Leadership in The Workplace - Research Paper Example

Leadership in the Workplace Abstract Leadership has been a critical consideration in workplace psychology. Of importance has been to understand what defines a leader, the cause for their behaviors and the difference in the outcomes of various leadership styles. Understanding the theory that a leader adopts would be important in acquiring insight into this. Therefore, this paper articulates the various developments in theories that explain the leadership styles and effectiveness at workplace. Introduction Leadership forms a critical component of organizational psychology. There has been no standard definition of leadership because of the varied meanings it has to different people. As such, in his definition, Northouse (2010) opts to document the various ways to conceptualize leadership: leadership as a process, influence, occurring in groups and involving common goals. It could thus be said to be a process of an individual influencing a group of individuals so as to achieve a common objective. In other words, Avolio, Sosik and Berson (2012) define leadership as a process of social influence occurring at an individual, group, dyadic and/or strategic level, and could be shared only within the top management or distributed throughout the organization. The concept of power relates to leadership. According to Northouse (2010), power is part of the process of influence; it is the capacity to influence. The five bases of power include referent, expert, legitimate, reward and coercive power, all of which increase the capacity of a leader to influence values, attitudes and behaviors of followers. Tuuli (2010) cites two kinds of power in a workplace: position power derived from a given rank and personal power derived from the consideration of a leader as being knowledgeable and likeable by the followers. While the former includes coercive, reward and legitimate power, the latter encompasses expert and referent power. The topic on leadership has been under investigation for many decades. As observed by Dulewicz and Higgs (2005), the approaches to leadership in the period before the 1980s dwelt on trait, style and contingency. However, even as new approaches were being adopted thereafter, the previous stages were not abandoned in totality; there was a shift in emphasis. Various ways have emerged that influence idea development in research. According to Aamodt (2011), understanding these theories plays an important role in understanding the difference in leadership styles and their effectiveness in various organizations. The Trait Approach This approach is unique in that it entirely focuses on the leader and not the follower, making it straightforward. The trait approach concerns the traits exhibited by leaders and who have such traits. Leadership traits are the consistent integrated patterns of personal characteristics that propagate effective leadership performance in various situations (Avolio et al., 2012). Hartog and Koopman (2001) categorize there traits into three: physical features including age, physique, height and appearance; ability such as fluency, knowledge and intelligence; and personality traits such as expressiveness, emotional control and dominance. This approach prevalent in the 20th Century therefore argues on leaders as being born and not made. Therefore, organizations need to specify the traits or characteristics required of particular positions and through personality assessments determine one’s fit in such positions. It could also be used by managers to review their fit in their current positions so as to determine what to do to improve on the potential impact of their traits. The trait approach appeals intuitively as it fits in the idea of leaders as being front-runners in organizations. Validated by various research studies as noted by Northouse (2010), the focus on the leader gives an in-depth understanding of the leadership process. It has also provides a benchmark against which leadership attributes could be evaluated. However, this approach has been unable to give definitive traits that define a leader (Aamodt, 2011). By just analyzing the traits, this approach has ignored the situational impact and has further failed to adequately link leadership traits to outcomes. Because of the stability of people’s traits, this approach refutes the possibility of training and developing leadership in people. Leadership Style The weaknesses in the trait approach caused a shift from who leaders are to what they do. The effectiveness of a leader would depend on the leadership style which could be learned (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2005). With the identification of the desired trait, one could be trained to exhibit such behavior so as to become a better leader. Notably used during this period were the Ohio State studies that described leadership along two dimensions of consideration and initiating structure. The University of Michigan studies also upheld this approach, documenting three leadership behaviors that differentiated effective from ineffective leaders: relationship oriented behavior, task oriented behavior and participative leadership. Additionally, universal theories were proposed, appreciating leaders as people and task-oriented. Hartog and Koopman (2001) give an example of the Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid of this high-high