Behavioral Theory
This theory explains the effectiveness of leadership. According to this theory, leadership has two qualities i.e., initiating structure and consideration. These qualities are tested with higher and lower levels with proper intersection of each other.
Initiating Structure
It is the level up to which a leader is task oriented and directs the employee towards achieving a goal. In this case, the leader gives instruction, makes plan and schedules work activities.
Trait Theory
Trait theory tries to describe the types of behavior and personality tendencies associated with effective leadership. This is probably the first academic theory of leadership. Ronald Heifetz (1994) traces the trait theory approach back to the nineteenth-century tradition of associating the history of society to the history of great men.
Thomas Carlyle can be considered one of the pioneers of the trait theory. In On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic History (1841) he used such approach to identify the talents, skills and physical characteristics of men who arose to power.
Proponents of the trait approach usually list leadership qualities, assuming certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. Shelley Kirkpatrick and Edwin A. Locke (1991) exemplify the trait theory. They argue that "key leader traits include: drive (a broad term which includes achievement, motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership motivation (the desire to lead but not to seek power as an end in itself), honesty, integrity, self-confidence (which is associated with emotional stability), cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business. According to their research, "there is less clear evidence for traits such as charisma, creativity and flexibility".
Criticism to Trait Theory
Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently challenge this approach. The "strongest" versions of trait theory see these "leadership characteristics" as innate, and accordingly labels some people as "born leaders" due to their psychological makeup. On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves identifying and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential leaders from non-leaders, then training those with potential.
Situational theory
Situational theory appeared as an alternative to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer suggested in 1884 that the times produce the person and not the other way around.[6] This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics. According to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. The situational leadership model of Hersey and Blanchard, for example, suggest four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of followership-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well. Other situational leadership models introduce a variety of situational variables. These determinants include:
The contingency model of Vroom and Yetton uses other situational variables, including:
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorableness (later called "situational control").
In the path-goal model of leadership, developed jointly by Martin Evans and Robert House and based on the "Expectancy Theory of Motivation", a leader has the function of clearing the path toward the goal(s) of the group, by meeting the needs of subordinates.
Leadership and Vision
Many definitions of leadership involve an element of Goal management|vision � except in cases of involuntary leadership and often in cases of traditional leadership. A vision provides direction to the influence process. A leader or group of leaders can have one or more visions of the future to aid them to move a group successfully towards this goal. A vision, for effectiveness, should allegedly:
For leadership to occur, according to this theory, some people "leaders" must communicate the vision to others "followers" in such a way that the followers adopt the vision as their own. Leaders must not just see the vision themselves, they must have the ability to get others to see it also. Numerous techniques aid in this process, including: narratives, metaphors, symbolic actions, leading by example,incentives, and penalty|penalties.
Stacey (1992) has suggested that the emphasis on vision puts an unrealistic burden on the leader. Such emphasis appears to perpetuate the myth that an organization must depend on a single, uncommonly talented individual to decide what to do. Stacey claims that this fosters a culture of dependency and conformity in which followers take no pro-active incentives and do not think independently.
Kanungo's charismatic leadership model describes the role of the vision in three stages that are continuously ongoing, overlapping one another. Assessing the status quo, formulation and articulation of the vision, and implementation of the vision.
Contingency Theory
According to this theory, propounded by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, believes the effectiveness of a leader is dependent on the action or readiness of his followers. By readiness we mean the extent to which the followers are able and willing to achieve the goal.
This theory is explained on the basis of four cases:
Consideration
It is the level up to which a leader is concerned with the sub-ordinates, ideas and feelings. Considerate leaders are friendly, they show concern for sub-ordinates’ well-being and satisfaction.
This theory explains the effectiveness of leadership. According to this theory, leadership has two qualities i.e., initiating structure and consideration. These qualities are tested with higher and lower levels with proper intersection of each other.
Initiating Structure
It is the level up to which a leader is task oriented and directs the employee towards achieving a goal. In this case, the leader gives instruction, makes plan and schedules work activities.
Trait Theory
Trait theory tries to describe the types of behavior and personality tendencies associated with effective leadership. This is probably the first academic theory of leadership. Ronald Heifetz (1994) traces the trait theory approach back to the nineteenth-century tradition of associating the history of society to the history of great men.
