The Evolution of Leadership - Past, Present, and Future - Literature review Example

The Evolution of Leadership: Past, Present, and Future Name Instructor’s name Course Institutional affiliation Date Introduction Leadership is to an organization what wind is to a waving flag. It determines the direction of the company by spearheading change. The past couple of decades have seen the global community come into a considerable number of changes, like the rise in the use of technology for example. Such changes have meant that leadership must adapt to the changing environment in order for their organizations to survive and thrive. The gradual adaptation of leadership to the constantly changing world has consequently led to the change in the nature of leadership (Martin et al, 2007; Stephenson, 2011). One thing that has remained constant however, has been the need for leadership. Although not exhaustively, this paper will discuss the gradual evolution of leadership over time; the past, present, and project what it may look like in the future. It will also discuss and Mahatma Gandhi as a well known global leader (Bolden, 2006). How has leadership changed? Leadership has been changing and continues to change. In the extremely volatile environment that is today’s world, organizations must adapt or die. The major changes that have been observed in the evolution of leadership have been the prominent shift from autocratic and authoritarian type of leaderships to the more democratic and participative styles that are today considered contemporary. According to the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) 83% of the leaders in a survey they conducted believe that over the past five years, the definition of effective leadership has changed (Martin et al, 2007). Since the beginning of time, the need for unfaltering leadership has remained constant. Leadership has changed its focuses, principles, and the ways in which it is conducted (leadership styles) (Wheatley, 2005). When leadership begun to be an area of study, there sprouted a number of theories that attempted to characterize leaders. In the early 1900s, the Great Man theory was developed by Galton. This theory suggested that leaders are people who possess inherent leaders which could only be inborn. Such individuals as battle field heroes, royalty, among other successful or wealthy individuals were thought to possess inborn qualities to which their success and leadership abilities were accredited. Between the 1920s and 1930s, this theory gave rise to the trait theory. Albeit unsuccessful, the new theory attempted to isolate the particular traits that made leaders different from the general population. Eventually, the focus shifted almost entirely from who a leader is to what a leader does (Kotter, 1999). This shift brought a change in leadership as it was no longer about whom leaders said they were but who they showed themselves to be (King, Johnson, & Vugt, 2009). This change caused leadership to focus on the behavioral approach which attempts to make connections between leader effectiveness and the actions of good leaders. This new approach gave rise to two distinct dimensions of leadership behavior; one focused of objectives and maximization of worker output while the other focused on human affairs. It is important to note that the task-oriented leadership preceded the relationship-oriented one. Leaders in the former treated employees like machines- they tried to maximize their output like one would an electronic device. In the 1960s it became apparent that it would behoove organizations to motivate their employees instead. This leadership focus was suggested by McGregor (1960) through his two theories; theory X and theory Y. it was believed that “the real power centers within an organization were the interpersonal relationships that developed among working groups”. Ergo, leaders now began to seek to maximize productivity indirectly through the satisfaction of their followers’ individual needs (Stone & Patterson, 2005). In the mid 1960s to 1980s, there came a shift in societal focus to ensuring equality and social rights from increasing economic wealth. At the same time, technology was beginning to grow roots in the business world. The computer age brought with it a shift to brains from brawn, and leadership became amore complicate “multilateral brokerage” process. Leaders now had to focus on both internal as well as those external organizational constituencies in order to survive (Stone & Patterson, 2005). At this point, change was the only thing of which everyone was certain. If businesses were to remain profitable and successful in the increasingly complex environment, it would be essential to consider the contingency/ situational leadership type (Greenwood, 1993). The contingency/situational theory of leadership was defined by researchers as a type of leadership where leaders would accord different treatment to different employees depending on psychological and job maturity. It recognized that leaders not only “act”, they quite often “react” as well. Job maturity related to the relevant skills, technical knowledge, and task at hand while psychological maturity related to the subordinate’s level of self-respect and self-confidence. The higher the levels of these maturities, the lower the level of supervision an employee would require while lower the levels of the same would necessitate more hands-on attention (King, Johnson, & Vugt, 2009). This leadership theory suggested that a leader’s success was based on their ability to understand their followers and environments and react appropriately by making the necessary changes. However, another theory states that leaders are less flexible than the above theory states, and since leaders are not as adaptable as they should ordinarily be, it is necessary to choose the appropriate leader for the appropriate situation. Some leaders do better in certain situations as compared to others; this is the premise of the theory. Though it does not explain who would be responsible for choosing such a leader or how they would go about the process, it brings to light a very important point to consider. The leader in question would therefore have to recognize when he fall short of the requirements for the leadership task at hand, and thus remove themselves. This theory assumed that all leaders are humble, but it nevertheless paved the way for more theories that considered the leader-follower relationship (Stone & Patterson, 2005; Burns, 1978). Towards the end of the 1970s, a new leadership theory came to being; the transactional leadership theory which is the most widely applied of the leadership theories today. The transactional theory stated that leaders of this type offer rewards in exchange for employee compliance in order to improve the performance of an organization. This concept is based on a leader’s legitimacy and bureaucratic authority within an organization. The rewards offered include recognition, salary