theory. The other dominant universal theories acknowledged extensive participative decision procedures as critical distinctive feature for effective leadership. Leadership style approach has been criticized for inconsistency in findings, problems in measurements and causality problem. Ekaterini (2010) cites highly divergent and variable direction of correlations between the styles and outcomes, with the correlations often not being statistically significant. Response tendencies like leniency effects cause measurement problems in the approach. Furthermore, Avolio et al. (2012) cite failure of the approach to consider situational characteristics, these being significant in moderating the relationship between leadership and outcome, as its greatest limitation. This led to the next approach to leadership. Contingency Approaches Contingent approaches sought to delimit the deficiencies of the previous approaches. The main proposition fronted by these approaches stipulates leadership style as being contingent on the situation (Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Thus, leadership behaviors could be effective in specific situations and not others. In 1967, Fielder brought up the least-preferred-worker, LPC measure which postulates that the way a leader describes the person who presents the greatest difficulty working with reflects his basic leadership style. Secondly, the basic leadership style greatly contributes to the performance of a group and varies with the favorability of the situation which would weight and combine position power, leader-follower relations and task structure. Northouse (2010) also gives a recent development by Fielder of the cognitive resources theory which postulates the dependence of group performance on leader intelligence and experience traits; directive leadership behavior; and nature of group task and interpersonal stress situations. The situational leadership theory, SLT fronted by Hersey and Blanchard originally stipulated the need for attuning leadership behavior to fit within the group’s development level. The combination of low or high task and relationship behavior yields four varied styles of leadership: telling, selling, participating and delegating (Aamodt, 2011). Each of these would be appropriate for different members of the team. The path-goal theory entails the hypothesis of acceptability of the behavior of a leader to the subordinates and the leader’s motivational function. According to Evans (2002), a leader’s behavior would be acceptable by subordinates as long as it provides immediate or future satisfaction to the subordinates. Thus, these satisfying behaviors are a function of subordinates’ characteristics and the situation. The motivational function entails a leader’s function of training, staffing and motivating employees. The expectancy theory indicates that one’s motivation for engagement in an activity is a function of the activity’s intrinsic value, probability of effort put in the activity that would lead to performance, valence of an accomplishment, probability of the accomplishment causing extrinsic outcomes and valences of the extrinsic rewards (Tuuli, 2010). Hence, leaders increase follower’s motivation by making the paths to rewards clear and increasing reward values. The leader-member exchange, LMX theory acknowledges the need to appreciate in-groups and out-groups in organizations. In-groups allow leaders to accomplish more in an effective manner than working without any. The members would be willing to do more than the dictates of their job description, seeking for ways to advance the goals of the group (Tuuli, 2010). In response, their leaders give such persons more responsibilities and opportunities. They also give time and support. On the other hand, out-group members do only what organizational roles prescribe. Leaders would treat such persons fairly as per the formal contract but do not give any special attention. In return, these out-group members just get the standard prescribed benefits for their job descriptions. Northouse (2010) cites the leadership-making model fronted by Graen and Uhl-Bien as an appropriate way for leaders to utilize the LMC theory. Leaders should provide their subordinates the opportunity for new responsibilities and roles, nurturing trust and respect among all subordinates. They should propagate the creation of high-quality partnerships among the people in an organization. The New Leadership The early 1980s saw the resurgence of interest in transactional and transformational leadership, emphasis being laid more on the latter. The aim was to explain how other leaders achieve extraordinary follower motivation, commitment, respect, dedication, loyalty, performance and admiration (Northouse, 2012). It further explains how such leaders achieve outstanding accomplishments including founding and growing successful enterprises. Unlike the previous theories, the charismatic theories entail how leaders change as opposed to respond to people, focusing more on change and creation of the desired environment. Charisma combines leader’s traits and behavior and situational factors. Hartog and Koopman (2001) cite self-confidence, dominance, integrity and need for influence as key characteristics of a charismatic leader. They represent their values through role modeling. They communicate how high they expect of their followers and exude confidence in their ability