is eloquent enough to articulate his vision, which accounts for the wide following. A recent phenomenon in leadership is the post heroic leadership that seeks to incorporate women into leadership. Post heroic model is a reinforcement of the great man theory and tends to include feminine attributes of leaders such as vulnerability and caring in the great man theory to incorporate the global recognition of women. Efficient and effective leadership is intended to achieve results by encompassing thinking and behaving in a manner that augments the entire pursuit. Leadership theories have evolved to challenge the great man theory by attesting that leadership may be learned and developed, and the elucidation in the above discussion corroborates the evolution of leadership theories. Bibliography: Ballus, J. (2010). The Organization is Flat and Friendly: The Genesis of Leadership and Followership Thought To The Interdependence Continuum to. Accessed on 14 March 2013 from: http://thesportdigest.com/archive/article/organization-flat-and-friendly- genesis-leadership-and-followership-thought-interdependence-c. Bass, M. B., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. NY: Simon and Schuster. Bligh, C. M. & Kohles, J. C. (2009). The enduring allure of charisma: how barrack Obama won the historic 2008 presidential election. Leadership quarterly, 20 (1), 483-492. Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Dalton, M., Hoyle, G.D., & Watts, W.M. (2010). Human Relations. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Fairholm, R. M & Fairholm, G. W. (2009). Understanding Leadership Perspectives. NY: Springer Fletcher, J. K. (2003). The paradox of post heroic leadership: gender matters. Center for gender in organizations, working paper, no. 17, pg 1-22. Read More