The Curvilinear Relation between Assertiveness and Leadership - Research Paper Example

HRD 480 Major Project Topic “Leadership” Introduction “What, then, of the relationship between leadership and the brain” (Stanford-Blair & Dickmann, 2001: xv). Apparently, the notion of leadership has been one of the most discussed, criticized and evaluated concepts of conventional management principles. Since decades, experts have been monitoring its dimensions, its applications and the changes occurring with regard to its explanations within organizational contexts (Burns, 2012). However, the terminology still lacks a confirmed, universally applicable and well-organized definition. Where a few studies elaborate upon the phenomenon describing it as a process (Tate, 2008; Vugt, Hogan & Kaiser, 2008; Rost, 1993); the others refer leadership as an on-going phenomenon, strategically devised for the attainment of pre-determined goals. To put it in other words, as the goals change, the requirements, concerns as well as implications of leadership also changes despite following a structured procedural approach; hence, it works more like a strategic tool than as a process (Irving, 2008; Vugt, Hogan & Kaiser, 2008; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997; Kotter, 1990). One of the reasons that can be assumed to have a significant influence upon the gap in deriving a suitable definition of leadership is the perplexity of its psychological stance and its dependency upon pre-described and rigidly framed theoretical concepts, models and theories. Various questions and debatable explanations to the concept can yet be observed as surrounding the phenomenon or process of leadership, which has, undoubtedly, emerged to be an inseparable and treasured division of modern day organizational management. Stating precisely, the complexity in defining organizational leadership can be identified when concentrating on one question, i.e. ‘is organizational leadership a psychological game or a calculated approach based on framed theories and models’. Theoretical Explanation to Organizational Leadership From the above explanation, it becomes quite apparent that there are fundamentally two perspectives through which organizational leadership has been defined and explained in various instances by different experts all around the world from developed western countries to the developing third world countries. The obtained conclusion from the varied researches and arguments depict that the dichotomies regarding the concept of leadership can either be explained as a process or as a phenomenon. For instance, when concentrating on the theories or models of organizational leadership, the conceptual explanations echo the concept to be a process based upon pre-determined assumptions, pre-examined rules and of course upon a structured framework (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing & Peterson, 2008). Over the past decades, lots of theories and models have been developed with the sole motive to assist managers in obtaining efficiency when implementing organizational management strategies. These theories have also been quite beneficial in revealing the essence of leadership concept by a significant extent. A few of the commonly considered leadership theories are explained as the Great Man theories, Trait theories, Behaviorist theories, Situational Leadership theory, Contingency theory, Transactional theory, and Transformational theory (Bolden, Gosling, Marturano & Dennison, 2003). Contextually, the learning of these leadership theories reveals that these frameworks are actually interlinked; where the lacunas witnessed in the prior described model confirms the attributes of the later introduced framework. However, in most of the theories one common aspect can be observed apparently. Either the explanations provided through the suggested theoretical models are concentrated on the skills required by the leaders, or they are enthusiastically emphasized on suggesting what leaders should do or how they should response in different situations based upon certain specified guidelines (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). To be illustrated, the Great Man theory describes that the leadership qualities within a person is in-born and cannot be generated through external influences. Thus, this particular theory concentrates on defining the attributes and its sources which distinguish leaders from the followers within the community. However, this notion has long been rejected that leadership qualities cannot be developed through incessant learning and experiences which subsequently motivated the development of Traits theories. Traits theories, in this context, focus on an extension of the Great Man theories explaining that leadership qualities are inherent which further needs to be developed and can also be produced by gaining adequate experiences in the practical field. On the other hand, the behaviorist theories and the situational leadership theory depict the commonly applied strategies by organizational leaders, in response to the changes occurring around them for the attainment of determined objectives (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). Gradually, researchers understood that continuously occurring unpredictable changes in the business world are nearly impossible to be illustrated through a set of guidelines, specifications and principles. Hence, the contingency theory was developed which believed that not one particular leadership trait can be satisfactory to deal with recent challenges of the business world; but a leader, to be effective, needs to apply various leadership traits depending upon situational demands. In the similar context, transactional theory emphasizes on the leader and follower relationship where the prime role of leaders have been majorly confined to motivational aspects. While, the next step of leadership theories, i.e. the transformational theory envisions leadership to be a driver as well as a response towards organizational changes. According to this theory, leaders are solely responsible to control, instigate and manage changes within organizational contexts by motivating their followers with efficiency (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). Concerning the above mentioned facts regarding the theoretical explanation to the concept of leadership, it can be affirmed that these descriptions provide a wide and vivid conceptualization of leadership. However, from a critical perspective, the theories can be observed to present both the significance of psychological attributes and pre-defined strategies. The psychological traits can be noted in relation to the leadership qualities required for the effective understanding and responding towards the changes occurring in the organizational environment along with maintaining a healthy relationship with the followers to obtain a strong hold on their psychological stance facilitating effective motivation (i.e. describing leadership as a phenomenon). Similarly, the calculated approach of pre-defined strategies can be identified with regard to the basic principles of these leadership theories documenting a process of identifying a change, understanding the constraints, selecting the appropriate options to apply the change in the most beneficial way and thus, strategically executing the response towards organizational management (i.e. describing leadership as a process). Hence, it can be argued that the vividness of theoretical explanations provided to the leadership concept has today given rise to such complexities in defining the aspect either as a process or a phenomenon. Concept of Organizational Leadership in Its Practical Applications Although the leadership practices over the past decades have been highly influenced by the theoretical explanation of the concept, it has been widely distinct from that described by authors, scholars, experts and critics. Undoubtedly, effective leadership has emerged as a vital concern for enterprises all around the world operating within different cultures, different socio-political environment and for differing economic reasons. It is in this context that leadership