Thomas Carlyle can be considered one of the pioneers of the trait theory. In On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic History (1841) he used such approach to identify the talents, skills and physical characteristics of men who arose to power.
Proponents of the trait approach usually list leadership qualities, assuming certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. Shelley Kirkpatrick and Edwin A. Locke (1991) exemplify the trait theory. They argue that "key leader traits include: drive (a broad term which includes achievement, motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership motivation (the desire to lead but not to seek power as an end in itself), honesty, integrity, self-confidence (which is associated with emotional stability), cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business. According to their research, "there is less clear evidence for traits such as charisma, creativity and flexibility".
Criticism to Trait Theory
Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently challenge this approach. The "strongest" versions of trait theory see these "leadership characteristics" as innate, and accordingly labels some people as "born leaders" due to their psychological makeup. On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves identifying and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential leaders from non-leaders, then training those with potential.
Situational theory
Situational theory appeared as an alternative to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer suggested in 1884 that the times produce the person and not the other way around.[6] This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics. According to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. The situational leadership model of Hersey and Blanchard, for example, suggest four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of followership-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well. Other situational leadership models introduce a variety of situational variables. These determinants include:
- the nature of the task (structured or routine)
- organizational policies, climate, and culture
- the preferences of the leader's superiors
- the expectations of peers
- the reciprocal responses of followers
The contingency model of Vroom and Yetton uses other situational variables, including:
- the nature of the problem
- the requirements for accuracy
- the acceptance of an initiative
- time-constraints
- cost constraints
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorableness (later called "situational control").
In the path-goal model of leadership, developed jointly by Martin Evans and Robert House and based on the "Expectancy Theory of Motivation", a leader has the function of clearing the path toward the goal(s) of the group, by meeting the needs of subordinates.
Leadership and Vision
Many definitions of leadership involve an element of Goal management|vision � except in cases of involuntary leadership and often in cases of traditional leadership. A vision provides direction to the influence process. A leader or group of leaders can have one or more visions of the future to aid them to move a group successfully towards this goal. A vision, for effectiveness, should allegedly:
- appear as a simple, yet vibrant, image in the mind of the leader
- describe a future state, credible and preferable to the present state
- act as a bridge between the current state and a future optimum state
- appear desirable enough to energize followers
- succeed in speaking to followers at an emotional or spiritual level (logical appeals by themselves seldom muster a following)
For leadership to occur, according to this theory, some people "leaders" must communicate the vision to others "followers" in such a way that the followers adopt the vision as their own. Leaders must not just see the vision themselves, they must have the ability to get others to see it also. Numerous techniques aid in this process, including: narratives, metaphors, symbolic actions, leading by example,incentives, and penalty|penalties.
Stacey (1992) has suggested that the emphasis on vision puts an unrealistic burden on the leader. Such emphasis appears to perpetuate the myth that an organization must depend on a single, uncommonly talented individual to decide what to do. Stacey claims that this fosters a culture of dependency and conformity in which followers take no pro-active incentives and do not think independently.
Kanungo's charismatic leadership model describes the role of the vision in three stages that are continuously ongoing, overlapping one another. Assessing the status quo, formulation and articulation of the vision, and implementation of the vision.
Contingency Theory
According to this theory, propounded by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, believes the effectiveness of a leader is dependent on the action or readiness of his followers. By readiness we mean the extent to which the followers are able and willing to achieve the goal.
This theory is explained on the basis of four cases:
- Case 1 − In case one, we have high relationship behavior and low task behavior. The leader motivates the followers and helps in decision making. Not much productivity can be seen in this case but the sense of togetherness is high.
- Case 2 − In case two, we have high relationship behavior as well as high task behavior. In this combination, the leader explains the decision and helps to build confidence of the employees. In this case, productivity as well as loyalty towards the leader is more.
- Case 3 − In case three, we have a combination of low relationship behavior and low task behavior. Here we see that the leader delegates the responsibility of decision making to the followers. In this case, there is poor communication as well as poor production.
- Case 4 − Here we deal with a combination of low relationship behavior and high task behavior. The leader gives specific direction and supervises the performance. This theory is effective only if the leaders change their style irrespective of the readiness of the followers.
Consideration
It is the level up to which a leader is concerned with the sub-ordinates, ideas and feelings. Considerate leaders are friendly, they show concern for sub-ordinates’ well-being and satisfaction.
No comments:
Post a Comment