There are many leadership theories that have formed our recent perception of leadership. This essay looks at some of the most common theories and leadership styles.
Leadership Theories
-
According to the Trait theories – ‘Leaders are born’
Trait theories argue that leaders have some innate talented abilities so they can get extraordinary outcomes from these skills. According to Huczynski and Buchanan (2007, p.699), the Trait Approach arose from the “Great Man” theory as a way of identifying the key characteristics of successful leaders. Some researchers argue that regardless of whether leaders are born or made, they are different from other people, leaders need to have the right stuff which not everyone has (Avery 2004).
Researchers evaluated physical and traits or features such as strong drive for responsibility; focus on completing the task; vigour and persistence in pursuit of goals; self-confidence; willingness to tolerate frustration and delay; readiness to absorb interpersonal stress and the ability to influence the behaviour of others (Stogdill 1948, 1974, p.81 cited in Huczynski and Buchanan 2007, p.699). Emotional Stability and composure, Admitting error, Good interpersonal skill and Intellectual breadth (McCall and Lombardo, 1983). Traits of an effective leader according to Lussier and Achua (2004) are Dominance, High energy, Self-confidence, Locus of control, Stability, Integrity, Intelligence, Flexibility and Sensitivity to Others.
Maxwell (2005) also identified the 360 Degree leadership qualities as adaptability, discernment, perspective, communication, security, servanthood, resourcefulness, maturity, endurance and competence over the long haul and accountability.
However, it is hard to accept that possessing special traits propels people into leadership roles in organisations where leadership is widely distributed (Avery 2004). It cannot be disputed that leaders who do not possess all the traits, whatever they are, are often effective and the leaders who possess many of them are often not effective( Gill 2006) “The lists of possible traits tend to be very long and there is not always agreement on the most important” (Mullins 2005, p.287).
-
The Behavioural theories says: ‘Leaders are made’
The Behavioural Theory concentrates on what leaders really do in place of seeking their innate traits. It says that effective leadership is based on attainable behaviour, that is, leadership doesn’t inhabit in the person, but can be developed as unique style of behaviour. Adair’s (1973 cited in Gosling et al 2007) model is that the action-centred leader gets the job done through the work team and associations with fellow managers and staff. According to Adair's clarification, an action-centred leader is required to outline what the task requires, what the team requires and what each individual requires.
Leadership as a behavioural grouping has attracted awareness to the significance of leadership styles, which is a blend of a leader’s trait, behaviour and abilities used in connecting with followers. According to Goleman (2000, p. 61-73) there are six leadership styles:
Coercive leaders demands immediate compliance (‘’Do what I say’’) an example would be a manager who reign with terror, and is domineering. Coercive leadership could sometimes have a damaging effect on an organisation. Goleman advised that this leadership style should be used with severe care in situations when it is absolutely imperative such as during a turnaround and indisputable crisis. According to Schaeffer (2002, p. 111) a coercive leader is known as ‘‘a reformer who defies convention and stubbornly tries to make the world a better place’’.
Authoritative leaders mobilises people toward a vision (‘‘Come with me’’). To illustrate this is an example of an up-country branch of Zenith bank that was not making profit, the branch’s poor performance troubled management and they contemplated changing the Branch Head. However, a junior manager in same branch made a bold step, tasked his colleagues to step up their customer service delivery. With his energetic zeal and clear vision, he filled a leadership vacuum in the branch and within few weeks, the desired positive changes came. Authoritative leadership maximises dedication to the organisation’s objectives and plan.
Affiliative leaders generates emotional connection and harmony (‘‘People come first’’), this type of leadership rotates around people; this leader is more bothered about people’s emotions than tasks and goals. The style of leadership promotes communication, flexibility, permits consistent innovation and risk taking. However, despite its benefits, Goleman advised that the affiliative style should not be used alone. If relied on, this style can lead to failure. For example, a Senior Manager in a branch of Zenith Bank Plc was seen by his subordinate as a perfect leader. He shared ideas with them, was flexible and did not impose unnecessary strictures on how employees get their work done. However, a major fraud occurred in the branch, the Head Teller in conjunction with the some other staff members colluded with a customer to defraud another customer’s account. The Branch Head was blamed for his laxity in the branch’s operation.
Democratic leaders build harmony through participation. Being a participative leader is not always easy, because it requires letting go. You have to trust all the people who work with you to make wise management decisions (Schaeffer 2002). Before going for Operations Meeting at the Head office, the Head of operation (HOP) in a Zenith bank branch usually calls a meeting of all operation staff and requests for suggestions and new ideas, he would then take the issues to the meeting. He also takes time in explaining management’s actions. The HOP exemplifies the democratic style by spending time in clearing up the basis for the action and also getting people’s feedback. This built trust, admiration and dedication.
