Leadership Theories In Nursing - Research Paper Example

Running Head: LEADERSHIP THEORIES IN NURSING LEADERSHIP THEORIES IN NURSING WHICH WILL EMERGE IN THE FUTURE? By I Introduction Under the command responsibility principle, the success or lack of it is always reflected on the organization’s leadership. This is probably the reason why whenever a program or project goes awry it is the leader who gets the most flak that sometimes ends in his or her resignation. In the field of healthcare, leadership is very important considering that at stake is the health of human lives. Like all other organizations, healthcare managers are also judged by their effectiveness in making their followers do the task successfully. There are various theories that are said to govern leadership and foremost among them are the situational leadership and style leadership theories. The first exhorts the leader to act in accordance to what the situation requires taking into account the task at hand, the operational environment and the individuals who will perform the task. On the other hand, the style leadership theories are defined by the behavior of the leaders primarily towards the followers. Both of these theories have advantages and disadvantages, but theorists have advised that the best approach is a combination of these various models and the employment of one or the others in accordance with the circumstances attendant to the task at hand. II Situational Leadership Theories Situational theories, also called contingency theories, began to be popular in the 1960s and into the mid-70s. This set of leadership theories puts emphasis on what leaders actually do than the traits they possess (Griffin 315). The general underpinning of these theories is that leadership effectiveness is dependent on three factors: the task at hand; the leader’s interpersonal skills, and; the circumstances under which the task are being conducted (Yoder-Wise 2003). Other authors added the nature of the followers is as important in situational leadership theories (Bertocci 34). There are various models under this set of theories, namely: Fiedler’s Contingency Model (1967); the Vroom-Metton Normative Decision-Making Model (1973); the Hersey-Blanchard Model (1974), and; the House-Mitchell’s Path-Goal Model (1974) (Yoder-Wise 2003). The Fiedler Contingency Model and the Hersey-Blanchard Model will be discussed in the following paragraphs to illustrate the nature of this set of leadership theories. A. Fiedler’s Contingency Model Fiedler conducted studies that called upon close contact with managers to measure the success rates of the different types of leadership in accordance to how managers conduct themselves vis-à-vis their followers and the task at hand. He categorized leaders into two: the task-oriented, and; the relationship-oriented. The first type puts a premium on the accomplishment and achievement of tasks at hand while the latter gives more importance to cultivating rapport with his followers to encourage them to perform their task better. Fiedler hypothesized that no leader can be of both types at the same time and has to choose either one of the two. This theory is consistent with the studies conducted by Rensis Likert. Fiedler formulated a variable, among others, called the Least Preferred Co-worker or LPC to measure the type of a leader a person is. A low LPC indicates a task-oriented leader and on the other hand, a high score indicates that the leader is relationship-oriented (Bertocci 35-36). Tasks, according to him become simple if well-structured and complex without that structure. A leader-member relation determines the trust between leaders and followers, confidence in the leadership by the followers and the mutual respect between them. Fiedler posits that a leader should choose either the task-oriented or relationship-type depending on the circumstances. The selection must be determined by scores earned using the various types of variables. If the scores indicate the need for a task-oriented type of a leader, then the selection must appropriately abide by it (Bertocci 36). B. Hersey-Blanchard Model The Hersey-Blanchard Model of situational leadership theories is a collaboration of studies conducted by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard that focused on organizational activities and the operational environment. This model calls for the application of leadership suited to office environments and the adoption of the maturity-level principle of the follower. Leadership must therefore, adapt itself in accordance to the level of maturity of the subordinate that the leader must deal with (Bertocci 39). Using the data culled by the Ohio University studies conducted by researchers in the 1940s after the World War II, Hersey and Blanchard developed four types of leadership models: telling or directing; selling or coaching; participating, and; delegating. These types of leadership, according to Blanchard and Hersey should be alternatively employed depending on the maturity or developmental level of the subordinate, implying leadership flexibility styles. Critics of this model have pointed out that Hersey and Blanchard have not offered any proof that prediction of subordinates’ maturity level can be adequately done nor that these methods are valid (Bertocci 28, 39-40). The Hersey-Blanchard Model is exemplified by a quadrant model that illustrates the kind of leadership one must adopt and how such selection must be made. In Figure 1, the M series stand for an ascending maturity level with M1 as the lowest and M4 as the highest. The S series represent the option