theories have always been criticized on the basis of its universality which describes that one particular leadership strategy might not be as effective as it has been in other instances. Taking into concern the cultural divergences currently persisting within the global business context, this particular limitation of already developed leadership theories can be observed evidently (Endrissat, Muller & Kaudela-Baum, 2007). It is particularly owing to this fundamental aspect that leaders in today’s context must have the capability to understand the requirements of a particular situation being faced by the organization, calculate its depth and thereby figure-out the most advantageous strategies to mitigate challenges and simultaneously obtain greater value to overall organizational performances. Evidences related to leadership practices in the modern day business era reveal that today, leaders are chiefly required to possess the psychological capabilities to understand the personality traits of their followers, and subsequently administer the required changes within the organization. In every instance, the leaders are thus required to focus on implementing innovative strategies which at times are observed as quite distinct to that specified in the theories. It is worth mentioning in this context that almost all the leadership theories were developed during the 19th or the early 20th century, when leadership was principally confined to the function of getting a specified work done by the labor force rather than dealing with diverse managerial functions from communication to obtaining feedbacks, determining the strategic direction of the organization and consequently analyzing the pros and cons of the finalized corporate options (Kaiser, Hogan & Craig, 2008). It is in this context that to conduct the aforementioned diverse activities with superior efficiency, leaders, in the current phenomenon, tend to decipher greater inclination towards psychological aspects. For instance, trust has emerged as a valuable characteristic in today’s leadership practices which in turn tends to enrich leader-follower relationships denoted in transformational theory (Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang & Avey, 2009). With a similar concern, Huang, Iun, Liu & Gong (2010) had addressed that personality traits, which can also be denoted as psychological characteristics of a leader, plays a crucial role in defining his/her leadership efficiency. Recent researches (e.g. Pinnington, 2011; Hoogh & Hartog, 2008; Ames & Flynn, 2007) have also depicted that leaders today need to decipher strong psychological traits to yield the expected economic returns paying due consideration towards ethical concerns which fundamentally depend upon the personal as well as professional ethos, emotions, and principles of the individuals. It is principally because of these traits that leaders are distinguishable from other individuals within the community (Rost, 1993). Apart from these psychological concerns, leaders are also required to possess certain skills which are to be developed on the basis of valuable experiences gained over a certain period of professional practices. Although psychological traits deciphered by individual leaders can be observed to be strongly influenced by the behavioral traits of their subordinates, organizational culture as well as their personal surroundings, these characteristics are mostly in-built and genetically carried on by human beings. However, as leaders today, also need to perform tasks such as strategic evaluation, monitoring and other calculative or rather quantitative functions, they essentially require skills which need to be learned through continuous practices. It is based on this particular notion related to the concept of leadership that often experts have been referring to the famous quote that “leaders are made, not born” (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Conclusion “Psychological perceptions or calculated practices: what is organizational leadership all about?” When concentrating on this particular question, the above discussion makes it quite evident that organizational leadership is neither solely a psychological game, nor a calculated approach towards overall organizational efficiency. Rather, it is a strategic blend of both the dimensions. From a realistic perspective, leaders today have to understand, analyze and strategically administer the organizational performances based on quantitative findings following a calculated approach as specified in the leadership theories and models. Simultaneously, in today’s 21st century era, they also have to apply their psychological conscience to decide upon the ethical considerations of the modern day organizational functions, recognize the perceptions amid their followers, build trust and subsequently motivate the subordinates defining the organizational culture at large. Psychological traits of accepting challenges, greed to succeed, encourage innovation as well as enthusiasm play a vital role to support the technical or quantitative approaches adopted by effective leaders. Omitting either of these dimensions shall therefore be severely impactful hampering the efficiency of organizational leadership. Therefore, leadership today actually operates as an indistinguishable compilation of qualitative and quantitative aspects which can be defined as a procedural phenomenon of obtaining the pre-determined goals towards the efficiency, sustainability and overall success of modern day organizations. References Ames, D. R. & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: the curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(2), 307–324. Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F. & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Psychology 60, 421-449 Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. & Dennison, P. (2003). A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies, 1-44. Burns, J. M. (2012). Leadership. New York, NY: Open Road Media. Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. & Avey, J. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: the mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Management department faculty publications, Paper 23. Endrissat, N., Muller, W. R. & Kaudela-Baum, S. (2007). En route to an empirically-based understanding of authentic leadership. European management journal 25(3), 207–220. Heifetz, R. A. & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 57-78. Hoogh, A. H. B. D. & Hartog, D. N. D. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. The leadership quarterly 19, 297–311. Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A. & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31, 122–143. Irving, J. A. (2008). Utilizing the organizational leadership assessment as a strategic tool for increasing the effectiveness of teams within organizations. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 111-124. Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R. & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American psychologist 63(2), 96–110. Kotter, J. P. (1990). What leaders really do? Harvard Business Review, 37-55. Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. (2009). Leadership: theory, application, & skill development. United States: Cengage Learning. Pinnington, A. H. (2011). Leadership development: Applying the same leadership theories and development practices to different contexts? Leadership 7(3), 335–365. Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the 21st century. United States: Greenwood Publishing Group. Stanford-Blair, N. & Dickmann, M. H. (2001). Connecting Leadership to the Brain. California: Corwin Press. Tate, B. (2008). A longitudinal study of the relationships among self-monitoring, authentic leadership, and perceptions of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 15(1), 16-29. Vugt, M. V., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), pp. 182–196. Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T. & Peterson, S. (2008). Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. Management department faculty publications, Paper 24. Read More