What is a leader? Industrial/Organizational psychologists do not seem to be able to agree on a definition. One way to understand leadership, however, is through the differences between a leader and an authority. Authorities are those who hold formal positions that give them the power to direct the behaviour of their subordinates. Managers, supervisors, and bosses are authorities. They may or may not also be leaders, depending on whether they rely solely on their official positions when applying influence on others. A true leader does not use force and coercion to direct his or her followers toward a common goal. There are many leadership theories and I will discuss some them in my answer to the question.
The Traits Theory
The Theory
The Traits theory premise that leaders are born and not made encouraged researchers to look for the key traits or characteristics demonstrated by leaders. They did this by, in the first instance, by comparing the traits of those people who were leaders with the traits of those people who were followers. Secondly, they tried to differentiate the characteristics of those leaders deemed to be effective from those of leaders deemed to be ineffective (1).Early research on leadership was based on the psychological focus of the day, which was of people having inherited characteristics or traits. Attention was thus put on discovering these traits, often by studying successful leaders, but with the underlying assumption that if other people could be found with these traits, then they, too, could also become great leaders (2). The personality traits helped Ralph Szygenda transforming General Motors into the first totally weird car company (3). The trait approach is one of the only leadership theories that focus exclusively on the leader. However, is it only traits that will make a leader?
Evaluation
Pioneer leadership researchers were confident that personality traits essential for leadership effectiveness could be identified through research. Because the trait approach focused exclusively on the leader, however, and not on the followers or the situation, researchers failed to discover any traits that would guarantee leadership success. If we take a look to leaders like Mother Theresa, Bill Gates, and Nelson Mandela, we will find that we cannot find common traits between them. Therefore, we should ask ourselves is the leader or the follower or even the situation. It is nearly impossible to develop an inclusive list of leader traits, and no conclusion can be made regarding the connection between a particular trait and leadership effectiveness. Although a connection between personality traits and leadership effectiveness was discovered, cause and effect were not addressed (4). Early trait theorists failed to acknowledge that being in a leadership role might facilitate the development of leadership traits. In addition, the theory neglected to account for why some individuals might be effective leaders in certain circumstances yet not in others. The trait approach is not particularly useful for the business in the twenty first century because it presumes that personality traits are relatively stable across time, which cannot be happen. It consequently fails to offer a guideline for leadership development. In other words, you should accept what you have because there is no way that you could develop. How we could relay on today business on theory that has not been proved. Traits do not help us to train future leaders because we are accepting the belief that ability is bestowed upon some at birth and therefore cannot be learned. With the complexity of today business, we cannot focus only on the leader but we need to take also in consideration the follower. The traits theory cannot offer us what we need in today business.
The Behavioural Theory
The Theory
The behavioural theory based on that leaders can be made, rather than are born. Successful leadership is based in definable, learnable behaviour. The behavioural perspective of leadership holds that anybody who demonstrates the appropriate behaviours can be an effective leader. The underlying premise here is that it is behaviour and not traits that determines the effectiveness of a leader. Leaders can be made (by learning the appropriate behaviours) and are not necessarily born (1). There are important research programs on leadership behaviour were conducted at Ohio State University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Texas (5). Researcher at Ohio State University surveyed leaders to hundreds of dimensions of leader behaviour. They identified two major behaviours, called consideration and initiating structure. At the same time, University of Michigan took a different approach by comparing the behaviour of effective and ineffective supervisors. Blake and Mouton of the University if Texas proposed a two-dimensional leadership theory called leadership grid that builds on the work of the Ohio state and Michigan studies. The "Managerial Grid" has its advantages and disadvantages. It focuses on observable actions of the leader in order to determine if the leader's main concern is for production or for people. This provides a more reliable method for studying leadership than the trait approach. The Managerial Grid, however, adopted the universal approach. It aims at identifying the most effective leadership style for all situations, which is not supported by evidence in real organizations
Evaluation
Behavioural is a big leap from Trait Theory, in that it assumes that leadership capability can be learned, rather than being inherent. This opens big gates to leadership development. However, Can we relay on this theory to determine leadership effectiveness. Is it possible that the same style would work as well in a gang or group of friends, and in a hospital emergency room? The styles that leaders can adopt are far more affected by those they are working with, and the environment they are operating within, than had been originally thought. By looking to the business today, it is difficult to relay on the behavioural theory for the leadership development for the business in the twenty first century. The behavioural theory did not define a clear relationship between style and performance outcomes. Therefore, two different leaders in same organization adopting the same style their performance outcome is not essentially the same. The behavioural theory has failed to find a universal style suitable for all situations. I could say that this theory along or companied with the traits theory failed to determine leadership effectiveness. Therefore, it may be suggested that we should relay on them because of the uncertainty. Just imagine a big organization like ChevronTexaco is relaying on a theory like for their leadership development plan. Uncertainty is something unacceptable for today business.
