In review this
book, I did not find a simple answer or recipe for leadership. As suspected,
leadership is a part of all us at home, in our business, and our
community. What was extremely beneficial to me was that reading through the
various theories, and case studies, I was able to identify with many of
these examples and situations. It had enriched me with an insight about myself
and those I interact with and will support me in the future as I insert
myself into an educational community. Frequently, after reading a paragraph, I
would relate a particular situation or method to a behavior that I or
someone I know was engaged in while being a leader.
I think it is that very awareness of
both my personal and other people's behaviors that makes leadership possible. I
am the first to admit that learning about all these approaches to leadership do
not automatically make one a good leader, but they give a tremendous insight
and the possibility to become a better one. My own view is that "Leadership is a process to change or create
something from what otherwise would be chaos. It must be highly flexible and demands
awareness, skills, and sensitivity. It is highly dependent on situations.
Leadership is being human." In my view, the combination of the
majority of these approaches and theories is the true leadership theory. They
are all equally eye opening for everyone in the organization and I could see
myself using various styles at specific times and situations within my career.
Management vs. Leadership
There are of course major distinctions
between the concepts of Management and Leadership. This is however another in
depth discussion. For the sake of this summary, they will both be synonymous in
the upcoming sections with the exception of the snippet below. The classical description of
management work comes from Drucker (1973). He has defined five
basic functions of a management job. They are planning, organizing, controlling, motivating and
coordinating. This is the basis for many later role definitions. Leaders have
different roles to accomplish. As discussed leadership theories should be clear
that leadership can be defined in many different ways. As I read about theories
and research on leadership in later sections of the book, I was able to
recognize that the theorists and researchers each had his/her own definitions
of leadership, and that they focus on somewhat different aspects of the job
requirements of a leader. An example of a theory that is not covered in the
upcoming sections, but is worth noting is the decision tree approach. The decision tree approach presented by
Victor Vroom is focused entirely on whether leader chooses to make a
decision on his/her own or if the group should be involved in the decision. In
this approach, you ask a series of yes/no questions and based on the response
to each to each branch, the decision tree takes you to the next question or to
a final decision. The questions of the decision tree involve whether the leader
has the information necessary to make the decision, whether the decision has
quality requirements, whether the followers have the information necessary,
whether they are likely to accept the decision if the leader makes it alone,
and so forth. The process is designed to help the leader make or delegate the
decision which to me seems similar to team leadership discussed later in the
book.
The Trait Approach
This was the first systematic ways
to study leadership in the 20th century. Trait Approach focused on what made
people "great leaders". Identified innate characteristics for the
"Great Man" theories such as for me and apparently Northouse love Lincoln,
Gandhi, etc. Research focused on determining the traits that people are born
with (Bass,1990; Jago,1982). During the Mid 20th century, the theory was
challenged (Stogdill,1948) that "no consistent set of traits differentiated
leaders from non-leaders." An individual who was a leader in one situation
might not have been a leader in another situation. It was re-conceptualized as
a relationship between people as opposed to a set of traits (Stogdill, 1948). So
how does the trait approach work? The
trait approach focuses exclusively on the leader and not the followers. It
suggests that organizations will work better if people in managerial positions
have designated leadership profiles. Selecting the "right" people
will increase organizational effectiveness. It is used for personal awareness and
development. When manager analyze their traits, they gain insight into their
strengths and weaknesses. It allows leaders to get an understanding and take
corrective actions. Some of the strengths
of the trait approach: It
is intuitively appealing. It has a century of research to back it up. By
focusing exclusively on leader it has been able to provide some deeper
understanding on how Leader’s personality is related to leadership process. It
has given some benchmarks for what we need to look for, if we want to be
leaders. Some of the weakness of the trait approach are that the failure to
delimit a definitive list of leadership traits. It has failed to take
situations into account. The approach has resulted in highly subjective
determinations of the "most important" leadership traits. It can also
be criticized for failing to look at traits in relationship to leadership
outcomes. It is not a useful approach for training and development of
leadership. (The reasoning here is that traits are relatively fixed psychological
structures that limits the value of training. On the contrary, we could
challenge this assumption concerning at least some traits changeable.)
The Skills Approach
The
skills approach emphasizes the capabilities of the leader. To me this approach
reminded me of my own issues. As a young leader I want to be more and more
skilled as a leader that I could never be satisfied with myself. The advantage
of this approach is anyone can become an effective leader if they are able to
have set goals and skills and reach them. For me it is similar to the trait approach,
the skills approach takes a leader-centered approach except that it focuses on
the skills and abilities instead of the "Personality" traits which
are usually innate. The original
research came from the "Skills of an effective administrator" Harvard
Business Review published in 1955 by Robert Katz. A multitude of researched was
done in the 1990's by Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs & Fleishman. Katz
identified 3 basic skills based on his observation of executives in the
workplace. Katz emphasized that the skills tell "What leaders can
accomplish" as opposed to trait which emphasized "Who leaders
are". The skills approach theorizes that leaders can be developed and
trained. First, technical skills is having knowledge and being proficient in a
specific type of work or activity. Technical
skills are not important at lower levels of management and less important at
higher levels. This is also the ability to work with things. Second is the human skill, which is the ability to
work with people. Being aware of one's own perspective on issues and at the
same time being aware of others perspectives. Leaders adapt their own ideas
with those of others. Create an atmosphere of trust where employees can feel
comfortable, secure, encouraged to be involved in planning the things that
affect them. These leaders also have the ability to work with ideas and
concepts. They work easily with abstractions and hypothetical situations to
create visions, and strategic plans. Northouse
presents the concept of the schema, but he does not explain it very completely.
