Evolution of Leaders and Leadership - Essay Example

Evolution of Leaders and leadership Course Name and Code Institution Name Faculty Name Insert Your Name Insert Your No Instructor’s Name 15 May 2009 Leadership and its relevant studies are traced back to the beginning of civilization. Work environment, leaders, leadership style, managers, and many features that are associated with work have continuously been studied for the past two centuries. With time, organizations have changed from those employing authoritarian type of leadership to the ones associated with working in more comfortable environment giving birth to organizations that people have power, supported, motivated and are helped to professionally grown. Thus, the aim of this paper is to examine the evolution of leadership and to highlight some attributes of a good leader. Leadership began with the beginning of civilization. Greek heroes, Egyptian rulers and even biblical patriarchs have all demonstrated leadership. However, there have been various definitions and theories of leadership but all have one thing in common – need to have power so as to induce compliance. The early organizations employing authoritarian leadership believed that employees were intrinsically lazy, which was followed by a myriad of changes that later transformed the organizations into places people are encouraged, powered and motivated, and all this progressively changed the development of leadership (Bass, 2000). The study of leadership can be traced to the Industrial Revolution in which economies changed from agricultural to industry based. This transformed the way that leaders treated their employees, creating a paradigm in which common persons gained power because of skills that they possessed. Moreover, technology developed resulted in mechanization, which contributed in the creation of hierarchical bureaucracy. A renowned person who contributed to the theory of leadership was Max Weber, and Morgan (1997) analyzing Weber state “observed the parallels between the mechanization of industry and the proliferation of bureaucratic forms of organization” (p. 17). Weber’s concerns contributed to the development of other theories such as Fayol’s classical management theory and Taylor’s scientific theory. The classical theorists focused on designing the total organization while the scientific managers were determined on systematically managing the individual jobs (ruthless efficiency, qualification and control). Even though the approach of the theories is different, they translate into the same goals that require organizations to be rational and should operate in the most efficient manner possible, which translates into high-level productivity. Due to concentration on mechanization of jobs, it undermined the aspect that organizations are complex organisms. Due to the shortcomings of scientific and classical schools, the environment and worker needs contributed into the development of new theories. Theorists such as Hawthorne redefined the principles of Maslow. Hawthorne viewed that work situation was influenced by reactions of people, design and structure of organizations, which later influenced work activities. Maslow understood that individuals operated at their maximum and effectively, if their specific needs are satisfied (Russell, & Stone, 2002). Maslow championed the idea of intrinsic and extrinsic strategies in ensuring that worker needs were focused. Hertzberg’s Dual Factor Theory improved on the ideas of Maslow and concluded that intrinsic and extrinsic needs should be met simultaneously. Moreover, Herzeberg studies provided insights into incentives, goals that tended to satisfy the need’s of the workers. This resulted in Herzeberg grouping the needs into hygiene and motivational factors. This contributed into theorists considering behavioural concepts in analyzing leadership through actions of leaders and its impacts on satisfaction of followers and productivity. Chester Barnard played a major role in behavioural components in that executives developed their organizations onto cooperative social systems and improved the position of the organization in terms of communication of goals and motivating the workers (Russell, & Stone, 2002). McGregor brought into consideration Theory X and Theory Y, basing their assumptions on centralization of decision-making, external control of work, hierarchical pyramid. Thus, different people require different motivational factors due to their human nature. McGregor X and Y theories contributed in the development of transformational theories. In the 1960 to 1980, the societal focus changed from increasing economic growth to ensuring social equality and rights. It was also compounded by improvement in technology and thus the internal and external environments changed. This resulted in the transformation of power to those who possessed the knowledge to accomplish tasks. Thus, due to this change, leaders considered situational/contingency approach to ensure that their organizations are successful and profitable. Factors that were included in the situational/ contingency theory are psychological and job maturity because they require minimal supervision (Adams, & Adams 2000). Moreover, at the same time leaders were focused in performance resulting in the development of transactional leadership theory. The aim of this theory was for leaders