Stogdill (1948) identified some traits and skills as critical to leaders. He tried to make some sense of these trait studies and came up with the most comprehensive list of traits.
Stogdill found that intelligence, responsibility, dependability, socioeconomic status, and social participation tend to be the traits most commonly identified that differentiate leaders from their followers.
However, there was no real pattern to the findings in that no single characteristic or trait consistently distinguished leaders from non-leaders.
McCall and Lombardo (1983) researched both success and failure identified four primary traits by which leaders could succeed:
- Emotional stability and composure
- Admitting error
- Good interpersonal skills
- Intellectual breadth
Weber (1947) had a more trait approach to leadership. According to him, charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which they are set apart from ordinary people and treated as gifted with supernatural, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are regarded, as of divine origin and for that reason they are not accessible to the ordinary people. In addition, because of them, the person concerned is treated as a leader. Charisma is one of several ideal types of authority. The others are bureaucratic and feudal. Weber (1947) presents more than an ideal type model of bureaucratic, traditional and charismatic authority. His is a dynamic model showing how one form of leadership and organisation reverts into the other. Therefore, the model is cyclical, with charismatic being the most unstable form, and bureaucratic ending up as a form that consists of monarchy at the top and bureaucracy everywhere else. Weber writes about the transformation of charisma into an anti-authoritarian direction. The legitimacy becomes democratic, once leaders are selected by vote. The new charismatic authority is based on the legitimacy of public acclaim. Charisma involves dependency. It means giving up responsibilities. Sadly, it is all too easy to let others who seem to know what they are doing, go on with difficult matters. They seem so much more able or in control. Rather than people facing up situations, and making their own solutions, they remain followers. However, when something goes wrong everybody turns against the leader. Whatever it takes, they end up blaming, and even destroying, the leader. Unfortunately, they may simply turn to another in order to replace him, rather than looking to their own capacities. Weber defined charismatic authority as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him" (Weber, 1947). Charismatic authority is one of three forms of authority laid out in Weber's tripartite classification of authority, the other two are traditional authority and rational/legal authority.
For Kant, charisma is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for leadership. Moreover, charisma is dangerous because it motivates followers to act on non-rational grounds rather than rational ones. A good leader ought to respect and encourage the autonomy of followers. The Kantian leader turns followers into leaders. Even when the charismatic leader whips up their followers in a paroxysm for an acknowledged good action, neither the followers nor the leader are behaving morally in a Kantian sense. It must also be pointed out that the charismatic leader may not use their charismatic quality for something good. (Bowie, 2000). Followers respond to charismatic leaders who endorse the most vicious and immoral actions. This is the so-called “Hitler problem” or in other words, “the dark side of charisma” (Goffman, 1967).
Behavioral Theory (Style Counseling Approach), 1940-1960
Behavioral Theories developed in response to the dissatisfaction with trait theories and the growth of the human relations and behavioral movements.
Researchers wondered if there was something unique about the way leaders behave. If behavioral determinants are critical, then we can train individuals to become leaders. If trait theories are valid, leaders are born. If they have specific behaviours that identify them, then the “art” of leadership is something that can be taught.
Leaders, according to this theory, can be made, rather than are born. Successful leadership is based on definable and learnable behaviour. Behavioral theories of leadership do not seek inborn traits or capabilities. In addition, they look at what leaders actually do.
Ohio State Studies:
Most comprehensive studies of behavioral theories began at Ohio State University in the late 1940s.
Research focused on identifying independent dimensions of leader behaviour.
They found two critical characteristics none of which could be high or low and were independent of one another.
Initiating structure: The extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure their role and those of employees in the search for goal achievement.
Consideration: The extent to which a person is likely to have job relationships required mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. This type of leader shows concern for his followers’ comfort and satisfaction. Leaders high in initiating structure and consideration tended to achieve higher employee performance (Stogdill, 1957).
University of Michigan Studies:
Studies at Michigan at the same time as the Ohio State studies have similar research objectives.
They also came up with two dimensions:
Employee - oriented: leaders emphasized interpersonal relations. They take a personal interest in the needs of their employees and the individual differences of them.