Cognitive theorists have constructed the concept of a schema to help explain
how we think, learn, remember, and experience the world. A schema is essentially
a network of ideas surrounding a specific concept. Such concepts could include
mothers, fathers, bosses, African Americans, Hispanics, and even yourself.
Schemata function in a way that
organizes our experiences and allows our information processing to be efficient.
Their affect can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances. For example,
suppose you meet a new person at work. The person is African American. Because
of your schema about African American persons you probably assume that you already
know some things about this person. You might, depending on the nature of your
schema, assume that he or she has rhythm, or basketball-playing skills, or
other characteristics you associate with the concept African American. You may
learn some things about this person that are not congruent with your existing
schema. You may ignore them, forget them or classify this person as a special exception
to the concept. All of these will contribute to maintaining the existing
schema. People have a natural tendency to resist changing our schemata on the
basis of new information. For example, people who are highly prejudiced against
African Americans are likely to be very resistant to change in that schema.
Although a good leader will have a large number of schemata about different
people, his or her schemata are more likely to be flexible and receptive to new
information at least in my perspective.
Style Approach
The Style Approach emphasizes the
behavior of the leader. It focuses on what leaders do and how they act. Researchers
determined that there are two types of behaviors. The central purpose is to
explain how the leaders combine these two kinds of behavior to influence the
subordinates to reach a goal.
- Task behavior: Facilitates goal accomplishment.
- Relationship behavior: Help subordinates feel comfortable with themselves, with other and with the situation.
The
Style Approach is not a refined theory that has organized set of
prescriptions for effective leadership. It provides a framework for assessing
effective leadership. It works by describing to leaders the major components of
their behavior and not by telling them how to behave. It reminds leaders that
their actions towards others are both at the task and relationship levels. In some situations task behavior is more appropriate;
in others relationship is more suitable. Similarly, some subordinates need
leaders who provide a lot of direction. Others need a lot of support and
nurturance. The style approach can be easily applied in organizations.
It provides a mirror for a manager that helps them
understand, how they are performing as a manager. Leadership (Managerial) Grid has been widely used in practice in
the past. Today it is commonly seen as an old-fashioned approach by management
development professionals. Some of the strengths
of the style approach are that it broadened the scope of leadership
research to include the behaviors of leaders and what they do in various
situations. A wide range of studies on leadership style validates and gives
credibility to the basic tenets of this approach. The style approach has
ascertained that a leader’s style is composed of primarily two major types of behavior:
task and relationship. The style approach is heuristic: it provides us a broad
conceptual map that is worth using in our attempts to understand the complexity
of leadership. Some of the weakness of
the style approach is the research on styles
has not adequately shown, how leaders´
styles are associated with performance outcomes (Bryman 1992;
Yukl 1994). It has failed to find a
universal style of leadership that could
be effective in almost every situation. It
implies that the most effective leadership
style is the high task and high
relationship style (Blake and McCanse 1991)
when the research findings provide only
limited support for a universal high-high style (Yukl 1994).
Situational
Approach
This is one of the most widely
recognized and used approaches to me being involved in educational leadership. It was developed by Blanchard and Hersey in
1969, and based on Reddin's 3-D management style theory. It was revised a number of times since
inception, it has been used extensively in organizations for training and
development. The basic premise is that different situations demand different
kinds of leadership. A leader needs to adapt his or her style to the situation.
It is composed of two dimensions:
- Supportive dimension
- Directive dimension
To assess what type of
leadership is needed, a leader must evaluate the employees and assess how
competent and how committed they are to perform a given task. Because employees’
skills and motivation vary over time, the theory suggests that leaders should
change the degree to which they are directive or supportive to meet those
needs. A leader must match their style to the competence and commitment of the
subordinates.
Leadership styles
Directive Style: Assist group
members accomplish a goal through giving directions, establishing goals,
setting timelines, schedules, defining roles. It is a one way communication.
Supportive Style: Help group members
feel comfortable about themselves, their co-workers, and the situation. It
involves two-way communication. Examples include asking for input, problem
solving, praising, and sharing information.
There are four
distinct categories:
S1 -Directing - High Directive, Low
Supportive
·
Leader focuses on goal achievement communication
and less focus on support. Leader gives instructions on how goals are to be
achieved and supervises them carefully
S2 - Coaching - High Directive, High
Supportive
·
Leader focuses on both goal achievement and
supportive communication. Leader gives instructions on how goals are to be
achieved and supervises them carefully. Leader still owns the final decisions.
S3 - Supporting - High supportive, Low
Directive
·
Leader does not focus exclusively on goals, but
uses supportive behavior that brings out the employees skills around the task.
The style includes listening, praising, asking for input, and giving feedback.
It gives the subordinate the decisions making on a day to day basis.
S4 - Delegating - Low supportive, Low
Directive
·
The leader offers less task input and less
social support. They facilitate employees confidence and motivation. They lessen
their involvement in planning, control of details, and goal clarification.
Subordinates take responsibility for getting the job done as they see fit.
The
Situational Approach is centered around the idea that employees move
forward and backward along a development continuum. For leaders to be
effective, they need to diagnose where subordinates are on the continuum and
adapt their style to it. Leaders can begin by asking questions:
·
What is the task that needs to be accomplished?
·
How complicated is the task?
·
Are subordinates sufficiently skilled to do the
task?
·
Do they have the desire to get the task done?
