Another theory is called the Great Man Theory. This is an early instinct theory, stating that leaders are normally male and are born to be leaders because of their personality traits. This theory ignores situational factors and interactions with others. An example of this would be Winston Churchill becoming a football manager. Because he was a natural leader he would be able to the lead the team well, but would need to acquire the football knowledge.
The Social Learning theory is the opposite of the Great Man theory. This states that leaders learn their skills through social learning and interactions with their environment and their experience. An example of this would be Beckham, who has learnt over time how to become a good leader.
Leaders are influenced in their decision-making. The most popular view of leadership is that leaders learn to be leaders through social learning and interactions with their environment. Chelladurai identified three factors that affect leadership:
- The characteristics of the situation
- The characteristics of the leader
- The characteristics of the people who are to be led
Here is a diagram that is from the Advanced PE & Sport A-Level textbook:
Chelladurai’s model of leadership
It is more likely for there to be an effective leadership if the elements match this model. If the style of leadership matches the situation then again it is likely to be more successful.
There are different types of leadership styles. Each one is suited to a different situation and each person will prefer a different style.
Fielder identified what he thought to be the two different categories of leadership in 1867. Task-orientated leaders focus on what needs to be achieved. They are people with experience and knowledge within the activity and are generally autocratic. This style of leadership is used more in favourable situations, for example a team at the top of the league.
Person-orientated leaders motivate groups of people well. They build strong bonds with the team members and will sacrifice success for group integrity. This style is favoured in a moderately favourable situation, for example a mid-league team. Elite performers tend to be very task-orientated; as a result of this they prefer a person-orientated style of leadership as they already have their own clear goals to achieve.
No leader is totally task or person oriented however. For a successful leader a mixture of both is required.
Lewin and colleagues expanded on Fielder’s theory in 1935. They divided leadership up into three different styles. Here I have displayed these three styles in a spider diagram:
Chelladurai expanded Lewin’s views again in 1981. He listed five categories of leadership behaviour, which I have put into a spider diagram:
There has been a lot of research done on the styles of leader that teams and individuals prefer. US President Eisenhower once said:
“Leadership is the art of getting someone to do something you want done
because he wants to do it”
There is a range of leadership styles and the table below shows how each one is generally preferred:
This chart has been taken from the Advanced PE & Sport A-level textbook.
If I were a leader my style would vary for the situation I was in. The age, sex, size and skill level of the group or individual would all contribute to which style I would choose.
Novices – My choice of leadership for a group of novices, for example novice football players, would be rewarding and autocratic. This would make my instructions direct, a key factor as the individuals would not know anything, and rewarding when improvements were made. By using these styles the individuals would be rewarded for their progress and would have clear goals to achieve.
Experts – If I were coaching an elite squash player I would use a democratic style of leadership. By using a democratic style it would encourage the player to suggest ideas to improve his/her game and would allow for the player to decide which part of their game they want to improve.
Teams – If I were the coach/captain of a rugby team I would use an autocratic style of leadership. A rugby team has a lot of individual members and the leader should be direct and organised. If a democratic style was used then decisions would take a long time to be made and there would be arguments within the team. The autocratic style stops individuals from arguing among each other about situations, resulting in a better spirit within the individuals.
Individuals – When coaching an individual it is important to consider their viewpoint. For example, if I were coaching an elite athlete, like Tim Henman who is a tennis player, their feedback would be very important as they are at the top of their game and have a lot of knowledge about the sport. In this situation I would use a democratic style of leadership. However if I were coaching a beginner weight lifter I would use an autocratic and training and instruction style because a lot of direct guidance would be needed for safety.
Age – For younger people my style of leadership would swing towards autocratic. This is not to say that I would be a dictatorial leader, I would allow for some of their suggestions but at the same time have clear goals set for them. AS people get older they prefer to be lead by a democratic style leader. If I coached an older player I would use a democratic style because they would have a lot of knowledge.
The topic of leadership is a very complex one because it deals with situations that have many influences. A good leader can positively affect a group or individuals performance and their motivation. On the other hand a poor leader can negatively affect a group or individuals performance and motivation. If the leader is efficient, there are likely to be fewer faulty teamwork processes, more efficient teamwork and less social loafing.
