Trait Theories and Contingency Theories of Leadership - Coursework Example

Trait Theories and Contingency Theories of Leadership (Student’s Name) (Course Details) (Instructor’s Name) (Institution) (Date of Submission) INTRODUCTION Contingency and Trait theories, specifically, have featured in a number of leadership studies (Patterson 2012:4), with most of them focusing on their conception, application, relevance and contemporary applications. However, not much have been unearthed in regards to these topics. There is still a lot more to research about the relevance and validity of contingency and trait theories as so far as management is concerned. Testing the significance of these two theories, thus, forms the basis of this paper. Besides, this paper seeks to study the various characteristics of both transformational and transactional leadership as some of the common leadership styles. This entails the consideration of their significance, critique, pros and cons. Overview of Contingency Theories and Traits Theories Contingency theory is one of the widely used theories in the modern management. It focuses on the immediate situations. Contingency leadership has no predetermined solutions or recommendation for various activities. Every action taken by the manager depends on the immediate happenings. Traits leadership, on the other hand, focuses on the natural abilities or traits of an individual. The characteristics possessed by an individual such as natural qualities, suits an individual for leadership. These two leadership styles are discussed in details in the following section. Contingency Theories of Leadership: Management is a key driver for any organisation. Effective management means organisational success. Poor management, on the other hand, can mean failure to an organisation. For effective management to be fostered and integrated within an organisation, certain levels of leadership skill are necessary. One has to be proficient in leadership styling, Meeting Management, decision making, Problem Solving, planning, internal communications and personal management (Germain 2012:51). Contingency theories postulate that effective leadership styles and leadership behaviours often depend on the situational factor. The underlying assumption is that leaders are not automatically formedby their leadership characteristics, behaviors or styles, but rather their leadership environment (Fiedler 1972:460). The most important thing is their ability to match leadership skills and styles to the situations they face at work (da Cruz, Nunes, & Pinheiro 2011:7).According to Fiedler (1972) and Hill (1969:48), there are four major situational leadership styles. These include Telling, Selling, Participating, and Delegating styles. Telling style is more directional it involves telling people to do at different times and situations. Selling involves marketing policies to subjects so that they can adopt and practice them. Participating styles is where both the leader and employers are collectively responsible for activities. Situational factors may include such constructs as leader-member relations, position power, and task structure. As suggested in Fiedler (1972:454), leaders who share good relationships with their clients often have more power and influence than those with negative relation with their subject. On the other hands, tasks that are more explicit, well-organized, and highly structured favor effective leadership compared to assignments that are nebulous, and unstructured (amagata, Yang & Galaskiewicz 2013:265).h Leaders in positions that allow them to hire, fire, punish and reward are also more powerful and influential than those in positions lacking the above capacities (Tyssen, Wald & Spieth 2013:44).Subordinates often fear crossing the lines of such leaders since they might risk losing their jobs and rewards they would have received by doing good. Aside from individual leadership constructs in an organisation, contingency theories also look at the aspect of team leadership. The main reason for this relies on Latham(2013:28), a conception that an organisation’s success often depends on the collective efforts of its stakeholders. As Fiedler puts it, a group’s success is highly contingent (Fiedler 1972). It depends on the available situations and how they interact with authoritarian’s leadership styles. According to Yamagata,Yang, and Galaskiewicz (2013), the relationship between leadership styles and situations can present in two ways that are task-oriented leadership style and relationship-oriented leadership style. Meaning, a leader may either decide to concentrate on team building before assignments or completion of the assignments without creating any relationship. As per the contingency theorists, either of the orientations serves as motivational priorities for the leaders (Hill 1969). While leaders motivated towards relationships focus on building close ties with their members, those motivated towards tasks mainly concentrate on achieved the organisation’s goals (Volpp Sierra & Banzato 2016).Fiedler’s contingency theory, thus, emphasises that two variables define leadership bearing That is situational framework and leader styles. Through their interaction, setting management priorities becomes a simple task to roll. Ideally, in the contemporary organisations, having a positive relationship with subordinate staffs and other employees is a very important step towards productivity and satisfaction Bauer 2015).Leaders who are in intimate connections with their subjects are assured of first-hand information on issues pertaining to management and organisation in general. According to Patterson(2012:23), such kind of relationship provides a free-reign environment which facilitates vertical and horizontal communication, between managers and the subordinates, and among the subordinates themselves. A leader must first be informed to ensure effective and fruitful leadership. Path-goal theory Path-Goal theory is another example of contingency leadership theories. In its current form, the path-goal theory sets out two basic propositions The first propositions state that a leader has a duty to enhance the mental states of subordinates as this result in their motivation to perform and work satisfactorily (Tyssen, Wald & Spieth (2013:44). In synthesis leaders’ roles, based on contingency theories, comprise the classification of goals of the subordinate staffs, charting paths to these goals, provision of valued extrinsic rewards based on performance, and provision of work satisfaction to the subordinates. The second proposition of Path-goal theory asserts that the situation at hand determines the specific types of leadership behaviours that accomplish this motivational role. Favourable situations often lead to the development of a positive perception of the initially set