There is a 1-1 relationship between
the Leader styles and the development levels. Because subordinates move back
and forth, it is imperative that leaders adjust their style. Subordinates may
move between levels either quickly or slowly. One of the strengths of the
situational leadership model is that it makes the leader responsible for
helping followers move to higher developmental levels. But leaders must also be
aware that their work situation changes as followers move to higher
developmental levels. In order to continue to be effective, leaders must learn
to modify their own behavior as the situation changes. The situational
leadership model is widely used in training and development of leaders, because
it is easy to conceptualize and also easy to apply.
The straight forward nature of situational leadership makes
it practical for managers to use. It is applicable in virtually any type
of organization, at any level, for almost all types of tasks, so there are a
wide range of applications for it. From a practical point of view it is perhaps
the best leadership model so far. But it is also a product of its own time, 1960´and
1970´s, in which leadership is perceived as being a one-to-one relationship.
Some of the strengths of the Situational Approach are that it is well known and
frequently used; it has stood the test in the marketplace 400/500 fortune 500
companies. The Situational Approach is also intuitively simple. It is very
practical, but still based on sound theories. It is prescriptive: it tells you
what to do and not to do in various contexts. It emphasizes the concept of
leader flexibility. It reminds us to treat
each subordinate differently based on the
task at hand and to seek opportunities to develop
subordinates.
The weaknesses of the Situational
Approach are that there are very few research studies conducted to justify
the basic assumptions behind this approach. Does it really improve performance?
The concept of the subordinates´ readiness
or development level is rather ambiguous
(Graeff 1997; Yukl 1998). Also how the commitment is conceptualized is
criticized (Graeff 1997). The match of the leader style and the followers´
readiness level is also questioned. Two
studies conducted (300 high school teachers, University employees). Performance
of mature teachers was unrelated to the style exhibited by principles. Situational
Approach does not address demographic variations, education, experience, age,
and gender. Studies conducted by Vecchio & Boatwright in 2002 showed that
levels of education were inversely related to the directive style and not
related to the supportive style. Age was positively related to the desire for
structure. Female employees expressed desire for more supportive style.
It does not fully address the issue
of one-to-one versus group leadership in
an organizational setting. Example: Would 20 employees match their style
to each individual or to the overall development level of the group? The
leadership questionnaires that accompany the model have also been criticized.
They are bias because the answers have been predetermined.
The Contingency Theory
The Contingency Theory is concerned with styles and the situations.
Many approaches can be called contingency, but the most widely recognized is
Fiedler's model his is from the University of Illinois and developed the model
shown in the book. This is a leader-match theory which tries to match the right
leader for the situation. The approach was developed by studying the styles of
many different leaders who worked in different contexts, primarily military. Hundreds
of leaders were analyzed who were good and bad at their approach. The interesting
part of this chapter was the tool to analyze the leadership, LPC (Least Preferred
Coworker) it was developed to measure the leaders styles. Leaders who score
high or low are task motivated. The LPC is closely related to the
"Semantic differential scales" (The measurement of meaning, book).
Fiedler thought that how a leader feels about people he/she works with might be
a good indicator of whether he/she would be effective in dealing with them. In
his earliest work Fiedler actually used two scales. He asked his respondents to
describe both his/her least preferred coworker and his/her most preferred
coworker. Fiedler then calculated the difference between the evaluation of the
most preferred coworker and that of the least preferred coworker. He chose to call
the resulting score the Assumed Similarity of Opposites (ASO) score. Fiedler
later discovered that there was very little variation in the way the most
preferred coworker was described by most people. On the other hand, the
evaluations of least preferred coworkers varied quite widely. As a result, the
only thing that was contributing to the results was the least preferred
coworker score.
Leader Styles
- Task motivated: concerned with reaching a goal
- Relationship motivated: concerned with developing close relationships.
Situational Variables
a.
Leader member relations concerned itself with the group
atmosphere and degree of confidence, loyalty and attraction that followers feel
about their leader.
b.
Task Structure is focused on the degree to which the
requirements of a task are clear and well defined.
c. Position
Power the amount of authority a leader has to reward or punish employees.
These three situational factors
determine the favorableness of the situations. The most favorable situations
are defined by having a good leader-follower relation, defined tasks, and
strong leader position power. The least favorable situations are defined
by having a poor leader-follower relation, unstructured tasks, and weak leader
position power. The theory focuses of certain styles be more effective in
certain situations. Task motivated individuals are more effective in very
favorable and very unfavorable situations. Relationship motivated individuals
are more effective in moderately favorable situations. The Contingency Theory works by measuring
the LPC score and the three variables, one can predict whether a leader will be
effective in a particular situation. Once the nature of situation is
determined, the fit between the leader and the situation can be evaluated. Leaders
will not be effective in all situations which mean that the leader must be able
to learn from those failures and grow to handle those situations next time. Contingency
theory represents a major shift in
leadership research from focusing only on
the leader to considering the situational context. The lesson to me here
is that it has been to emphasize the importance of matching a
leader’s style with the demands of a situation and wider context.