style of leaderships with S1 s the telling or directing type, S2 as the selling type, S3 as participating and the S4 as the empowering type (Booyens 433-434). In the illustration, the column corresponding to the highest maturity level or M4 shows that the leadership style that should be adopted is the S4 or the most democratic approach, implying that a subordinate with a very high maturity level need not be closely supervised, but may be left alone to his own devise with directions only when necessary. Fig. 1 Hersey-Blanchard Model (Merriner-Torney p. 174) C. House-Mitchell’s Path-Goal Theory The Path-Goal Theory developed by the tandem of House and Mitchell is underpinned by what motivates an individual. According to this theory, a good leader knows how to determine what motivates best his followers keeping in mind the following principles: a particular behavior results in a particular goal; the behavior of an individual is greatly influenced by the strength of his desire to reach his goal. Thus, good and effective leader must be able to see through his followers understanding what motivates them most and how to remove the impediments that blocked his followers from realizing their goals (Barker 9). Like the Hersey-Blanchard model, the path-goal theory gives the leader an array of various leadership approaches to choose from. There are two variables inherent in this model: personal characteristics of the follower, and; the environmental conditions with which the follower must work with, Depending on those variables, a leader can either be directive or authoritarian, supportive of his followers by being friendly and approachable, participative by accepting suggestions from followers before making final decisions and achievement-oriented by setting the goals which the followers must strive to achieve (Barker 9-10). III Style Theories Style leadership theories emerged in the 1950s with Shartle (1957), Stogdill (1963) and Likert (1961) their biggest contributors. Collectively, their contributions are also referred to as the group and exchange theories of leadership (Yoder-Wise 2003). Their approach focused more on the behavior of the leader as the underlying rationale for their approach at leadership. They classified leadership theories into three: autocratic; democratic, and; abdicratic. An autocratic leader is described as imposing and is not likely to ask his followers for their opinions on how goal-achievement is to be reached. A democratic leader is the opposite of an autocratic leader, with a propensity to ask inputs from followers as much as possible. An abdicratic leader is an extreme version of a democratic leader, virtually leaving his followers to their own devices and with little input coming from him as a leader. Nonetheless, it is not often, according to Martin, that leaders exercise these approaches in their pure form all the time, but more often employ a mixture or combination of these different approaches (p. 45). The style leadership theories was initially based on the findings of Stodgill’s study in 1948 in the Ohio University as well as the study conducted by another group of researchers in the University Michigan by Blake and Mouton in 1968, that took a look into how leaders behaved under certain organizational settings. Of particular significance to theorists in this field are the behaviors of leaders with respect to tasks and relationships, concerns that sound similar to the Hersey-Blanchard model (Northouse 69-70). In the University of Ohio studies, a group of subordinates were made to answer questionnaires that prompted them to identify the number of times their leaders exhibited certain types of behavior. The data from the survey gave rise to two kinds of leadership behaviors: initiating structure, and; consideration. The first behavior was characterized as highly organizing with work details, defining responsibilities, structure creating and work-scheduling. The second behavior was characterized by camaraderie, trust and respect building (Northouse 70-71). In the University of Michigan studies, the focus was on employee and production orientation, which are alternative terms for relationship and task behaviors. In the first, leadership behavior exhibited strong emphasis on human concerns and in he second, the leader was more interested on the technical and production side of the work (Northouse 71). The only difference between the two studies is that while the Ohio studies concluded that the task and relationship behaviors do not belong to the same continuum and that therefore, emphasis on one does not indicate less propensity for the other, while the Michigan study concluded that employee and production orientation of the leader take the opposing sides of the same continuum and therefore, a leader cannot be both at the same time (Northouse 71-72). A. Blake and Mouton’s Managerial/Leadership Grid Blake and Mouton developed the Leadership Grid which has since been extensively used in training and development sessions for managers. It illustrates the role of leaders in reaching organizational objectives though the employment of certain specific leadership styles that reflects more of the Ohio study than the Michigan’s. It illustrates the proper balancing techniques of leadership behaviors consisting of production and relationship orientations. Figure 2 shows four types of management styles plotted depending on the prevailing behavior of the manager. A balanced manager who exhibits both task and relationship behavior is plotted as Middle-of-the-Road Manager (Northouse pp. 68-70).  