objectives. Path-Goal Theory can, therefore, be best understood as a management process in which the organisation’s front-runners spot and adopt specific behaviours that auger well the needs of the workforce and the working environment. Based on the outcome, employees are then encouraged to follow the right path towards the achievement of their goals (Volpp Sierra & Banzato 2016:32). The implication of this theoretical outlay is that there must be role clarity and well-definition of work objectives since the employee’s performance and outcome depend on them. Path-Goal Contingency Theory of Leadership is, thus, highly relevant to any management system. Although it is not a detailed process, most of the contemporary organisations’ leadership structures often put it into play by following three basic steps. As noted in Calloway and Awadzi (2008:18), these steps include (1) determination of the characteristics employees and their working environment, (2) coming up with a leadership style, and (3) focusing on motivational dynamics that are useful to the success of employees. In business planning, every organisationmust have at least a vision, mission and an objective to achieve. Usually, leadership strategies often begin from these elements. Critique Though they have received compliments and acceptance of validity and relevance from different authors, contingent or situational approaches to leadership are challenged for various reasons. In Volpp Sierra and Banzato (2016) perspective, contingency theories interpret the notion of leadership and its associated studies devoid of any one best style of attaining effectiveness in leadership based on the situations at hand. Most of the propositions are left undefined. A leader is, thus, left in darkness, especially in the description of what to do at which situation and expect promising outcomes. The characteristics of transformational & transactional leaders Transformational leaders are normally focused on providing vision and sense of direction in regards to the mission of the organization. These leaders tend to change the perception of the employees or members towards realizing the missions of the group or organization. One aspect of these leaders is their ability to treat the employees with respect and give personal attention to everyone in the organization (Tyssen, Wald & Spieth (2013:66). Transactional leaders usually tend to focus on improving the performance of the employees through rewards. This leadership style believes in the use of rewards to strengthen effort and improve performance of every employee or member in the organization. Transactional leaders are focused on points of divergence between the expected performance and the actual performance of employees. Therefore, they tend to come in and correct any such points of diversion in performance (Patterson 2012:79). Trait Theories of Leadership Every time people talk about politics, politicians, academicians, managers and other leaders, the themes of their discussions often revolve around personalities of such individuals. Currently, there is a growing fascination with analysingorganisational leaders, political leaders, religious leaders and other forms of leaders. Consequently, biographies on current organisational, political figure and other successful personalities have become some of the bestselling headlines around the world. The main reason for this trend in thestate of affairs is the constantly burning curiosity to understand the personal traits such leaders (Patterson 2012:23). That is the things in which they believe and for which they work, their priorities, and the impact of their pronouncements on the lives of the subjects. By making all these moves, people tend to apply the trait theory of leadership. Though has deeply rooted historical origin, trait theory of leadership is still relevant todate. In the current job markets, interviews are always conducted for the applicants for they have been hired to work. Though they appear scientific, the major interest of these interviews often remains the search for the necessary leadership traits and skills. The assumption is that the right person for the job must show some high-level leadership characteristics in their area of specialisation. Certainly, this is the premise of the trait theory of leadership. The theory posits that by making a quick assessment of an individual’s personality traits, it is easy to categorise them either as leaders or non-leaders. While leaders will show positive aspects of the assessed trait elements, non-leaders often present the contrary of the initial expectations. Successful leaders certainly have abilities, interests, and personal qualities that are different from the personality traits of the less effective leaders. Trait theories of leadership are, thus, based on the proposition that personality traits often distinguish leaders from non-leaders. According to Bauer (2015:35), trait theories strongly suggest that one can only be born a leader and cannot be made a leader. Meaning, leadership, as a phenomenon, is more innate than being nurtured through learning. The validity and relevance of this claim have, however, been to the tests of many studies. Lord, De Vader and Alliger (1986: 402-410) were some of the researchers whose meta-analysis on this subject matter has ringed a bell to different populations. In reviewing the evidence of a functional relationship leadership and personality, the authors conducted a meta-analysis including some of the initially reviewed and subsequently published studies like Mann (1959). In their result, the researchers found out that there were substantial correlations between intelligence and leadership perceptions, masculinity and dominance. Based on their understanding, these characteristics relate to leadership perceptions, and not leadership behavioursnor performance. Meaning, they do not mirror personal traits that may be a reflection of effectiveness in leadership. A later meta-analysis, led by Bono and Judge (2004:906), however, came up with the Big Five personality dimensions which they believed were essential predictors of both a leader effectiveness and leadership emergence. In their view, these personality traits include extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. These personality characteristics are not responsible exclusively for recognising whether one can be an up-and-coming leader or not. They basically serve as preconditions that bestow people with leadership budding. In ideal leadership situations, a person would be expected to have some specific character traits that define his or her leadership potential. As noted in Derue et al. (2011:16), a leader must be someone with honesty, integrity, self-confidence, motivation, cognitive ability, emotional maturity, charisma, flexibility, and creativity. These