In everyday life I have noticed that some principals, who may be
extremely successful in one school, can fail in another school with a different
culture, values and way of operation. The contingency theory has many
applications in the real world to me. It can explain for example why an
individual is effective or ineffective in a certain situation based on the
various variables. It can also predict whether an individual was effective in a
certain position can be effective in another. Some of the strengths of the contingency theory is the
approach that it is supported by a great deal of empirical research,
which if I had more time I might incorporate with me research. It has forced us
as researchers to consider the impact of situations on leaders. It is
predictive and provides useful information regarding the type of leadership
that will most likely be effective in certain contexts. It is
realistic in saying that leaders should
not expect to be able to lead
effectively in every situation. It provides data on leaders´ styles
that could be useful to organizations in developing leadership profiles. Some
of the weakness of the contingency theory,
it fails to explain fully, why individuals with certain leadership
styles are more effective in some situations than in others. Fiedler calls this
a "Black Box". The theory explains that the low LPCs are effective in
extreme situations is that they feel more certain where they have control. The
leadership scale, which the model uses, is often criticized. It does not seem
valid on the surface. I would think it is difficult to apply in practice. It
requires analyzing the leader style and three relatively complex situational
variables. It fails to explain adequately what organizations should do when
there is a mismatch between the leader and the situation in the workplace.
Contingency theory has passed the test of research. It
literally grew out of research relating leadership style with follower
productivity. The contingency model is reproduced in every organizational and
industrial psychology textbook, but has made very little impact on the leadership
training of business organizations. The problem seems to be with the basic idea
of how much leaders can change their behavior. Contingency theory seems to
argue that leaders can not really change. They are effective or ineffective
depending on the situation they are in and whether it matches their own nature.
The truth of the matter is likely somewhere in between. Leaders may be able to
make some changes in their behavior, but these changes will be difficult, and require
considerable training and effort. It is also likely that organizations could
benefit substantially from devoting more attention to matching the styles of
their leaders to the demands of the situation and moving leaders around to
enhance the match.
Path-Goal Theory
Path-goal theory was designed to help leaders understand
the various things that may prevent a worker from believing the goal can be
reached. The leader's behavior is designed to help workers believe they can
perform well and that performance will yield many valued rewards. This theory
is about how leaders motivate subordinates to accomplish goals. It focuses on
enhancing employees’ performance by focusing on employees’ motivation. The
path-goal theory emphasis the relationship between the leader's style and the
characteristics of the subordinates and finally the work setting or environment.
Based on the expectancy theory, the path-goal theory, assumes that subordinates
will be motivated if they think they are capable of performing their work if
they believe their efforts will result in a certain outcome payoffs for their
work are worthwhile. Effective leadership will select the style that meets the subordinate’s
needs then choose a behavior that supplement or complement what is missing in
the work setting. Leader’s information or rewards to subordinates to enhance
goal attainment (Indvik, 1986). Leadership motivates when it makes the path to
the goal clear, easy to reach, provide coaching, removes obstacles, and make
the work itself personally satisfying (House & Mitchell, 1974). When
leaders select the proper style, they increase the subordinate’s chance for
success and satisfaction.
I find path-goal theory is complex. There are four
behaviors, but the theory is left open for inclusion of additional behaviors “I
think”. The following 4 behaviors were examined
·
Directive-
which seems similar to "Initiating Structure" or "Telling"
style in situational leadership. A leader who gives instructions about a task,
how is it done, expectations, and a timeline.
·
Supportive-
which resembles "Consideration Behavior". I assume being friendly and
approachable as a leader, attending to the well being and human needs of
subordinates. Supportive leaders go out of their way to make work pleasant for
employees, treat them as equal.
·
Participative-Refers
to leaders who invite subordinates to share in decision making.
·
Achievement-Oriented-
Characterized by a leader who challenges subordinates to perform work at
the highest level possible. This establishes a higher standard of excellence
and seeks continuous improvement. These leaders show a high degree of
confidence that subordinates are capable of accomplishing the work.
The
path-goal theory works but is complex, and seems to be pragmatic. It
provides a set of assumptions about how leadership styles will interact with
characteristics of subordinates and tasks and how it affects motivation. The
theory provides direction about how leaders can help subordinates to accomplish
tasks. For tasks that are structured, unsatisfying, and frustrating, the theory
suggests the supportive style. The theory suggests that the directive style is
best for the tasks that are ambiguous, unclear organizational rules, dogmatic,
and authoritarian employees. Participative leadership is also suggested for
ambiguous tasks because it brings clarity. Achievement oriented leadership is
most effective in settings where subordinates are required to perform ambiguous
tasks. Although the path-goal theory is not
applied in many management training programs,
it brings many interesting perspectives to leadership thinking. It was
one of the first theories to specify four conceptually distinct varieties of
leadership; not only task-oriented and relationship oriented leadership.
It was also one of the first
theories to explain how task and
subordinate characteristics affect the impact of leadership on subordinate
performance. Some of the strengths of
this approach are that it provides a useful theoretical framework for
understanding how various leadership behaviors affect the satisfaction of the
subordinates and their performance. It attempts to integrate the motivation
principles of the expectancy theory into a theory of leadership. It is the only
theory that deals with motivation. It provides a model that in a certain way is
very practical. There are also a few weaknesses
to this approach as I reviewed it is quite complex as I mentioned before
and tries to incorporate many different aspects of leadership that make it a
little confusing. It has received only partial support from the many empirical
studies. It fails to explain adequately the relationship between leadership
behavior and worker motivation. The approach treats leadership as a one-way
event such as here the leader affects the subordinate. It places a great deal
of responsibility on the leader and less on the subordinates which can make
them too dependent on the leader.
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory
Leader-Member
Exchange Theory while most theories have emphasized the point of view of
the leader, the LMX theory conceptualizes leadership as a process that is
centered on the interaction
between leaders and followers. LMX theory makes a dyadic relationship between leaders and followers as the focal
point of the process. Prior to LMX, researchers treated leadership as something
leaders did towards followers and assumed leaders treated followers in
a collective way as a group using an average leadership style.
