- Behavioural approach: the exact opposite of the trait theory, this suggests leaders are made, not born. In time according to this theory anyone can become a leader.
- Interactional approach: a blend of both the trait theory and the behavioural theory suggests effective or ineffective performance is based upon match or mismatch between leader and followers and the overall favourability of the leadership situation.
There are three different styles of leadership:
- Authoritarian: This is often considered the classical approach. It is one in which the manager retains as much power and decision-making authority as possible. The manager does not consult employees, nor are they allowed to give any input. Employees are expected to obey orders without receiving any explanations. Creating a structured set of rewards and punishments produces the motivation environment.
This leadership style has been greatly criticized during the past 30 years. Some studies say that organizations with many autocratic leaders have lower morale and are less likely to perform as well as teams who have a democratic manager. These studies say that autocratic leaders:
--Rely on threats and punishment to influence employees
--Do not allow for employee input
Yet, autocratic leadership is not all bad. Sometimes it is the most effective style to use. These situations can include:
--Effective supervision can be provided only through detailed orders and instructions
-- Team members do not respond to any other leadership style
--There is limited time in which to make a decision
--A team member challenges a manager’s power.
--Work needs to be coordinated.
The autocratic leadership style should not be used when:
-- Team members become tense, fearful, or resentful
--Team members expect to have their opinions heard
--Team members begin depending on their manager to make all their decisions
--There is low team morale, and poorer performance
- Democratic: The democratic leadership style is also called the participative style as it encourages employees to be a part of the decision making. The democratic manager keeps his team members informed about everything that affects their work and shares decision-making and problem solving responsibilities. This style requires the leader to be a coach who has the final say, but gathers information from staff members before making a decision.
Democratic leadership can produce high quality and high quantity work for long periods of time. Many team members like the trust they receive and respond with cooperation, team spirit, and high morale. Typically the democratic leader:
--Develops plans to help team members evaluate their own performance
--Allow team members to establish goals
--Recognizes and encourages achievement.
The democratic leadership style is most effective when:
--The leader wants to keep team members informed about matters that affect them.
--The leader wants team members to share in decision-making and problem-solving duties.
--The leader wants to provide opportunities for team members to develop a high sense of personal growth and job satisfaction.
--There is a large or complex problem that requires lots of input to solve.
--Changes must be made or problems solved that affect team members
--You want to encourage team building and participation.
Democratic leadership should not be used when:
--There is not enough time to get everyone’s input.
--It’s easier and more effective for the manager to make the decision.
--The manager feels threatened by this type of leadership.
- Laissez-faire: The laissez-faire leadership style is also known as the “hands-off¨ style. It is one in which the manager provides little or no direction and gives team members as much freedom as possible. All authority or power is given to the team members and they must determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems on their own.
This is an effective style to use when:
-- Team members are highly skilled, experienced, and educated.
-- Team members have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.
--Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used
-- Team members are trustworthy and experienced.
This style should not be used when:
--It makes team members feel insecure at the unavailability of a manager.
--The manager cannot provide regular feedback to let team members know how well they are doing.
--Managers are unable to thank team members for their good work.
To be an effective leader a person needs to have several unique qualities:
- Integrity
- Flexibility
- Loyalty
- Confidence
- Accountability
- Candor
- Preparedness
- Self-discipline
- Patience
The style a manager adopts in sport depends on three different factors:
- The situation: if they were winning the managers style would be different than the style he uses when losing.
- The members of the team: the personal attributes of the team members, whether there hostile or not.
- Personality: is the manager a naturally aggressive person.
There are a few theories on the performance of a team:
(Steiner’s model 1972):
Steiner says that how well a team performs depends on how good they could perform minus egos, greed in terms of playing, motivation and co-ordination. This in brief means:
Actual productivity = potential productivity –losses due to faulty processes
How well a team performs=how good they could be-egos, greed and co-ordination.
(The Ringlemann effect):
Ringlemann devised a survey to find out if people work harder alone or if they worked harder when part of team:
He got people to do a tug of war with a rope tied around a rock. He then got the same people to do it as a team. He found that people didn’t work as hard when they were part of a team as they had done when performing individually. They only work to 75% of their true potential.
This term is known as social loafing. This is reduced effort that an individual exerts when working with others due to losses in motivation. It can be affected in two ways:
- Not wanting to be the “sucker” and working the hardest while everyone else is taking it easy
- Individual effort is not always recognised
Within Manchester united there are many players who are leaders. There are those who lead by example week in week out by giving there all on the football pitch, and those who help players to get motivated and raise there game as well as boosting their morale.
Within our class we have just finished a group assignment. I was working within a group of four people and we were set a task. Most of the work for this assignment was to be done during class time but in the end up members of my group just went home instead of meeting up to do the work assigned to us. Neither of us tried to take control and be a leader in this assignment and this inevitably led to disorganisation and poor group cohesion.
Group cohesion can be affected in four ways:
- Environmental factors: the contract you are on and how long you are going to be playing for.
- Personal factors: motives and if anyone is putting you down for the way you are playing. Your personal background may also affect you, as you won’t want to play if your family do not want you to.
- Team factors: the team desire and norms has to be the same for everyone and they must want to complete the same task as you in the same way.
- Leadership factors: the way that the manager controls the team can effect how you play and what your attitudes to training are. If he is a authoritave leader and is always wanting you to do it his way or no way then players will find it harder to respond to him and perform well.
Within or group the factor that influenced us the most would have to have been the team factors. Each member of our group have different levels as to which they wish to attain some were happy to try for a basic grade were as others wanted to get a higher level but then felt why should they be the one to put in all the work and therefore the whole group end up getting the same grade for that piece of work. Also personal factors have influenced the way that our group functioned with people not turning in to do the work on the assignment when arranged.
In comparison to Manchester united our group was a shambles we lacked the drive and determination needed in order to obtain the goals that were set. We were not structured in the processes we were going to follow and had no set plan which we were able to abide by. I think our group could have needed an authorative leader in order to reach the targets, but that said it was a good experience to be part of a group like this because now we should see that we need to put in more effort in order to succeed.