traits define whether authoritarian is capable of exercising sound judgment and making accurate management decisions. Decision making and judgment are some of the primary roles of a leader. Trait theory of leadership is, thus, a significant theoretical postulation of elements of leadership. Apart from the fact that it is naturally pleasing, this theoretical perception of leadership has been validated by numerousresearchers to have a strong foundation and basis of leadership practices. Trait theories, therefore, serve as yardsticks against which leadership behaviours of a person can be evaluated. They offer detailed knowledge and grasp of various elements necessary in the leadership process. Critique The credibility of trait theories can be challenged on different bases. The theory is largely criticised for its simplistic approach to leadership. Contrary to the way trait theory tends to suggest, successful leadership is influenced by several other factors (Germain 2012). Not just personality traits. The theory, thus, fails to take into account other factors, like working environment and situations, which are extremely influential as to whether or not one will lead successfully. Furthermore, based on trait factor analysis, the list of possible leadership-oriented personality traits can be very long and inexhaustible. There over 100 various traits of effective leaders in different leadership positions (Gini & Green 2014). The theoretical descriptions are, thus, simple generalities. Additionally, this theoretical postulation does not make it clear as to which of the many traits is most suitable for a successful leader. Conclusion Observably, both contingency and trait leadership theories provide significant information about leadership. While contingent approach proposes matching leadership style with environmental situations, trait theorists are of the opinion that effectiveness of leadership is determined by leader’s character traits. One of the most interesting aspects of trait theories is that they can applyto people at all levels of management in nearly every organisation. Managers can employ the information from them in gauging their positions in the organisation, and assess strategies for strengthening their position (Gehring 2007).They get a painstaking grasp of their self-identity and how they can influence other people in the organisation. These theories, therefore, make leaders aware of their métiers and flaws enabling them make clear understanding of how to improve their leadership qualities. If I were a leader, however, I would strongly recommend the adoption and practice of contingency theory. For one, there is no way of leading a group or an organization (Patterson 2012). Were there a single way to lead then there would be no need to learn about an organization before deciding on a leadership approach to take. A manager of a technical firm can hardly lead an agricultural organization, probably, because skills required to run these two organizations are far different. For agricultural firm, agronomic knowledge is highly recommended. A technical firm, one the other hand, would require one to have good grasp technology to lead. Meaning, as a leader, it is important to understand the situations in a leadership environment to decide on the best leadership approach. References Bauer, D 2015, 'Successful leadership behaviours in Slovak organisations' environment - an introduction to Slovak implicit leadership theories based on GLOBE study findings', Journal For East European Management Studies, 20, 1, pp. 9-35, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A., 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Calloway, J, & Awadzi, W 2008, 'Leadership and organisational success: an examination of the trait, skills, and transformational approaches', Consortium Journal Of Hospitality & Tourism, 13, 1, pp. 13-23, Hospitality & Tourism Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017 da Cruz, M, Nunes, A, & Pinheiro, P 2011, 'Fiedler's Contingency Theory: Practical Application of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale', IUP Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 10, 4, pp. 7-26, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Derue, D, Nahrgang, J, Wellman, N, & Humphrey, S 2011, 'Trait and behavioural theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity', Personnel Psychology, 64, 1, pp. 7-52, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Fiedler, FE 1972, 'The Effects of Leadership Training and Experience: A Contingency Model Interpretation', Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 453-470 Gehring, DR 2007, 'Applying Traits Theory of Leadership to Project Management', Project Management Journal, 38, 1, pp. 44-54, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Germain, M 2012, 'Traits and skills theories as the nexus between leadership and expertise: Reality or Fallacy?', Performance Improvement, 51, 5, pp. 32-39, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Gini, A, & Green, R 2014, 'Three Critical Characteristics of Leadership: Character, Stewardship, Experience', Business & Society Review (00453609), 119, 4, pp. 435-446, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Hill, W 1969, 'The Validation and Extension of Fiedler's Theory of Leadership Effectiveness', Academy Of Management Journal, 12, 1, pp. 33-47, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Latham, JR 2013, 'A Framework for Leading the Transformation to Performance Excellence Part II: CEO Perspectives on Leadership Behaviours, Individual Leader Characteristics, and Organizational Culture', Quality Management Journal, 20, 3, pp. 19-40, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L. and Alliger, G.M., 1986. A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalisation procedures. Patterson, M 2012, 'Understanding the Dynamics of Leaders', Executive Housekeeping Today, 34, 4, p. 23, Hospitality & Tourism Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Tyssen, A, Wald, A, & Spieth, P 2013, 'Leadership in Temporary Organisations: A Review of Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda', Project Management Journal, 44, 6, pp. 52-67, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017. Volpp Sierra, J, & Banzato, C 2016, 'Implications of theory and research on strategic leadership: a critical review', Revista Ibero-Americana De Estratégia (RIAE), 15, 3, pp. 119-131, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017 Yamagata, Y, Yang, J, & Galaskiewicz, J 2013, 'A contingency theory of policy innovation: how different theories explain the ratification of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol', International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law & Economics, 13, 3, pp. 251-270, GreenFILE, EBSCOhost, viewed 4 February 2017 Read More