How the Modern Theories of Leadership Challenge the Traditional Theories of Leadership - Coursework Example

Modern and Traditional Theories Insert Course Name and Code Insert Institution Name Insert Faculty Name Insert Your name Insert Your Number Insert Tutor’s Name 11 February 2009 The aim of many organizations and firms is to ensure that they fulfil the visions and missions that have been set. The success of the organization and achievement of the vision and mission strategies requires managers. These managers usually come into play with different strategies and approaches to ensure that the organization succeeds. This usually comes in terms of leadership styles accompanied by leadership theories. Various theories that govern leadership exist and are usually classified into two groups: modern and traditional theories. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to show how the modern theories of leadership compete with traditional theories. Nevertheless, the paper also discusses motivation bringing into consideration how managers motivate their teams. How the Modern Theories of Leadership Challenge the Traditional Theories of Leadership Mostly, the traditional leadership theories are based on the ideologies that are exhibited in the Industrial Revolution. Common theory that is brought into focus is the classical championed by schools pioneered by people such as Fayol, Taylor and Weber. The theories and thoughts that these people championed ranged from bureaucracy that was advocated by Weber, administration theory exhibited by Fayol and Taylor contributed scientific theory. Thus, traditional theories roots to a complement of these three schools of leadership. Hence, traditional theories are a form of an organism (Goethals & Sorenson 2006). On the other hand, modern leadership theories usually defined as an organization that brings into consideration diversity, self-management, self-controlled teams that are usually flexible and all the teams are networked with each other. In most cases, modern leadership teams are arranged in a horizontal architecture in which the employees in the teams have power and are fully involved in the running and accomplishment of their duties. This approach enables continuous flow of information or dynamic information, a phenomenon that is championed throughout the given project. Planning is the paramount goal for the success of the organization and is usually associated with the management of the employees and production capabilities of the organization. The traditional theories of leadership views that worker is usually a liability and for its success should be approached in a vertical manner. The aim of organizations that rely on traditional theories of leadership is mass production so that they achieve short-term profits a philosophy that underlines planning. This perspective differs from that of modern theories, modern theories view a worker has an investment, adhere to long-term profits, horizontal approach to leadership, the production should be elastic, and there should be trust between the leaders and workers. Thus, to modern theories of leadership, planning is a recipe of confusion and disorder. Moreover, the idea of organizing is approached and acknowledged differently by the two theories. The traditional leadership theories view division of responsibilities especially in labour as the core of success and put them into departments and skill or educational level. Thus, superiors have authority and power and they are supposed to be valued by the entire organization. This contradicts from the approach that modern theories approach leadership. The core success in the view of modern theories is cooperation and teamwork without bias on skill, departments or any constraints that may be placed into place by traditional approach. Horizontal is the core of success to them with diversity creating strength of forward movement resulting in flexible and permeable boundaries. These two theories of leadership exhibits influence differently. In fact, traditional leadership theories gives authority to the superior, the punishments and rewards are extrinsic, monitoring and surveillance is the backbone of the organization, individual incentives and evident discrimination when it comes to payment. The modern theories bring this monotony and champions self-discipline, appreciate delegation of responsibilities, intrinsic empowerment, back equality in payments and offers team incentives. These core differences exist between the traditional and modern theories in ensuring that the organization achieves and fulfils the requirements of its vision. The two theories approach management and supervision of duties and responsibilities differently. For instance, traditional theories of leadership employs X and Y theories, centralization in achieving the requirements of the organization, manager centred, who commands, directs and give instructions to the employees. This perspective is approached differently by the modern theories since it employs S theory in accomplishing the duties. In this theory, power is decentralized, and responsibilities are accorded to workers to accomplish them with minimal directives. Other important factors that play important role in differentiating between traditional and modern theories are production and effectiveness of the given duties. For example, traditional theories promote procedures, inspect the products, micro-surveillance during production, centrally control operations and usually trains top of the pyramid. While the modern theories champions decentralization, few or non-procedures, process is analyzed not the results and each person as a right of been trained. Effectiveness, from the perspective of traditional theories is governed by division of labour, specialization and formalization while in the view of modern theories understand that efficiency is inhibited by formalization, specialization and division of labour. How Managers with different Leadership Styles Motivate their Teams The success of any duty requires a team that is effective, focused and committed to the objectives of the organization. Thus, the managers who come with different leadership styles should approach motivation in levelheaded perspective. Motivation, effective rewarding system and well-defined goals are the key to the success of the given organization and especially a team. There are proven motivation strategies that improve the morale of the people involved. For example, the duties and responsibilities should be structured in a way that they are challenging and its expectations should be high (Hiebert & Klatt 2001). This can be possible if the jobs are interesting and can be fulfilled with available resources that are provided to the team. Nevertheless, when a given job is not satisfying or unchallenging, there is minimal chance that the teams will be motivated in accomplishing it. Therefore, a challenging, autonomous and diverse job increases the chances attributed to intrinsically satisfying. A defined job is part of fulfilling a job requirement; however, goals and objectives of the given job should be determined and are set in ways that are achievable. Thus, effective goals are part of foundation that improves on motivation, if it fulfils the requirements of the given assignment. The goals that are in place should be measurable, unambiguous and behaviour changing. Thus, the final focus of the goals and its consistence streamlines the way that the team members approach it (Northouse 2006). However, its success should factor into consideration provision of appropriate tools, training, support and resources. Different variables motivate the team members differently. The general motivational factors that motivate the team members include fair wages, the working conditions, and good relationship between the workers to name some. Understanding the requirements or motivational factors of each member of the given team should be paramount. For example, a team member may be motivated by promotion or recognition while others may be motivated by bonus or financial benefits. Nevertheless, appreciation of the team members should follow an effective and laid down plans. This will uphold fairness and avoids bias reducing conflict between the workers and the management team. This means that a well motivated worker will dedicate resources e.g. strength and will in accomplishing certain duties resulting into the success of the organization (Schyns & Meindl 2005). Motivation is the corner stone of the success and achievement of the organization vision and mission. Thus, the management and leadership ladder should ensure that the works are provided with the requirements that they will be motivate, a recipe to success. This means that proper recognition and appreciation of workers, effective and measurable goals and challenging duties are some of the motivational factors that ensure that the workers fulfil their requirements. In conclusion, traditional and modern theories approach and accomplish the requirements of an organization differently with the main aim of achieving success. However, there is clear and distinctive way that each theory tries to accomplish its duties. Moreover, leaders motivate team members applying different approaches to ensure that the success of the duties is achieved and each member of the team is motivated. References Bates, B. & Botha, S. Business Management: Fresh Perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson South Africa, 2005. Goethals, G. & Sorenson, G. The Quest for a general Theory of Leadership. New York: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2006. Hiebert, M. & Klatt, B. The Encyclopaedia of Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishers, 2001. Levasseur, R. Leadership and Change in the 21st Century. London: Mindfire Press, 2006. Miner, J. Organizational Behaviour I: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. New York: M.E. Sharpe Publishers, 2005. Northouse, P. Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th Ed. New York: Sage Publishers, 2006. Schyns, B. & Meindl, J. Implicit Leadership Theories. London: IAP Publishers, 2005. Read More