Production (job)-oriented: There is an emphasis on the technical or task aspects of their job and on accomplishing the group’s tasks.
Researchers favored the leaders who were employee-oriented in their behaviour because they were associated with higher group productivity and higher job satisfaction (Likert, 1967).
Production-oriented leaders tended to be associated with low grow productivity and low worker satisfaction.
The Michigan studies and Ohio State Leadership Studies identified at the same time the focus on task (“Initiating Structure”) and people (“Consideration”). The Michigan studies added “Participative leadership” to the Ohio findings, moving the debate further into the question of leading teams rather than just individuals (Likert, 1967).
Participative leadership:
Effective leaders use a participative style, managing at the group level as well as individually. A Participative leader, rather than taking autocratic decisions, seeks to involve other people in the process, possibly including subordinates and superiors.
The role of the manager is more complementary and balancing than directive, guiding the conversation and helping to resolve problems that may occur. He is also responsible for the results and is not exempted from responsibility. As such, they may make final decisions that take recommendations from the team into account. The effect of participative leadership is to build a cohesive team, which works together rather than a set of individuals (Likert, 1967).
Situational Theory (Contingency/ Path Goal/ Transactional Approach), 1960-1980
Fiedler's Contingency model
Fiedler's model assumes that group performance depends on Leadership style, described in terms of task motivation and relationship motivation.
Situational favorableness, determined by three factors:
1. Leader-member: Relations which prove whether a leader is acceptable and supported by the group members or not.
2. Task structure: In which extent the task is structured and defined, with clear goals and procedures.
3. Position power: The ability that a leader possesses in order to control subordinates through reward and punishment.
High levels of these three factors give the most favourable situation, and low levels, the least favorable. Fiedler suggests that it may be easier for leaders to change their situation to achieve effectiveness, rather than change their leadership style (Fiedler, 1967).
Hersey-Blanchard Situational Theory
According to Hersey’s and Blanchard’s (1999) theory, leadership style should be matched to the maturity of the subordinates. Maturity is assessed in relation to a specific task and has two parts:
- Psychological maturity - Self-confidence, ability and readiness to accept responsibility.
- Job maturity - Relevant skills and technical knowledge.
As the subordinate maturity increases, leadership should be more relationship-motivated than task-motivated. For four degrees of subordinate maturity, from highly mature to highly immature, leadership can consist of:
- Delegating to subordinates.
- Participating with subordinates.
- Selling ideas to subordinates.
- Telling subordinates what to do.
Path-Goal Theory
Evans (1970) and House (1971) suggest that the leader in a number of ways can affect the performance, satisfaction and motivation of a group:
- By offering rewards for the achievement of performance goals.
- By clarifying paths towards these goals.
- By removing performance obstacles.
A person may do these by adopting a certain leadership style, according to the situation:
- Directive leadership: Specific advice to the group and ground rules.
- Supportive leadership: Good relations with the group and sensitivity to subordinates' needs.
- Participative leadership: Decision-making, based on group consultation and information shared with the group.
- Achievement-oriented leadership: Challenging goals, high performance and confidence in the groups' ability.
This theory is, in part, a transactional model with elements of a contingency perspective and one of the most comprehensive theories to be developed.
Vroom-Yetton Leadership Model
According to Vroom-Yetton (1973), there are three decision-making styles:
- Autocratic: Problem is solved using information already available and additional.
- Consultative: Leader discusses the problem with subordinates individually, before making a decision.
- Group: Group decides upon problem, with leader simply watching the outcomes.
New Leadership (Transformational Approach), 1980-2000
With the appearance of self-managed work teams and team-based organisations, traditional theories of leadership are no longer appropriate in helping us understand the new leadership requirements of team-based organisations. As individuals become empowered and undertake more responsibility for their work, traditional models of leadership that rely on and spring from command and control, not work anymore. Since self-managed work-teams have the autonomy and responsibility for managing themselves and the work they do with an amount of supervision (Fisher, 1993), then, they are involved in the leadership of their work (Horner, 1997). Furthermore, as self-managed work-teams develop and mature, the formal leader becomes less involved in the day-to-day work activities of the team. More often, we are seeing the leadership for some team functions it is generally turned between some or all of the team members over time. Therefore, as individuals in self-managed work-teams, they accept more responsibility for their work, they also become more involved in leading their teams (Horner, 1997).