to meet the expectations. They arouse motives, such as need for achievement, relevant for attainment of organizational mission. Charismatic leadership would be exhibited mostly during a crisis. As a result, followers trust the correctness of the beliefs of the leader and the similarity of their beliefs with that of the leader. They unquestionably follow the leader’s guidance and emotionally get involved with the leader. Transactional leadership concerns the exchange between the followers and the leader. When they act according to the wishes of the leader, followers receive valued outcomes like wages and prestige. This exchange could be economic, psychological or political (Bass, 2000; Hartog & Koopman, 2001). The transactional leadership theory asserts that should the follower’s workplace environment or job fail to give the needed direction, motivation and satisfaction, it would call for the leader to compensate for such deficiencies. The leader outlines the expected performance and the followers accept them. On the other hand, transformational leadership goes past the cost-benefit exchange to motivate and inspire followers to perform above the set expectations. The theories on transformational leadership acknowledge the emotional attachment of followers to the organization and their subsequent motivational arousal as a result of the behavior of the leader (Bass, 2000). Such leaders articulate followers’ interests, cause acceptance of the organizational mission and motivate followers to transcend their self interest for organization’s good. With the identification of the need for change, developing new visions and arousing commitment, leaders could transform organizations. Despite the difference in their process of motivating subordinates and the types of set goals, transactional and transformational leadership could both be exhibited in a leader (Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Transformational leadership develops from transactional leadership and could thus be considered as a specialized form of transactional leadership (Ruggieri, 2009). It entails intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation and idealized influence. Gender difference has been a major concern in organizational leadership in differentiating the leadership of men from that of women. In the US, Northouse (2010) observes that women face a glass ceiling that causes them to be underrepresented in top management positions, only holding 46%. This has been attributed to notion of men being better leaders. From a review of various research studies, Avolio et al. (2012) found out divergent views on this topic, but noted slight differences in the leadership style and leader’s effectiveness of men and women, with women being slightly disadvantaged in masculine roles and vice versa. Women were noted to employ more democratic participatory leadership styles than men. Furthermore, they exude more of transformational leadership behaviors. Leadership in workplaces entails the process of using of social influence to cause employees to drive the organization towards the attainment of the organization’s goals. Various styles have been used by different leaders to motivate employees to perform to the expected goals. The explanation of these styles and their preference has evolved over time following intense research studies. Initially, leadership was explained using the leaders’ traits, then style, which saw the emergence of situational influence and finally the transactional and transformational leadership that seek to change the situation. Indeed, gender has been cited as a contributory factor to difference in organizational leadership. Organizations are increasingly becoming flexible, appreciating the need for leadership sensitive to the changing situations. References Aamodt, M. G. (2011). Industrial/organizational psychology: An applied approach (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., & Berson, Y. (2012). Leadership models, methods, and applications: Progress and remaining blind spots. In Irving B. Weiner, Neal W. Schmitt, & Scott Highhouse (Eds.). Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 102 - 141). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7 (3), 18 – 41. Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (2005). Assessing leadership styles and organizational context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20 (2), 105 – 123. Ekaterini, G. (2010). The impact of leadership styles on four variables of executives workforce. International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (6), 3 – 16. Evans, M. G. (2002). Path-goal theory of leadership. In Linda L. Neider & Chester Schriescheim (Eds.). Leadership. (pp. 115 - 138). New York, NY: Information Age. Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In Neil Anderson (Ed). Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology (pp. 166 - 187). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Northouse, Peter G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ruggieri, S. (2009). Leadership in virtual teams: A comparison of transformational and transactional leaders. An Integrated Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 37(8), 1017 - 1021. Tuuli, M. M. (2010). Impact of leadership style and team context on psychological empowerment in construction project teams. Retrieved 8 November 2013 from www.academia.edu Read More