The Traits Theory
The Theory
The Traits theory premise that leaders are born and not made encouraged researchers to look for the key traits or characteristics demonstrated by leaders. They did this by, in the first instance, by comparing the traits of those people who were leaders with the traits of those people who were followers. Secondly, they tried to differentiate the characteristics of those leaders deemed to be effective from those of leaders deemed to be ineffective (1).Early research on leadership was based on the psychological focus of the day, which was of people having inherited characteristics or traits. Attention was thus put on discovering these traits, often by studying successful leaders, but with the underlying assumption that if other people could be found with these traits, then they, too, could also become great leaders (2). The personality traits helped Ralph Szygenda transforming General Motors into the first totally weird car company (3). The trait approach is one of the only leadership theories that focus exclusively on the leader. However, is it only traits that will make a leader?
Evaluation
Pioneer leadership researchers were confident that personality traits essential for leadership effectiveness could be identified through research. Because the trait approach focused exclusively on the leader, however, and not on the followers or the situation, researchers failed to discover any traits that would guarantee leadership success. If we take a look to leaders like Mother Theresa, Bill Gates, and Nelson Mandela, we will find that we cannot find common traits between them. Therefore, we should ask ourselves is the leader or the follower or even the situation. It is nearly impossible to develop an inclusive list of leader traits, and no conclusion can be made regarding the connection between a particular trait and leadership effectiveness. Although a connection between personality traits and leadership effectiveness was discovered, cause and effect were not addressed (4). Early trait theorists failed to acknowledge that being in a leadership role might facilitate the development of leadership traits. In addition, the theory neglected to account for why some individuals might be effective leaders in certain circumstances yet not in others. The trait approach is not particularly useful for the business in the twenty first century because it presumes that personality traits are relatively stable across time, which cannot be happen. It consequently fails to offer a guideline for leadership development. In other words, you should accept what you have because there is no way that you could develop. How we could relay on today business on theory that has not been proved. Traits do not help us to train future leaders because we are accepting the belief that ability is bestowed upon some at birth and therefore cannot be learned. With the complexity of today business, we cannot focus only on the leader but we need to take also in consideration the follower. The traits theory cannot offer us what we need in today business.
The Behavioural Theory
The Theory
The behavioural theory based on that leaders can be made, rather than are born. Successful leadership is based in definable, learnable behaviour. The behavioural perspective of leadership holds that anybody who demonstrates the appropriate behaviours can be an effective leader. The underlying premise here is that it is behaviour and not traits that determines the effectiveness of a leader. Leaders can be made (by learning the appropriate behaviours) and are not necessarily born (1). There are important research programs on leadership behaviour were conducted at Ohio State University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Texas (5). Researcher at Ohio State University surveyed leaders to hundreds of dimensions of leader behaviour. They identified two major behaviours, called consideration and initiating structure. At the same time, University of Michigan took a different approach by comparing the behaviour of effective and ineffective supervisors. Blake and Mouton of the University if Texas proposed a two-dimensional leadership theory called leadership grid that builds on the work of the Ohio state and Michigan studies. The "Managerial Grid" has its advantages and disadvantages. It focuses on observable actions of the leader in order to determine if the leader's main concern is for production or for people. This provides a more reliable method for studying leadership than the trait approach. The Managerial Grid, however, adopted the universal approach. It aims at identifying the most effective leadership style for all situations, which is not supported by evidence in real organizations
Evaluation
Behavioural is a big leap from Trait Theory, in that it assumes that leadership capability can be learned, rather than being inherent. This opens big gates to leadership development. However, Can we relay on this theory to determine leadership effectiveness. Is it possible that the same style would work as well in a gang or group of friends, and in a hospital emergency room? The styles that leaders can adopt are far more affected by those they are working with, and the environment they are operating within, than had been originally thought. By looking to the business today, it is difficult to relay on the behavioural theory for the leadership development for the business in the twenty first century. The behavioural theory did not define a clear relationship between style and performance outcomes. Therefore, two different leaders in same organization adopting the same style their performance outcome is not essentially the same. The behavioural theory has failed to find a universal style suitable for all situations. I could say that this theory along or companied with the traits theory failed to determine leadership effectiveness. Therefore, it may be suggested that we should relay on them because of the uncertainty. Just imagine a big organization like ChevronTexaco is relaying on a theory like for their leadership development plan. Uncertainty is something unacceptable for today business.
