• Book Chris Rugh Today! 1-888-SPEAKER

Leadership Theories

Leadership Theories &#13

When an individual manages to influence the minds of many folks to behave in a specific way towards the fulfillment of a distinct or a general objective, then that individual is stated to have exhibited leadership qualities, and is regarded as as a leader.

&#13

Theories of Leadership
&#13 A lot of writers have put forward their own views and formulated their own theories with regards to leaders and leadership. Some of the theories are briefly touched below to give an thought of the literature on the topic of leadership.

&#13

Excellent Man Theory - This theory assumed that leaders are born and not made. Leaders normally had been members from the aristocracy given that they only got a chance to lead hence, it was considered that great breeding contributed in making wonderful leaders. The concept of a Great Woman was not explored and androcentric bias was never ever realized.

In addition, the theory also states that when there is a great need to have, then a wonderful leader arises, like Buddha, Jesus, Churchill and Eisenhower.&#13

The Trait Theory - This theory assumes that human beings are born with inherited traits and the proper combination of traits makes them a leader. Hence, leadership was a matter of traits whether inherited or acquired otherwise. Stogdill (1974) identified certain traits like adaptability, socially conscious, achievement oriented, decisive, dominant, energetic, cooperative, assertive, self-confident, persistent, responsible, and capacity to tolerate tension. McCall and Lombardo (1983) identified 4 simple traits, namely, emotional composure and stability, intellectual breadth, highly developed interpersonal skills, and the capacity to admit errors.

&#13

Participative Leadership Theory - This theory assumes that the conclusion of numerous minds makes a better choice than the judgment of a single mind. Hence, the leader invites participation from the persons responsible for carrying out the function, because it makes them much less competitive and much more collaborative, thereby growing their level of commitment. Participants may possibly be subordinates, peers, superiors, or stakeholders. The extent of participation could vary. The leader may outline the objectives or objectives and allow the team to decide how it can be achieved or the leader may enable a joint decision to be taken with respect to objectives and its strategy of achievement or the team may propose but the final choice is always of the leader. Many varieties exist, like consultation, democratic leadership, Management By Objectives (MBO), energy-sharing, empowerment, and joint choice-producing. The negative side of this theory is that when a leader asks for opinions and does not locate them appropriate, then it leads to cynicism, feelings of betrayal, decreased motivation and decreased level of commitment.

&#13 Lewin’s Theories
- Kurt Lewin along with others conducted experiments in 1939 and came up with three styles of participative leaderships, namely autocratic, democratic, and Laissez-faire. In the autocratic style, the leader took the decisions without consulting others. In the democratic style, the leader took the decisions soon after consulting others or let the majority make a decision on what is to be done. In the Laissez-faire style, the leader lets others decide on the decisions to be taken. Lewin et al. discovered that the autocratic style led to revolution, the Laissez-faire style lacked enthusiasm and coordination, even though the democratic style proved to be the most powerful. Since these experiments had been carried out on youngsters, they nonetheless necessary further study and investigation.

&#13

Likert’s Theories - Rensis Likert (1967) theorized four styles, namely, exploitive authoritative, benevolent authoritative, consultative, and participative. In the exploitive authoritative style, the leader utilizes strategies as threats, coercion, and other fear-based strategies to enforce conformance. It is constantly a top-down approach and the views, feelings, of others is given no value. In the benevolent authoritative style, the leader becomes a ‘benevolent dictator’ and utilizes rewards to motivate efficiency. The leader listens to ‘rose-tinted’ views from the subordinates as they tell only what the leader likes to hear in the hope of gaining rewards. Trivial delegation of choice is accomplished, nonetheless important decisions are often created centrally. In the consultative style, the leader seeks consultations, nevertheless, most upward flow of data is nonetheless rose-tinted and the decision is almost taken centrally. In the participative style, the leader invites participation across all levels, which includes the shop floor worker, and attempts to make the workers psychologically closer are created. Dissensions, arguments, feelings of betrayal all take location in this style. The leader becomes a ‘father figure’ and a ‘cult head’, whose saying ultimately becomes the final decision.

&#13

The Charismatic Leader Theory - This theory assumes that leaders gather followers just by their charm, grace, and personality. If a leader is not a natural charismatic leader then that individual takes a lot of trouble in maintaining the image and developing requisite abilities. They are normally extremely persuasive and use their physique language very efficiently. In a theatrical sense, charisma is played out as exhibited by politicians, religious and cult leaders. Conger &amp Kanungo (1998) have elucidated five characteristics of charismatic leaders, namely, clear vision and its lucid articulation, sensitivity to the environment, sensitivity to the requirements of the members, capability to take private risks to support their viewpoints, and capability to perform unconventional behavior. Musser (1987) noted that charismatic leaders wanted their followers to commit to absolute devotion to themselves. The charismatic leader may possibly not want to alter anything or transform anything as opposed to the transformational leader. If the charismatic leader is well-intentioned then they can contribute significantly to the growth of the whole group, even so, if they are Machiavellian and selfish, then by the creation of cults, they can efficiently rape the minds and bodies of their followers. Their own self-belief can lead them into psychotic narcissism and their self-absorption is so high, that their irreplaceability, intentional or otherwise, can guarantee no successors and therefore they make a permanent mark in history.