Subordinates become either part of the in-group or the out-group based on how
well they work with the leader and how the leader works with them. Personality
and other characteristics are related to this process. Becoming part of the
in-groups involves subordinates negotiating with the leader about what
they are willing to do to become part of the group. The activities involve
going beyond their formal job descriptions and the leader in turn does more for
these subordinates. Subordinates that are not interested in taking different
job responsibilities become part of the out-group. The LMX theory works holistically,
it is a very interesting approach to the leadership process, and it offers us a
lot of ideas to understand better the relationship between a leader and a
follower. Although, this theory has not been packaged to be used in training
and development, it offers insight that managers can use to improve their
leadership behavior. The theory tells us to be fair to all employees, and to be
sensitive. It works in two ways by first describing leadership with highlights the importance of recognizing
the existence of in-groups and out-groups. The differences on how goals are
accomplished using the in-groups or out-groups are substantial in-group
members do more that job description requires and look for innovative
ways to advance the group. In response, leaders give them more responsibilities
and more opportunities. Leaders also give them more time and support out-group
members operate strictly within their prescribed organizational roles. They do
what is required of them, but nothing more. Leaders treat them fairly and
according to the formal contract, but do not give them special attention.
Some of the strengths of the LMX theory are strong descriptive theory that
makes intuitively sense. We may not like it because it is unfair, but it is a
reality that the theory describes. It is the only leadership theory that makes
the concept of the dyadic relationship the centerpiece of the leadership
process. It directs our attention to the importance of communication in
leadership. There is also a large body of research that substantiates how the
practice of the LMX theory is related to positive organizational outcomes. It
is related to performance, organizational commitment, job climate, innovation,
organizational citizenship behavior, empowerment, procedural, distributive
justice, and career progress. The LMX theory does have its weaknesses on the surface it runs
counter to the basic human value of fairness. The existence of in-groups and
out-groups may have undesirable effects on the group as a whole. Our culture
repels the discrimination of age, gender, etc and this theory awakens the discrimination
factors. The basic ideas of the theory have not been fully developed. It
does not explain how the high-quality leader-member exchanges are created. It
mentioned that personality compatibilities are crucial to these high-quality
exchanges, but never went in depth about the details.
Transformational
Leadership
Transformational leadership
accomplishes this by changeling and transforming individuals' emotions, values,
ethics, standards, and long-term goals through the process of charismatic and
visionary leadership (Northouse, 2007). The term Transformational Leadership was first coined by Downton (1973),
however, its emergence did not really come about until James Burn's classic, Leadership (1978) was published. Burn
noted that the majority of leadership models and practices were based on
transactional processes that focused on exchanges between the leader and
follow, such as promotions for excellent work or punishment for being late. On
the other hand, transactional leaders engage with their followers to create a
connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in not only the
followers, but also the leaders themselves. Bass wrote how transformational
Leadership inspired the followers to do more by:
- Raising their levels of consciousness of the organizational goals
- Rise above their own self-interest for the sake of the organization
- Address higher level needs
While
charisma of the leader is necessary for the followers to achieve the above
needs, other conditions are also necessary, such as other motivational forces,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Since this is a
continuum, the degree of separation between transformational and transactional
leadership often falls in the gray, in addition, leaders will often operate out
of all three modes (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) rather
than sticking with one. For example, House (1976) identified these
characteristics of a charismatic leader (charisma is one of the main
identifiers of a transformational leader):
- Strong role model
- Shows competence
- Articulates goals
- Communicates high expect ions
- Expresses confidence
- Arouses motives
One
leader that comes to mind that has all the high marks of these characteristics
is the late Steve Jobs of Apple computers. Thus, while he sits on one part of
the continuum as a transformational leader, he would use the corrective
transactions of a transactional leader, such as severe criticism (punishment)
when a designer did not meet his expectation. Another example is a
transactional leader who places certain followers in a laissez-faire style
environment because they know more than him and are able to do a better job without
his direct involvement.
Servant Leadership
Servant
Leadership is a method of development
for leaders
originally advanced by authors
Peter Block and Robert Greenleaf. Servant leadership stresses the importance of
the role a
leader plays as the steward of
the resources
of a business
or other organization,
and teaches leaders to serve others while still achieving the goals set
forth by the business. The leadership philosophy in which an individual
interacts with others - either in a management or fellow employee capacity - with
the aim of achieving authority rather than power. The authority figure intends
to promote the well-being of those around him/her. Servant leadership
involves the individual demonstrating the characteristics of empathy,
listening, stewardship and commitment to personal growth toward others. Servant
leadership seeks to move management and personnel interaction away from
"controlling activities" and toward a more synergistic relationship
between parties. The term "servant leadership" was coined by Robert Greenleaf,
a twentieth century researcher who was skeptical about traditional leadership
styles that focused on more authoritarian relationships between employers and
employees.
Servant leadership also has paternalistic overtones as it suggests doing
things for employees rather than helping them to think for themselves. Treating
employees as partners is more respectful and valuing. Serving people's needs
creates the image of being slavish or subservient, not a very positive image.
In addition, leaders need to serve the needs of shareholders ahead of those of
employees.
Managers can "serve" the needs of subordinates, yes, as a way
of motivating them, but this is managerial motivation, not leadership, not as
defined here anyway. However, even with managers, I think the word
"serve" is just too strong. Good managers may put the needs of
employees ahead of their own but they can't put them ahead of customers or the
organization if they want to keep their jobs. I think it is more accurate to
say that managers "consider" the needs of employees, nurture them and
treat them with respect. But even if you want to call this "serving"
them, it still is just good management, not leadership. In summary, it may be
that our feeling that there are servant leaders is due to our inability to
separate leadership and management effectively.