Contingency theory
The Theory
The leader's ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors, including the leader's preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of followers and various other situational factors. The style selected by a leader in any given situation will depend upon two variables, the personal characteristics of the leader, and how confident that leader is in his or her own abilities. Contingency theories are a class of behavioural theory that contends that there is no one best way of leading and that a leadership style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others. There are six contingency theories: the LPC Contingency model, Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model, the path-goal theory of leadership, the multiple linkage model of leadership, leadership substitute theory, and Vroom and Yetton’s normative decision model.
Fiedler’s contingency model ‘least preferred coworkers’ is on of these models, which divides the leadership situation into three variables which is leader-member relationship, task structure, and position power. These may be either advantageous or disadvantageous to the leader depending upon the style of leadership chosen. The following table explains how it could be either advantageous or disadvantageous (6).
Evaluation
Contingency theory does not explain why individuals are more effective in some situations than others; also, contingency theory does not explain what to do if there is a mismatch between the leader and the situation he or she faces. Effective leaders could be promoted or moved to new roles that do not fit them on the strength of performance in a role they did. Therefore, with the complexity of today business the contingency theory is not useful up to a certain limit. It stills a step ahead in the way of leadership development. We still are asking for more specially with the tremendous development in the business today. Researchers often find that Fiedler's contingency model falls short on flexibility. However, Fiedler's contingency model is an important model because it established a brand new perspective for the study of leadership. Nevertheless, is this what we need for the business in the twenty first century? I could say that the contingency theory is useful as it gives us a direction to the leadership development but still more researches needs to be done in order to increase the usefulness of it.
The Theory
The leader's ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors, including the leader's preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of followers and various other situational factors. The style selected by a leader in any given situation will depend upon two variables, the personal characteristics of the leader, and how confident that leader is in his or her own abilities. Contingency theories are a class of behavioural theory that contends that there is no one best way of leading and that a leadership style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others. There are six contingency theories: the LPC Contingency model, Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model, the path-goal theory of leadership, the multiple linkage model of leadership, leadership substitute theory, and Vroom and Yetton’s normative decision model.
Fiedler’s contingency model ‘least preferred coworkers’ is on of these models, which divides the leadership situation into three variables which is leader-member relationship, task structure, and position power. These may be either advantageous or disadvantageous to the leader depending upon the style of leadership chosen. The following table explains how it could be either advantageous or disadvantageous (6).
Evaluation
Contingency theory does not explain why individuals are more effective in some situations than others; also, contingency theory does not explain what to do if there is a mismatch between the leader and the situation he or she faces. Effective leaders could be promoted or moved to new roles that do not fit them on the strength of performance in a role they did. Therefore, with the complexity of today business the contingency theory is not useful up to a certain limit. It stills a step ahead in the way of leadership development. We still are asking for more specially with the tremendous development in the business today. Researchers often find that Fiedler's contingency model falls short on flexibility. However, Fiedler's contingency model is an important model because it established a brand new perspective for the study of leadership. Nevertheless, is this what we need for the business in the twenty first century? I could say that the contingency theory is useful as it gives us a direction to the leadership development but still more researches needs to be done in order to increase the usefulness of it.
Conclusion
Leadership studies can be classified as trait, behavioural, contingency, and transformational. Earliest theories assumed that the primary source of leadership effectiveness lay in the personal traits of the leaders themselves. Yet, traits alone cannot explain leadership effectiveness, which I did explain in my evaluation to the traits theory. Thus, later research focused on what the leader actually did when dealing with employees and it was the first step toward understanding the relation between the leader and the follower. The behavioural theory of leadership sought to explain the relationship between what the leaders did and how the employees reacted, both emotionally and behaviourally. However, as a result of my evaluation I found out that we cannot always account for leadership in different situations. Thus, contingency theories of leadership studied leadership style in different environments. However, contingency cannot account for the inspiration and innovation that leaders need to compete in today's global marketplace.
2 comments:
Mr. Walaa Al Saif,
In your blog posting, The Three Theories of Leadership, under The Traits Theory, I believe you meant to say, "The personality traits helped Ralph Szygenda transforming General Motors into the first totally 'wired' company."
Please make the appropriate correction.
I agree with my dear and thanks for the comments.
I wish if you could send something to post on the blog under your name.
I want to help as much pepole as I can with this blog.
Regards
walaa.alsaif@gmail.com
Post a Comment