Given the fact that self-managed work-teams undertake increased levels of
self-management, one can assume that each individual team member is in control of his or her work, and is responsible for the results of the team as a whole. Individuals who manage employees in self-managed teams therefore need a different set of skills from those used by managers in traditional organisations.
Consequently, leadership when applied to self-managing work teams is reflected in the idea of “a person who leads others to lead themselves” instead of the traditional model of leadership of one person commanding others to do something (Manz and Sims, 1987, 2001).
Transformational approach of leadership has developed the theory of the charisma, too, as researchers of trait theories did in the past. Transformational Leaders are often charismatic, but are not as arrogant as traditional ones, who succeed because they believe in themselves rather than they believe in others’ abilities.
The Transformational Leader seeks to transform the organisation. There is also a silent promise to followers that they will be transformed in some way, too, in order to become more like this amazing leader. As a result, the products of the transformation are the followers (Bass, 1985).
Transformational Leaders can achieve two key charismatic effects. The first one is to evoke strong emotions and to gain the recognition of the followers. This may be through coaching and mentoring them.
The second one is by appealing to higher ideals and values of followers. In this way, they may shape the values themselves and use charismatic methods to attract people to the values and to the leader (Burns, 1978).
The Superleader, 2000’s
Leadership is typically viewed as a top-down process in which the leader influences the follower to do what he wants done. In the top-down process it is formulated an overview of the system, without examining thoroughly or going into detail for any part of it. Each part of the system is then advanced and cultivated by designing it in more detail. Each new part may then be refined again, defining it in yet more detail until the entire specification is explained and detailed enough to validate the model. This is often accomplished through threat and intimidation stemming from the position of authority that the leader has in his possession. An alternative perspective labeled Superleadership, however, argues “an effective leader does not turn the wills of others to their own” (Neck and Manz, 1996). In addition, the effective leader empowers others to stand on their own and encourages subordinates to lead themselves, to set their own goals, to judge their own performance and to solve their own problems and, off course, to be self-critical. This idea is perhaps illustrated by the following poem by Lau-Tau:
“A leader is best
when people barely know he exists,
… when his work is done,
his aim fulfilled, they will say: We did it ourselves.”
(Neck and Manz, 1996).
The significance of a Superleader is remarkable because he is the person who develops the capacity of leadership in others (Buchanan, Huczynski, 2004), he is the expert who has to initiate them and in order to attain this mission, he must create a relationship with them that relies on confidence, he must stimulate their motivation, commitment and creativity (Buchanan, Huczynski, 2004).
Consequently, Superleadership might be an initial step towards an educator creating an educational process. Specifically, an educator can perform Superleadership behaviours for facilitating the satisfaction of the visual, emotional, functional and financial preferences of their learners.
In other words, Superleadership can encourage learners to learn for themselves. When teams have the opportunity to exercise self-direction and self-control, individuals will have a greater opportunity to exercise competence and experience success. In these teams where the superleader trusts the team members by providing them with increased autonomy, team control of operations organisation and self-esteem will be higher (Elloy, 2005).
Superleader, as well as every Transformational Leader, “is not an autocratic dictator or a wildly charismatic figure” (Buchanan, Huczynski, 2004).
The new, Transformational Superleader leads by vision, empowers and inspires his followers, he shares precious information with them and facilitates them. He has to possess some characteristics in order to succeed his goals. He must have the appropriate personality, appearance and behaviour. He must be caring, inspirational, visionary, ethical and risk-taker (Buchanan, Huczynski, 2004).
Consequently, this kind of leader has the role of the coach and his mission is to create and develop future leaders.
A great advantage of Superleader Theory is that the self-learning team methodology provides a cost-effective and efficient way to develop multiskilled and special qualified leaders, managers and employees, who are fast learning. These highly capable individuals will produce significant corporate performance (Fung, 1998).