Figure 2 The Leadership Grid IV Conclusion: Situational v Style Leadership Theories In 2004, a dozen nurse leaders were interviewed and most of them shared the following positive traits: thoughtfulness, responsiveness, commitment, creativity, resilience, visionary, scholarly, courage, innovative. It is submitted, however, that possessing positive traits do not necessarily make a good leader. Author Clark believes that the best forms of leadership styles for healthcare especially for nurse leaders are those that subscribe to the ideas of transformational and authentic leadership (Clark 18-19). Transformational leadership is so called because it presupposes that a transformational leader changes, for the better, the working environment around her or him. Specifically, the transformation occur in the balance of the tension between production and efficiency, the creation and sustenance of trust in the workplace, the management of the process of change and engaging the followers to participate in decision-making. This is because a transformational leader is someone who inspires others, is a visionary who knows how to motivate others and is energetic and radiates these characteristics to his followers (Clark 18-19). The transformational type of leadership, according to Burns, has special appeal to social values and encourages followers to collaborate in the decision-making. This is because of the inspirational figure that the transformational leader represents in the eyes of others. Nonetheless, this type of leadership is not without its disadvantages. Due to the inspirational and passionate façade that the transformational leader presents, there may be a chance that passion and enthusiasm may overshadow truth and reality. Moreover, it sometimes result in the inability to see the big picture and miss out on the smaller details as well as frustration in the event results do not come as expected (Clark 18-19). Transformational leadership seems to lean towards the style theories leadership because of its focus towards the behavior of the leader. Authentic leadership, on the other hand, seems to be leaning towards the opposite direction as its main focus is the relationship between him and his followers. The authentic leader deliberately develops closer bond with his followers so he can inspire them to do their jobs better. The AACN (or American Association of Critical-Care Nurses) named authentic leadership as one of the standards critical to sustaining healthy work environments in nursing, referring to it as “glue” that holds that environment together. Author Clark describes an authentic leader as possessed of the following characteristics: purpose; values; heart; positive relationships; self-discipline; credibility, and; the ability to encourage others (19-20). Other authors, however, are of the opinion that leaders need not and should not restrict themselves to one kind of leadership style, but should move from one style to the next in a long continuum of leadership models. Rick Daniels believed that no leadership model or theory is superior to others, but superiority must be judged according to their appropriateness under certain circumstances. An effective leader, according to him, is one who knows how to adopt his leadership style to a situation, and therefore, believes that the situational leadership theories, where a mixture of leadership styles are adopted in accordance to specific situations, are ideal. Thus, an autocratic style of leadership may even be appropriate under certain situations and on the opposing end, the democratic style under entirely different circumstances (481). Evidently, no one leadership theory is superior to others at all times. The main argument against situational theories, for example, is that they are focused on attempting to define relationships between leaders and their followers and prescribe the type of leadership that should govern, but forgets that relationships of individuals are highly unpredictable and offers no guaranteed formula that are infallible (Griffin 315). Nonetheless, situational leadership theories have an edge over the style leadership theories in that they aspire to adapt themselves with the circumstances at hand. The world is fast evolving and so are values and mentality of workers. Advances in technology go by leaps and bounds by the minute. In the field of healthcare particularly, which deals with people relations, situations are hardly set and fixed. Healthcare leaders deal with varied situations on a daily basis and must be prepared to deal with contingencies at all times. The situational leadership theories models are therefore, suited to this profession. References: Bertocci, D. (2009). Leadership in Organizations: There Is a Difference Between Leaders and Managers. University Press of America. Booyens, SW. (1998). Dimensions of Nursing Management. 2nd Edition. Juta and Company Ltd. Clark, C. (2009). Creative Nursing Leadership and Management. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Daniels, R. (2004). Nursing Fundamentals: Caring & Clinical Decision Making. Cengage Learning. Griffin, R. & Moorhead, G. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. 9th Edition.Cengage Learning. Marriner-Tomey,A. (2004) Guide to nursing management and leadership. 7th Edition. Elsevier Health Sciences. Martin, B. (2006). Outdoor Leadership: Theory and Practice. Human Kinetics. Shriberg, A. & Shriberg, D. (2009) Practicing Leadership Principles and Applications. 4th Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Yoder-Wise, P. (2003). Leading and Managing in Nursing. 3rd Edition. Elsevier Health Sciences. Read More