&#13

The Transformational Leader Theory - This theory assumes that a leader with vision and passion can achieve great issues by inspiring, injecting enthusiasm and power, and thereby transform the individual or the group towards the attainment of individual or group objectives. Transformational leaders have a vision and they sell their vision and themselves in the method of developing trust. They lead by example and are often in the thick of action. In order to motivate their folks, they use ceremonies, rituals, and other cultural symbolism. They believe that good results comes by deep and sustained commitment and are really individuals-oriented. Nevertheless, transformational leaders seek to transform, and if the company has no want to transform, then they feel frustrated.

&#13

The Quiet Leader Theory - This theory states that actions speak louder than words. The leader leads quietly by his actions and gives credit to others rather than take it all himself. The quiet leader does not often meet with success and is typically faced with extroverted individuals whom he merely can't handle.

&#13

The Transactional Leadership Theory - This theory states that people work for reward and punishment. A clear chain of command with loyalty as the primary focus works very best in social systems. The subordinate should only do what the leader tells to do without having trying to uncover out the justification for it. The leader creates clear structures and the subordinates are necessary to follow. For profitable completion of the function, they are rewarded whereas for unsuccessful completion, they are punished. The leader utilizes management by exception, that is, as soon as the operation has defined performance expectations then it does not need significantly attention. Exceeding expectations gets praise whereas not fulfilling expectations gets corrective actions. The limitation of this approach is that it is assumed that the individual is a ‘rational man’ (a person who is largely motivated by dollars and hence whose behavior is predictable), which he could not be due to emotional and social aspects. In such a scenario, other approaches may prove to be far more successful.

&#13

The Situational Leadership Theory - This theory assumes that the action of a leader depends on a number of situational aspects, like motivation and capability of followers, relationship between the leader and the followers, tension, mood, and so on. Yukl (1989) has identified six situational aspects namely, subordinate effort, subordinate capacity and role clarity, organization of the work, cooperation and cohesiveness, resources and support, and external coordination.

&#13

Conclusion
&#13 Leaders normally do not follow a single approach and they mix and match as per their wants and needs. In critical situations, they are far more dictatorial in nature as they face the prospect of failure. Leaders generally exhibit integrity (alignment of words and actions with their values), dedication (spending whatever time and energy that is required to get the job accomplished, rather than giving it the accessible time), magnanimity (giving credit where it is due, accepting defeat graciously, and allowing defeated persons to retain their dignity), humility (not diminishing or exalting oneself), openness (capacity to understand new thoughts and tips), and creativity (ability to think differently).

&#13

-o-

&#13

Couple of Sources:
&#13 (1) Robert R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse, Leadership Dilemmas—Grid Solutions (Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1991) and Blake and Jane S.Mouton,
&#13 The Managerial Grid III (Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1985).
&#13 (two) Fred E. Fiedler, “Research on Leadership Selection and Training: One View of the Future,” Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1996), pp. 241–250 Fiedler, “Engineer the Job to Fit the Manager,” Harvard Enterprise Review (September-October 1965), p. 117 Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967) and Fiedler and Joseph E. Garcia, New Approaches to Successful Leadership: Cognitive
&#13 Resources and Organizational Performance (New York: John Wiley, 1987).
&#13 (three) Robert J.Residence, “A Path-Objective Theory of Leader Effectiveness,”Administrative Science Quarterly (September 1971), pp. 321–328 and Residence and Terence R.Mitchell,“Path-Aim Theory of Leadership,” Journal of Contemporary Business (Autumn 1974), pp. 81–97.
&#13 (4) Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton, Leadership and Decision Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973). Also see Vroom and Arthur G. Jago, The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1988).
&#13 (five) Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard,“Great Tips: Revisiting the Life-Cycle Theory of Leadership,” Training &amp Development (January 1996), pp. 42–47 and Hersey and Blanchard,Management of OrganizationalBehavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1993).
&#13 (6) The concept of transformational leadership was developed by James MacGregor Burns, Leadership(New York: Harper &amp Row, 1978). Also see Bernard Bass, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press, 1985) Noel M. Tichy and Mary Anne Devanna, The Transformational Leader (New York: John Wiley &amp Sons, 1986) and Bass, “From Transitional to Transformational Leadership: Understanding to Share the Vision,” Organizational Dynamics (Winter 1990), pp. 140–148.

&#13

Much more Leadership Articles