Pacesetting leaders anticipate distinction and self-direction, this leader sets standards and exemplifies them himself. He is infatuated about doing things better and more rapidly and expects his subordinates to do same. This style is comparable to the coercive style, it demolishes people’s self-esteem, subordinates feel that the leader does not trust them to work on their own or to take the initiative; work turns out to be so task focused and boring. An example could be the Head of Trade Services Unit in a Zenith Bank branch who does not trust that her subordinates are capable of carrying out their duties without her supervision; and would take on tasks from people she feels are too slow, rather than encourage them to pick up. However, Goleman believed this style works well when all employees are energetic, highly knowledgeable and need little direction.
Coaching leaders build up people for the future; this leader helps employees recognize their potency and flaws. They allot duties; they give demanding tasks and are willing to put up with short term disappointment if it promotes long term knowledge. Unfortunately, many leaders don’t use this style as they don’t have the time in this high pressure economy for teaching people and helping them grow (Goleman 2000)
The restrictions of behavioural theory are that a leadership style may seem actually good to pursue but the genuine custom proves different outcome. Wright (1996) says that many of the early writers that looked to participative and people-centred leadership argued that it brought about greater satisfaction amongst followers. One of other constraint of behavioural approach is that a leader cannot just pursue one approach as McKenna (1998) says that by early 1960s there was detection that leadership could not be described acceptable in terms of behavioural approach.
-
Contingency theories says ‘It depends’
The proposition of contingency theories is that effective leadership requires a style of behaviour that matches the conditions in which it is exercised (Wilson 2008). This means that the capability of the leader to guide is dependent on a range of situational features. One thing depends on other things, for a leader to be effective, there must be an appropriate fit between the leader’s behaviour, style, followers and the situation (Lussier and Achua 2004).
Frederick Fiedler (1967; Fiedler and Chamers, 1974, 1984 cited in Huczynski and Buchanan 2007) argues that effectiveness is influenced not just by leadership orientation but by the extent to which the task in hand is structured, the leader’s position power and the nature of the relationships between the leader and followers. Fiedler felt that most supervisors have challenges in altering their leadership technique. If the technique goes with the circumstances, the leader will be effective
Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard (1988 cited in Huczynski and Buchanan 2007) argued that the effective leader must be a good diagnostician and adapt style to meet the demands of the situation in which they operate. Contrasting Fiedler, they think a leader is capable of modifying his technique to fit the context. As Goffee and Jones (2000 cited in Gill 2006, p.49) say, ‘‘given that there are endless contingencies in life, there are endless varieties of leadership... the beleaguered executive looking for a model to help him is hopelessly lost’’. The contingency theories did not explain how leadership styles vary according to organisational level or at top executive level (Zaccaro and Klimoski, 2001)
- Transactional and Transformational leadership
Transactional Leadership Theory says that people are encouraged by incentive and castigation. They will seek to perform most excellently if they are aware of certain attractive rewards for job well done and castigation for failure to accomplish the task. Transactional leaders appear to be strongly directive and they tend not to use the consultative, participative or delegative styles to any significant extent (Gill, 1999a cited in Gill 2006). The transactional leader cajoles his followers with incentives; he is interested only with the result and not the concern of follower. They just set objectives, put down policies and rules and if goals are achieved; they give incentives.
While on the other hand the transformational leader creates confidence and esteem in his followers and sets high potentials in them, assisting them in attaining their targets. Transformational leadership focuses on a leader’s transforming abilities rather than on personal characteristics and follower relations (Lussier and Achua 2004). Bass (1990, p. 21) specified that transformational leadership ‘‘occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group’’.
Noel Tichy and Mary Anne Devanna (1986 cited in Huczynski and Buchanan 2007) argued that the transformational leader has three main roles: recognising the need for revitalization, creating a new vision and institutionalising change. Due to the global recession, organisations need leaders who can effectively trade and execute valiant schemes that would change or support the organisation’s area of competencies and weaknesses with rising prospects. According to Lussier and Achua(2004), researchers surmise that an effective transformational leader posses attributes like: seeing themselves as change agents, are visionaries who have level of trust for their intuition, are risk-takers but not reckless, possess exceptional cognitive skills, believe in people and show sensitivity to their needs and are flexible and open to learning from experience. An example of transformational Leadership is observed in Miccom Advertising Agency, Nigeria, the leader fulfils all the qualities of a transformational leader. He advises and encourages his employees, makes work interesting, sets understandable targets, assists people in seeing past their self-centeredness and work more on group accomplishment.
However, Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001) pointed out that hierarchical level as a moderator in the use and effectiveness of leadership behaviour is a long-held theoretical assumption. Sadler (1997 cited in Gill 2006) also believed that the concept of transformation overemphasises the role of a leader in the change process.