3) Conclusion
Taking into consideration the theories that were reported and analysed separately above, one can realise that even if Transformational Theory, that includes also Superleader Approach of 21st century, springs from and has her roots in Trait Theory, that was developed in the beginning of 20th century and especially in Kant’ s aspect, nevertheless, this does not mean her reappearance. This new form of Leader is more reinforced from the first one. His role is not anymore to impose on his inferiors, with the force that his position offers to him, his wishes for the right operation of the company but, on the contrary, to educate them suitably so that they think as Leaders, too, and to lead them lead themselves (Buchanan, Huczynski, 2004).
The first and most important step is to gain their confidence to him and to stimulate their motivation. The weak point of Superleader concept is that it is slippery, even though it is easier for somebody nowadays, and especially for women, to become Superleaders. Women, in the past, faced systematic discrimination in the quest of senior management positions because Trait Theories assumed that Leaders should be only men with special qualities (Buchanan, Huczynski, 2004).
Transformational Theory suggests that leaders exist at all levels of organisation, contrary to Trait Theories that support the existence of just one charismatic, glamorous, and heroic Leader on the top of the hierarchy (Buchanan, Huczynski, 2004).
The Superleader Theory shares many sights and views of the other Theories and especially Behavioral Theory, with which has many aspects in common. The latter was the theory, which claimed that the role of the leader has to be supplementary. This does not mean, at all, that the leader is sidelined but his mission has to be confined in the exact and correct function and collaboration of the panel that he supervises and controls. This was the first theory that developed the meaning and the importance of the term “team”, that now is the first priority in every company or organisation. A leader cannot manage the whole organisation only by himself without resulting to become a “dictator” that commands his opinion to the employees and that is why he needs the help and the support of his subordinates.
Superleader is the ideal type of the Leaders of 20th century. Nowadays all the companies are structured in a way that all their functions, even though leadership, are allocated to persons at every level of the production for the best efficiency and the best quality of services. In that way, the control and the good and healthy relationships, among the personnel and between the Leader and the personnel, are ensured.
4) References
Bibliography:
Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
Bowie, N. (2000) A Kantian theory of leadership: Leadership and organisation development journal. volume 21, issue 4, Conceptual paper.
Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A. (2004) Organisational behaviour, an introductory text. 5th ed., Prentice Hall.
Burns, J. M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Elloy, D.F. (2005) The influence of superleader behaviors on organisation commitment, job satisfaction and organisation self-esteem in a self-managed work-team, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal. volume 26, Issue 2, Research paper.
Evans, M.G. (1970) The effect of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship, organisational behavior and human performance.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A theory of leadership effectiveness. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fisher, K. (1993) Leading Self-directed Work Teams: A guide to developing new team leadership skills. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Fung, M. (1998) A learning team approach for service organisations to achieve TQM and beat the competition, Managing Service Quality. volume 8, issue 5, Research paper.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1999) Leadership and the one minute manager. William Morrow.
Horner, M. (1997) Leadership theory: past, present and future. Team Performance Management, volume 3, No. 4.
House, R.J. (1971) A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative science quarterly.
Kreitner, R. (1995) Management. 6th ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Likert, R. (1967) The human organisation: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Manz, C.E. and Sims, H.P. (1987) Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managed work teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, volume 32, issue 1.
Manz, C.E. and Sims, H.P. (2001) The new superleadership. Koehler Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA.
McCall, M.W. Jr. and Lombardo, M.M. (1983) Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed. Greensboro, NC: Centre for Creative Leadership.
Neck, C. P. and Manz, C.C. (1996), Beyond traditional educating: facilitating power-point learning through superleadership,
Journal of Managerial Psychology. volume 11, issue 2, Technical paper.
Rad, A.M.M. and Yarmohammadian, Μ. Η., (2006) Leadership in health services. volume 19, issue 2, Research paper.
Stewart, D.M. (1994) Handbook of management skills. 2nd ed., Gower Publishing Co., Aldershot.
Stogdill, R.M. (1948) Personal factors associated with leadership: A Survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology.
Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds.) (1957) Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (Research Monograph Number 88). Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. (1973) Leadership and decision making. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Press, PA.
Weber, M. (1947) The theory of social and economic organisation, Translated by A. M. Henderson & Talcott Parsons. NY: The Free Press.
Links:
http.//en.wikipedia.org. (21/11/2006)