to exchange rewards for employee’s compliance and mostly based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy of the leader within the given organization. Thus, the aim of the transactional theory is to maintain the status quo hence neglecting the entire situation of the organization and future requirements or goals of the organization. Due to the weaknesses associated with transactional theory such as decrease in profitability and productivity resulted in the development of transformational leadership. Modern societies view that the leader’s position regarding hierarchical structure, bureaucratic are becoming obsolete and thus the organization and workers should be transformed. Thus, the transformational leader is not supposed to single handily make decisions but employ a structure of collaborative decision-making. It motivates individuals to share resources and collectively worker to create sustainable productivity (Jones, & Munro, 2005). Nevertheless, transformational leaders are required to determine the direction of the organization and to achieve this, the leaders are supposed to internally and externally change to reach and achieve the said goals. Mahatma Gandhi is the best-known transformational leader. Thus, four primary behaviours that shape the position of transformational leaders are idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and individualized consideration. Nevertheless, other strategies and qualities of a transformational leader are sharing inspirational visions, trusting through position and deployment of self. Transformational leadership share the same paradigms with servant leadership. However, the servant leadership involves a higher concern for people because the focus of a leader is upon the followers. Thus, servant type of leaders leads organizations through focusing on their followers making other organizational concerns to be peripheral. Patterson (2005) states that servant leadership brings into consideration seven behaviours, which include humility, love, vision, altruism, service, empowerment and trust. Hence, servant leadership main goal is to ensure that the followers are satisfied and this usually contributes to the success of the organization. Thus, what are some of the attributes of a good leader? A leader should be able to influence, bring and persuade people, forming coherent team that champions the accomplishment of the goals and objectives of the organizations. A leader should have proper communication skills, able to negotiate and negotiate teams to fulfil specified goals. This means that a leader should not be a barrier but possess strategies and vision to ensure that the goals and objectives that are set are achieved (Jones, & Munro, 2005). Moreover, leader should be able to have different views and means of solving certain complexities, thus leaders should be versatile. Leaders should have qualities that can easily be emulated e.g. etiquette, courtesy, punctuality and trustworthiness. Possessing such accreditation, a leader will be able to organize teams, elaborate duties and responsibilities and be able to manage intrapersonal conflict (Adams & Adams, 2000). Thus, the personal qualities ensure that the organization will have proper directives. Nevertheless, a leader should motivate the workers to accomplish tasks efficiently and effectively. Thus, the framework of motivation should not be biased but appropriately defined to ensure that there is a proper way of rewarding and appreciating the duties that are accomplished. Hence, the leader should put into consideration the requirements of the workers. Generally, a leader is a person who can champion people cause, compliments with personal qualities, motivates people and have appropriate communicating skills. Generally, evolution of leaders may be traced back to the beginning f civilization. The Greek heroes, Egyptian rulers and biblical patriarchs can illustrate the origin and importance of leadership. The evolution of leadership, an aspect that scholars’ academicians have continuously worked on, has resulted in the formulation of various theories. Some of these theories are the Max Weber theory, classical management, scientific management, Hawthorne, Maslow, McGregor, Hertzberg, Situational/ contingency, transactional leadership, transformational leader and the servant leader. These theories have shaped the view of leaders. Nevertheless, leaders have various attributes, which includes personal qualities, communication skills, team player, focused and can develop appropriate strategies. Bibliography Adams, B & Adams, C 2000, Leaders as Stewards, Executive Excellence, 17(1), 8 Bass, B 2000, The Future of Leadership in Learning Organizations, Journal of Leadership studies 7(18) Behr, T 1998, Acting from the Centre, Management Review, 87(1), 51 – 55 Morgan, G 1997, Images of Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA Model, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145-157 Jones, C & Munro, R 2005, Contemporary Organization Theory, Wiley-Blackwell, New York. Patterson, K 2003, Servant Leadership: A Theoretical Model, Digital Dissertations (UMI No. 3082719). Russell, F & Stone, G 2002, A Review of Servant Leadership Attributes: Developing a Practical Wood, J & Wood, M 2002, Henri Fayol: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management, Taylor & Francis, London. Read More