Authentic
Leadership
Leadership
is a subset of action. But not all action is authentic leadership. Leadership
is authentic action, a unique
and honorific mode of engagement in life. In this chapter I will define authenticity and explore its
particular relevance for our times. Once I have linked action and authenticity,
subsequent chapters will set the stage for a seventh view of leadership that
will make this theory of leadership truly comprehensive. For leaders to be
successful in leading people and companies, they need to be vulnerable, honest,
and trustworthy. They should not try to imitate others. They need to be
themselves and stick to their core values at all times. That is the key to real
success. Authentic leadership is about being true to the self, acting with
passion and integrity, having respect and love for others, and not following
the crowd but inspiring the crowd to move toward achieving a great vision with
hope and faith.
The
Team Leadership Theory
The Team Leadership theory is an approach that has become one of
the most popular and rapidly growing areas of leadership today. Teams are
organizational groups who are interdependent, share common goals, and must
coordinate activities to reach their goals. The model attempts to integrate
what we know about teams, leadership and effectiveness and to provide specific
actions (Mental roadmap) that leaders can perform to improve team work.
Effective team leaders need a wide
repertoire of competencies, which can be
different than traditional leaders need. Team
leaders and members could use the model to
support decision-making about the current state of the team and to consider
what specific actions they need to take to improve the
team´s functioning.
There
are three sets of skills that a leader needs to implement:
1. Internal task leadership functions (this is
to improve Task Performance)
1.
Goal focusing (clarifying, gaining agreement)
2.
Structuring for results (Planning, organizing,
clarifying roles, delegating)
3.
Facilitating decision making (informing,
controlling, coordinating, mediating, synthesizing, issue focusing)
4.
Training team members in task skills (Educating,
Developing)
5.
Maintaining standards of excellence (Assuming
team and individual performance, confronting inadequate performance)
2. Internal relationship leadership functions
(this is to improve Team Relationship)
1.
Coaching team members in interpersonal skills.
2.
Collaborating (including, involving).
3.
Managing conflicts and power issues (Avoiding
confrontation, questioning ideas).
4.
Building commitment and esprit de corps (being
optimistic, innovating, envisioning, socializing, rewarding, and recognizing).
5.
Satisfying individual member needs (trusting,
supporting, advocating).
6.
Modeling ethical and principled practices (fair,
consistent, normative).
3. External environmental Leadership functions
(This is to improve environmental interface with the team) - Teams do not exist
in a vacuum.
1.
Networking and forming alliances in environment
(gather information, increase influence).
2.
Advocating and representing team to environment.
3.
Negotiating upward to secure necessary
resources, support, and recognition for the team.
4.
Buffering the team member from environmental
distractions.
5.
Assessing environmental indicators of team's
effectiveness (surveys, evaluations, performance indicators).
6.
Sharing relevant environmental information with
team.
The organizational team structure is
one way organizations today can respond to adapt to the rapidly changing
workplace conditions (new technology, global economy, economic competition, and
increasing diversity). Current research I focused on practical problems and how
to make teams more effective in student support services. Effective team
leadership is the primary ingredient of team success (Zaccaro, Ritman, &
Marks, 2001). Ineffective leadership is the primary reasons why teams fail to
develop, yield improvement, and quality.
The
organizational structure of excellent companies has
changed from a functional and matrix organization
into a process and team organization. Teams are important performance and learning
units in organizations today. Team work
should enable the company to offer
better customer service, improve the efficiency of
internal processes and improve the motivation of personnel.
It should be remembered that a team is a means of
operation, not a goal itself; it should always be
evaluated, if team work is the best way to achieve the objective.
Moving over to team work is a lengthy development process
itself, which needs a lot of training. A working group needs time to
develop through different phases of being a pseudo-team, potential team and
real team (Katzenbach & Smith 1994, 84). Nevertheless, the use of
organizational teams has been found to lead to greater productivity, more effective
use of resources, better decisions and problem solving, better quality
product and services and increased innovation and creativity (Parker 1990).
The
team leadership and the team leadership model do not compose a theory that
makes predictions and is tested by research. This discussion is more of an
attempt to highlight the special problems and difficulties that exist in the
leadership of teams. It identifies places to look when problems arise in
working with a team and gives a new team leader some guidelines as to how she
or he could analyze and approach the task at hand. Leaders can reduce the
effectiveness of their team when they are unwilling to confront inadequate
performance, when they dilute the team's ability to perform by having too many
priorities, and by overwhelming the positive aspects of team performance.
Effective leaders perform the following behaviors:
1. Keeps
the team focused on the goal
2. Maintains
a collaborative climate
3. Builds
confidence among members
4. Demonstrates
technical competence
5. Set
priorities
6. Manages
performance
Team
Leadership theory works by having leaders use this model to help them
make decisions about the current state of their teams and realize what actions
they need to take to improve the team's functioning in order to achieve
effectiveness. The model provides the leader with a cognitive map to identify
group needs. The model helps the leader make sense of the complexity of groups
and offer practical suggestions. The model helps the leader understand whether
they need to monitor or take actions. This models strengths are being focuses on real life organizational work teams
and the leadership needed therein. This has not been the focus of other approaches.