- Servant Leadership
The habitual leadership theories stressed the leader-follower structure while the non habitual theory sees the leader as a servant of the people and organisation. It is less about directing or controlling, focuses on helping followers do their jobs rather than having followers help the managers do their jobs (Lussier and Achua 2004). Servant leadership entails strong values: a leader that takes on leadership role because he wants to serve others, ‘‘people follow servant leaders because they trust them’’ (Gill 2006 p. 41). It is true that those who would be great must be like the least and be servant of all (Maxwell 1999). Greenleaf (1977 cited in Gill 2006, p. 40), further said ‘Great leaders serve others’. A servant leader is one who is a servant first, with characteristics like: Listening, Empathy, Healing, awareness, Persuasion, conceptualization, Foresight, Stewardship, commitment to the growth of people and building community (Larry C.Spears and Michele Lawrence 2004 cited in Wilson 2008).
However, Tom Marshall (1991, p.67 cited in Gill 2006, p.41) had a different take, he said ‘‘after all, leaders lead, servants serve. If leaders are going to be servants, what are the servants going to do, and who is going to do the leading?’’
Conclusion
In conclusion, both innate qualities and learned skills could be classified as attributes of an effective leader. This assessment of leadership theories has shown that there is no straightforward answer to why effectiveness varies in leaders and best leadership style does not exist. What matters is that the style adopted should fit with the expectations of those being led and be consistent with the task at hand (Goleman 2000). Theoretically, there are numerous attributes of an effective leader but in the real world; leaders do not need to have all of it to be effective. Leaders have diverse type of behavioural approach which depends on their leadership style, when it is used appropriately, it will make them an effective leader.
The components which contribute to an effective leader differ depending on the circumstances, including the features of the group and of the leader. Similarly, the style used will also be affected by these components. An effective leader will be capable of directing the team to achieve their goals and become a thriving team. In all of these theories and leadership concepts, there's a fundamental message that leaders must have a range of features working in their support.
‘‘Leadership ability is the lid that determines a person’s level of effectiveness. The lower an individual’s ability to lead, the lower the lid on his potential. The higher the ability, the greater the effectiveness’’, that is why in times of trouble; organisations naturally look for new leadership (Maxwell 1998, p.1).
REFERENCES
-
Adair J.- Fundamentals of leadership edited by Jonathan Gosling, Peter Case and Morgen Witzel 2007
-
Avery, G.C. (2004) Understanding Leadership Paradigms and cases with cases contributed by Andrew Bell, Martin Hilb and Anne E. Witte.
-
Bass, B.M. (199O) "From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 19-31.
-
Brooks, I. (2006) Organisational Behaviour Individuals, Groups and Organisation. 3rd ed. London.
-
Drucker, P.F. (2001) the essential Drucker. New York: HarperCollins.
-
Dubrin A.J., Dalglish C. and Miller A.V. (2006) Leadership, 2nd Asia-Pacific ed. John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd.
-
Gary L. (2005) ‘The Work of a Modern Leader’, Becoming an effective leader, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
-
Gill, R. (2006) Theory and practice of leadership
-
Goleman et al, (2000 ) what makes a leader, Harvard Business Review, P. 61-73:Harvard business school press
-
Leonard D. Schaeffer et al (2003) Leadership at the Top, Harvard Business review: P. 109-111: Harvard business school press
-
Huczynski A. and Buchanan D.A (2007) Organisational Behaviour, 6th ed. England: Pearson Education Limited.
-
Kirst-Ashman K.K (2008) Human Behaviour, Communities, Organizations and Groups in the Macro Social Environment- an empowerment Approach, 2nd Ed.
-
Kouzes J.M. and Posner B.Z. (2002). The leadership challenge 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
-
Lussier R.N. Ph.D. and Achua C.F. (2004) Leadership Theory- Application Skill Development Springfield College D.B.A University of Virginia’s college at Wise
-
McCall, M.W. Jr. and Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed. Greenboro, NC: Centre for Creative Leadership
-
McKenna, E (1998) Business Psychology & Organisational Behaviour, Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd
- Maxwell J. (1991)“Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.” endorsed by Zig Ziglar
-
Maxwell J.C.(2005) the 360degree Leader- developing your influence from anywhere in the organization
-
Mullins, L.J. (2006) Management and Organisational Behaviour, 7th ed. Essex: Prentice Hall.
-
Wilson E. (2008) ‘Organisational Behaviour’, Leadership; School of Environment and Development
-
Wright P. (1996) Managerial Leadership, London: Routledge
-
Zaccaro, S.J. and Klimoski R.J (2001), the nature of Leadership: an Introduction.