increments, job promotions, and even salary advances. Since this leadership theory fostered a give and take relationship between the leadership and its followers, they both influenced each other. Leader-follower relationships were now no longer unidirectional/ downward. However, it only worked to maintain the status quo of the organization. It failed to include strategy for improving organizational profitability. This made it narrow and near-sighted as it failed to recognize the big picture for both the employees and organizations (Greenwood, 1993). In the late 1970s to the early 1980s, the interest in charismatic leadership was renewed. The “charismatic leader” concept was first brought into practice by Max Weber (Seters, & Field, 1990). Due to their emotional appeal, this type of leader was thought to exert a considerable amount of influence on their followers especially during crises. The key points of charismatic leadership included– their behavior and how it differed from other leadership behaviors, and the fettles in which they most thrived. In terms of traits, charismatic leaders were said to have high self-confidence, a strong need for power, and very strong convictions. Charismatic leaders are basically all about influence; they have an unparalleled ability to capture and sustain the devotion of their followers, and unify them towards a common goal. They however may also tend to put their own interests ahead of those of the followers or the organization (Vaughn, Eerkens & Kantner, 2009). Within the same time frame in which charismatic leadership was re-popularized, the transformational leadership theory began to be established. It was first introduced by Burns in his book titled Leadership (1978). The basis of the theory provided by Douglas McGregor was that it was no longer the responsibility of the leaders to ensure maximum profitability and maximum output from the workers. The leader now needed active involvement from their followers in order to achieve organizational objectives. This leadership type encourages leader-follower collaboration in order to change the organization to develop sustainable productivity. Transformational leadership focuses on the direction in which the company is heading; where it intends to be and where it is likely to be in the future (Vaughn, Eerkens & Kantner, 2009; Kotter, 1996). Transformational leadership in contrast to transactional leadership asks the followers within its organizations to forgo/delay gratification for the greater good o both themselves and the company. The leader seeks to encourage their followers to focus on what is really important, and through this interaction, they transform their followers into leaders as well. This has been described as the ne plus ultra that people usually have in mind when asked to describe their ideal kind of leader. Burns (1978) cites Mahatma Gandhi as the best example of a transformational leader in modern day times. He elevated and aroused the demands and hopes of hordes of his countrymen through the example he set with his own life. The focus of this type of leadership is on the leader’s understanding of their affect on how their followers feel admiration, trust, respect, and loyalty for the leader in addition to how followers are motivated to do more than they are expected. The leader stirs the followers to embrace others’ needs while looking beyond their own personal immediate needs. This leader is inspirational in their selflessness and their behavior and actions are exemplary. They are known as transformational because they transform the goals of their followers and conforms them to be the same as those of the company; ergo, workers no longer need supervision and are able to work without expecting special reward as they now understand why they do what they do (Stephenson, 2011). Another more recent leadership paradigm that has evolved is servant leadership. In this leadership model, the servant leader’s focus is on his followers. While both the servant and transformational leaderships focus on productivity as well as people, the former focuses more on the people than the latter. This leadership type stems from the fact that there is a deep need for organizations in our society which treat people fairly, humanely, and are concerned about the personal growth of their employees. It was postulated by Block (1993) that followers need leaders who they can trust to hold the needs of the “many” instead of the “few”. He called for a new model of leadership that would have its underpinnings on community, teamwork, service, values, and caring behavior. This leadership approach would be based on servanthood concepts, and he posited that I would be the most beneficial to the organization in the long run. Servant leadership came as a sort of logical extension of the transformational leadership model. It moves its concentration beyond the organizations particular end gains and objectives to focusing on its workers and their well-being. Stone & Patterson (2005) state that "chasing profits is peripheral; the real point of business is to serve as one of the institutions through which society develops and exercises the capacity for constructive action". Like his name, the servant leader’s focus is on service not results. They trust their followers to carry through the tasks allotted to them even though the organization does not primarily focus on this. The definition leadership model is primarily one that believes the organizations objectives will only be achieved by catering to the development, growth, and general well-being of the individuals comprising the organization. The priorities of the servant leader are the growth of his employee, customer satisfaction, and organizational objectives in that order (Block, 1993). In the recent past, due to the radical advancements in technology, a new leadership style has been seen to be coming up. In a survey done by CCL, 73% of respondents believed that leadership skills are the most important characteristic in an employee (Martin et al, 2007). It has been predicted that by the year 2020, 40% of the businesses being conducted will be home based. This will be the main avenue for the new leadership model to thrive; the self leadership. In this kind of leadership, the pioneers connect mainly through technology and there is minimal face-to-face interaction. With technology’s increasing penetration into the world, how people live their everyday lives are also changing. In the future, technology will have a major say in most of the changes that occur in leadership, and when this happens, those who are technologically challenged may find themselves at a disadvantage (Kellerman, 2012; Bolden, 2006; Kotter, 1997). Mahatma Gandhi; leadership profile Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who is more widely known as Mahatma Gandhi, was a widely respected political leader from India. He was born in October the 2nd in 1869 and died in 1948 at the age of 78. Along with Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela among others who were inspired by his non-violence philosophy, he is known as one of the greatest leaders of the non-violent movements in the world. Gandhi was the pioneer of Satyagraha which is resistance through non-violent civil disobedience through which he became one of the greatest political leaders to have ever seen the face of earth. Albert Einstein himself referred to Gandhi as ‘a beacon to future generations’ (Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012). Gandhi has been acknowledged over and over by a host of writers as one of the best examples of servant leadership. Barnabas and Clifford used the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale (SLBS) (a servant leadership model with six dimensions) to examine Gandhi’s qualities of servant leadership. The scale was the result of a thorough literature review and represents a more comprehensive presentation of servant leadership in comparison to the already existing measures (Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012; Stone & Patterson, 2005). In his formative years, Gandhi was described as a below average student who was very shy. In 1888, he went to study law in England which he was later on unable to practice in India upon his completion. He therefore went to South Africa where after he helped to settle a difficult out-of-court legal dispute, he found his calling. Concerning this experience, he wrote, “My joy was boundless. I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learned to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men's hearts.” This experience changed Gandhi’s whole outlook and was the basis for his whole life’s work and resultant philosophies. He now looked forward to service rather than to make profit- the whole premise upon which servant leadership is built (Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012). Gandhi went on to lead the Indians in South Africa in the fight against racial segregation and discrimination by adopting the Ahimsa (non-violence) and Satyagraha (holding on to truth). Using the same weapons, he led Indians to fight against British Colonialism upon his return to India. During this time, he was frequently imprisoned but eventually on the 14th of August, 1947, his efforts bore fruit as India became an independent nation (Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012). The servant leadership qualities possessed by Gandhi are outlined below; Voluntary subordination; he was very literal and deliberate in his quest to be of service to the poor. This was shown from the way he dressed- loin cloth, to his deliberate and self-imposed poverty. Gandhi symbolized the people he was trying to serve as opposed to other leaders who symbolize power and prestige (Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012). Authentic self; servant leaders are capable of leading authentically through consistently displaying integrity, humility, security, accountability, and vulnerability. He possessed the authentic self quality in all these ways (Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012). Covenantal relationship; this refers to the leader’s ability to foster strong, deep, and long lasting relationships with ones followers. Evidence to this is present in India to date where there are huge Gandhi follower movements (Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012). Responsible morality; this is represented in Gandhi’s moral action and reasoning. For example, when he was pressed to wear the sacred thread (a symbol of the high caste Hindu) he firmly refused. He had no objection parse to the thread, he just did not agree with the reasons for which it was worn. He sought not to elevate himself above any other human being (Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012). Transcendental spirituality; Gandhi was perhaps the best possible example of the embodiment of this trait. He had strong convictions which caused him to live his life the way that he did- leaving his prestigious life for a lowly life of poverty and lack (Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012). Transforming influence; the transforming influence of Gandhi is seen up to date all over the world. According to Forbes, in the latest survey conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (one of the top five accounting firms), Gandhi was ranked number three on the list of leaders CEOs admire (Makovsky, 2013; Barnabas, & Clifford, 2012). References Barnabas, A. & Clifford, P. S. (2012). Mahatma Gandhi –An Indian Model of Servant Leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 132-150. Bolden, R. (2006). Leadership Competencies: Time To Change The Tune? Leadership, 2(2), 147-163. Burns, J. M., (1978). Leadership. New York. Harper and Row. Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Greenwood, R. G. (1993). Leadership Theory: A Historical Look At Its Evolution. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1(1), 4-19. Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York: Harper Business. King, A. J., Johnson, D. D., & Vugt, M. V. (2009). The Origins and Evolution of Leadership. Current Biology, 19(19), R911-R916. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-0-87584-747-4. Kotter, J. P. (1999). John P. Kotter on What leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review. Kotter, J. P. (1997). Matsushita Leadership: Lessons from the 20th Century's Most Remarkable Entrepreneur. New York: The Free Press. ISBN 9780684834603. OCLC 35620432. Makovsky, K. (2013). Leaders CEOs Admire and Why. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenmakovsky/2013/08/08/leaders-ceos-admire-and-why/ Martin, A., Willburn, P., Morrow, P., Downing, K., & Criswe, C. (2007). The Changing Nature of Leadership. Center for Creative Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/natureleadership.pdf McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Seters, D. A., & Field, R. H. (1990). The Evolution of Leadership Theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 3(3), 29-45. Stephenson, C.O.C. (2011). How Leadership Has Changed. Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved from http://iveybusinessjournal.com/departments/from-the-dean/how-leadership-has-changed#.UktQKNgtpEO Stone, G. & Patterson, K. (2005). The History of Leadership Focus. Retieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2005/stone_history.pdf Vugt, M. V., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, Followership, And Evolution: Some Lessons From The Past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196. Vaughn, K. J., Eerkens, J. W., & Kantner, J. (2009). The evolution of leadership: transitions in decision making from small-scale to middle-range societies. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press. Wheatley, M. J., (2005). How is Your Leadership Changing? Retrieved from http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/howisyourleadership.html Read More