It provides a practical model that helps leaders to design and maintain
effective teams especially when performance is below standards. It takes into
account the changing role of leaders and followers in organizations. It can
help selecting team leaders by clarifying the competencies which an effective
team leader will need. It can help in the process of selecting team leaders. Some of the weaknesses of this model are
that it is a new approach, and it is not completely supported or tested by
research. Although the theory takes into account the complexity of teas, it is
complex in and of itself. It does not offer on the spot answers for specific
situations.
Psychodynamic Approach
Psychodynamic Approach brings together several different attempts
to apply psychoanalytic theories to social relationships, including leadership.
This approach consists of bits and pieces borrowed from a number of scholars
and practitioners. The psychodynamic
approach to leadership developed from the methods dealing with
emotionally disturbed individuals and from
psychological theories of personality
development. The psychodynamic approach to
leadership has its roots in Sigmund
Freud´s (1938) development of psychoanalysis.
Carl Jung, one of Freud´s well-known
disciples, developed his own body of psychology,
which is well accepted even today,
whereas classical psychoanalysis has found less acceptance
in recent years (Bennet 1983). Maslow (1962, 1971) and Rogers
(1961) could maybe be mentioned here as humanistic psychologists to
represent the psychological theory of personality development.
A leading proponent to psychodynamic
approach has been Abraham Zalenick (1977). At the
moment the most well-known expert in this area is certainly Manfred Kets de
Vries (2001). One branch of psychodynamic theory is called psychohistory, which
attempts to explain the behavior of famous historical figures (see eg. Kets de
Vries 1999). The psychodynamic
approach places emphasis on leaders
obtaining insight into their personality characteristics
and understanding the responses of
subordinates, based on their personalities. Leaders
should also encourage work group members to gain insight into their own
personalities so that they could understand their
reactions to the leader and each
other. Important concepts in psychodynamic approach to
leadership include e.g. the family of origin, individuation, dependence
and independence, regression and the shadow self. These concepts come
from psychoanalysis and psychiatry and can sometimes be abstruse and not easily
understood. That is the reason that there has been an attempt to make
psychodynamic theory more accessible. This approach makes no assumptions
about personality characteristics or styles. It emphasizes that a leader should
have an insight into his or her emotional responses and habitual patters of
behavior. An authoritarian leader, as an example, can be effective if she
understands that her own behaviors arise from influences in the past. It is
also better if the leader also has an understanding how their behaviors result
in different responses. An important assumption is that the personality
characteristics of individuals are deeply ingrained and virtually impossible to
change. The key is acceptance of one's own personality feature and quirks
and the understanding and acceptance of features and quirks of others.
The Transformational theory works because it is a lifelong
endeavor. A self assessment by Pearson helps the individual determine which
archetype pre-dominates their life at the moment. The basic principle is that a
leader who understands their style is more effective. Even more important
however, if the leader understands where their style came from (their origins).
The psychodynamic approach brings an
important aspect to leadership by emphasizing
our past experiences, unconsciousness, feelings,
self-understanding and personality types. The approach
works because people become aware of each other types and thus the differences
are brought into the open where people can discuss them. Some of the strengths of this approach are to emphasize
the relationship between the leader and the follower, a transaction between these
two persons. It results in an analysis of the relationship between them.
It emphasizes also the need for personal insight on the part of the leader and
also the follower. It discourages manipulative techniques of leadership.
Effective leadership is based on self understanding and empathy. Some of the weaknesses of this approach are based
on clinical observations and treatment of persons with serious difficulties. It
does not take into account organizational factors. It does not lend itself to
training in any conventional sense.
Women and Leadership
Women and Leadership of course gender refers to way in which
meaning and evaluations are associated with sex by members of a culture. The
degree with which Males and Females are expected to behave differently, treated
differently, and are valued differently has little to do with sex (biology) and
everything to do with gender (learned beliefs). Learned beliefs can easily be
misleading when there are only two categories in a set (female/male or
masculine/feminine). There are three cognitive distortions with bi-polar
categories. People's thinking becomes simplified because of the belief that
everyone must fit into a specific category. The categories also seem to imply
that everyone within a category is identical. Many people erroneously tend to
value one category as more superior than the other. Although many executives
and managers refer to believe that organizations are objective about merit and
gender neutral, the data from research shows that most work places use gender
as the basis for many decisions (Hale, 1996). Ongoing research has indicated
continued dilemmas for women leaders who seek to balance work demands with
personal life (Ensher, Murphy, Sullivan, 2002)
The application
of this section has three benefits:
·
Can help organizations that have experienced
difficulties in retaining women.
·
It can inform women of what they need to do to
develop as leaders.
·
It can inform men of the subtle patterns enacted
everyday in the work place that impedes
progress.
When this type of leader works
together to solve a problem under time pressure, males are pretty good at
suspending concern for feelings and focusing on the task. Females on the average
are less willing or able to do that. There is a general belief that women are
more likely than men to adopt a participative or democratic style of
leadership. Women seem to prefer working in cooperative situations rather than
competitive ones. Some of the strengths
to the women in leadership shown through research on gender dynamics
have made a roader impact on leadership. Improvements in the work places and in
society occur only when unconscious patterns and beliefs are uncovered and
recognized. Considering the sex of leaders and employees can yield insights
within the major theoretical traditions. There are many examples of this
discussed in the various theories about situations and
acceptable/non-acceptable behaviors. Also reviewing the weaknesses of this leadership approach
has the disadvantage of focusing on the individual's sex can become the
only or the primary attribute identifying them rather than one of the many
attributes. A serious issue in the research on sex and gender is the assumption
that members of each category are identical in race, sexual orientation, age,
etc. In fact most of the respondents to the surveys were European American
Women. Finally, very little research has been published on the theoretical
foundations of leadership ethics.
Ethical Leadership Theories
Ethical leadership theories fall
into two categories:
a. Leader's
conduct (Their actions)
Consequences
(Theological theories) - Focus on what is right and what is wrong.
1. Ethical Egoism - An individual
should act to create the greatest good for themselves. A leaders should take a
career that they would selfishly enjoy (Avolio & Locke, 2002). This is
closely related to transactional leadership theories. For example, a
middle-level manager who wants their team to be the best in the company is
acting out of ethical egoism.
2. Utilitarianism - We should act to
create he greatest good for the greatest number. Maximize the social benefits
while minimizing the social costs (Shumann, 2001). Example: when the US
government allocates a large portion of the federal budget to the health care
instead of catastrophic illness, it is acting out of the utilitarian ethics.
3.
Altruism
- This is the opposite of Ethical Egoism and is concerned with showing
the best interest for others even when it runs contrary to self-interest.
Authentic transformational leadership is based on altruistic behavior (Bass,
Steidlmeier, 1999).
Duty (Deontological
Theories)
§ This
is telling the truth, keeping promises, being fair, independent of the
consequences.
§ Actions
should not infringe on others' rights and should not further the moral rights
of others.
b. Leader's
character (Who they are)
Virtue-based theories
-
1. These
are not innate, but can be acquired.
2. They
are rooted in heart of the individual and in their disposition.
3. It
focuses on telling people "what to be" as opposed of "what
to do"
4. Examples
include courage, temperance, generosity, self-control, honesty, sociability,
modesty, fairness, and justice.
5. This
theory is about being and becoming a worthy human being.
Centrality
of ethics to leadership is influenced dimension of a leader requires
that they have an impact on the lives of those they lead. To make a change in
other people carries with it an enormous amount of ethical burden and
responsibility. Leaders have an ethical responsibility to treat followers with
dignity, respect, as a human being with unique identities. The "respect
for people" demands that a leader be sensitive to follower's own
interests, needs, and conscientious concerns. Leaders play an important role in
establishing the ethical climate of their organizations.
Heifetz's
Perspective on Ethical leadership
- His approach emphasizes how leaders help followers confront conflict and effect changes from conflict. It is about helping followers deal with conflicting values that emerge in rapidly changing work environments and social cultures.
Burns's
Perspective on Ethical leadership
o
It is the responsibility of the leader to help
followers assess their own values and needs in order to raise them to a higher
level of functioning, to a level that will stress values such a liberty, justice,
and equality.
Greenleaf's
Perspective on Ethical leadership
o
A servant leader focuses on the needs of the
followers and helps them become more knowledgeable, freer, and more autonomous
and more like servants themselves. Servant leader has a social responsibility
to be concerned with the have-nots and to recognize them as equal stakeholders
in the organization.
Northouse has listed five principles
of ethical leadership. Actually the origins of these can be traced back to
Aristotle. These principles provide a foundation for the development of
sound ethical leadership. According to these principles ethical leaders respect
others, serve others, are just, are honest and build community. To
be an ethical leader, we must be sensitive to the
needs of others, treat others in ways that are just and care for others. Maybe
the most important thing is to realize that leadership involves values; one
cannot be a leader without being aware of and concerned about one’s own values.
We can say also that rather than telling people what to do, we should tell
them what to be and help them to become more virtuous.
When practiced
over time good values become habitual and a part of the persons themselves.
The ethics leadership presents many
strengths it provides some
direction in how to think about ethical leadership and how to practice it. It
reminds us that leadership is a moral process. Other than the transformational
theory of Burns, no other theory considered or highlighted ethics. It describes
some basic principles that we can use in developing real-world ethical leadership.
The ethics leadership also has components of weaknesses because it is still in an early stage of
development. It lacks a strong body of traditional research. This area of
research relies on the writing of a few individuals, whose work has been
primarily descriptive and anecdotal.
In summary, with all of these
approaches and styles we must not forget that leadership on purpose is
about helping a team or a school community in my case to deliver a product
and/or service hitched to its vision and mission. It is not about the
leader’s history, degrees, or even great speeches. These approaches show that
it is merely inputs and outputs. What matters is that people come
together and accomplish something. Leaders should not be put on pedestals or
idolized. If these are drivers for an up and coming leader, it ceases to be
about people and becomes leader arrogance.
For me it is time to demand more
from myself. Arrogant leadership has become common in schools and I am
sure other organizations. Idolized leaders that I have worked with are
too frequent and overly celebrated. I need the opportunity and then get
down to the leadership business of enabling people to apply their talents to a
problem, project, possibility, and future. I believe that is the focus of leadership by creating a
space to let people apply their talents. Our
gifts as a leader are not stagnant. Gifts we do not have today will emerge as we
transform our leadership. How you stay in touch with the evolution of our gifts
is up to each and every one of us. It is, however, a vital leadership act as I
review these approaches. Our gifts are our talents that ooze out of us.
People see them when we use them sometimes on purpose and other times it comes
innately. These gifts can move people to change, emotion, and action.
They can inspire people to create a growing and positive environment. Bottom
line we need leaders to know what their gifts are, what they are becoming, and
what they are not. It is a calling that we need to share them and use
them.
Reference:
Bass (1985). Leadership and Performance
Beyond Expectations, New York, New York: Free Press.Burns, J. M, (1978). Leadership, New York, New York: Harper and Row.
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process, New York, New York: The Free Press.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading
Change, 8-Step Change Model, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Northhouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
