The Past And Present Of Leadership Theory Management Essay

Harmonizing to Mosley, Pietri and megginson ( 1996 ) leading is defined as, the procedure of act uponing the person and group activities towards goal-setting and end accomplishment. Whereas Bryman ( 1986 ) gives a somewhat different definition of leading, he defines leading, “ is the creative activity of vision about coveted hereafter province which seeks to ensnarl all members of an organisation in its cyberspace. ” ( Ellis and Dick, 2003 ) But whatever one may specify, it wo n’t be incorrect to state that leader are those who manages, motivates and command the activities of the administration and plays a large function in making the civilization of the administration and the alterations taking topographic point or alterations made by him in administration. Leaderships are considered to be dominant one. Whenever we talk about leaders we refer to work forces ( Great Man Theory ) . “ Great adult male theory argues that the destiny of societies and administrations is in the custodies of powerful, idiosyncratic ( male ) persons ” . ( Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004 ) But now non all trait and properties can be referred to as of male. The feminine manner of attack is used and encouraged in most state of affairs of the administration. So the leading can non be merely confined to gender based any longer. Same manner it will be difficult to state there is any one best manner of leading. Leaderships are the focal point of every administration. They are tendency compositors in the administration and their influence on the follower and the civilization of the administration is huge, but it ‘s capable to successful leaders merely. So for administration to be successful and for leaders to maintain their staff motivated it ‘s of import for leaders to follow leading manner that best suits the employees, civilization and state of affairs. Can at that place be any one best manner of leading?

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!


order now

Past and Present of Leadership Theory

The survey of leading has identified different classs in the twentieth century. Leadership is typically defined by the traits, qualities, and behaviours of a leader. Leadership was considered to be an congenital trait ; in the yesteryear when research workers talked about leading they referred to certain internal quality possessed by an person to be a leader. The first trait theories dealt with the properties of the leaders. ( Bernard, 1926 ) After the trait theories comes the behavioural theories in which leaders were studied in context to organisation. The behaviour ‘s leaders used to increase the competence of the organisation. ( Haplin and Winer, 1957 ; Hemphill and Coons, 1957 cited in Horner, 1997 )

The two most celebrated surveies, the Ohio State and Michigan leading surveies took the behavioural attack. Based on the behavioural attack two factors were identified by the survey: consideration and induction of construction. The impact of this work was that leading was non needfully an congenital trait, but alternatively effectual leading methods could be taught to employees. ( Saal and Knight, 1988 cited in Horner, 1997 ) The survey helped in dividing the different behaviours between leaders and followings so behaviours can be taught to leaders. Harmonizing to this survey two attacks leaders use: Consideration ( employee orientation ) – Leaderships are worried about human the human demands and create squads and seek to assist work out employee ‘s jobs. Structure ( task orientation ) – the position point of leaders in this attack is to maintain employees busy and forcing them to bring forth.

Blake and Mouton ( 1964 ) based on the Ohio State and Michigan surveies developed two-factor grid theoretical account. The factors were called “ concern for people ” and “ concern for end product ” . Harmonizing to this theoretical account the behaviour of leaders falls under undertaking and people. Blake and Mouton ( 1964 ) theory helped to separate the behaviour of the leaders and categorized them harmonizing to their behaviour.

Behavioral theories followed after trait theories and now the most recent one is the eventuality theories which research workers identify as there is no 1 best manner of leading. Leadership manner alterations harmonizing to the state of affairs. To reply the inquiry about the no 1 best manner to take dealt with the interaction between the leader ‘s traits, the leader ‘s behaviours, and the state of affairs in which the leader exists. ( Saal and Knight, 1988 cited in Horner, 1997 )

There have been many eventualities theory, but it is unrealistic to presume that any one theory is more or less valid or utile than another. ( Honer, 1997 )

Style of Leadership

The different manner of Leadership was identified by Kurt Lewin ‘s ( 1939 ) in his research. He with other group of research workers identified three manner of leading

Autocratic Leadership

Democratic Leadership

Lassiez-Faire Leadership

Autocratic leading manner is more of an autocratic manner of direction. It involves stamping around stating what to make and how to make it. This manner should merely been used when it ‘s needed as this manner of attack is considered to be unprofessional. This manner works best when the leaders have all the information and knows how to work out the job and is short on clip.

Democratic leading manner is more of a participative manner which involves treatment and sentiments of the employees in determination doing a two manner flow of information unlike bossy manner. This manner of leading make employee ‘s portion of the squad, this manner is best used when some information is known by the leader and other information is known by employees, so sharing and discoursing of information will assist better the determination devising every bit good as maintain the staff motivated at the same clip. Leadership manner affects employee occupation satisfaction. It is non necessary that democratic direction manner will ever be a good manner of direction. Organizational civilization and adulthood influences directors to choose for the best leading manner depending on factors. Mosadeghrad, 2006 )

Lassiez-Faire leading manner is more of deputing undertaking to subsidiaries to make work. It involves actuating employees on footing of authorising them with determination doing power. This manner is best used when employees have more cognition about the certain undertaking in comparing to the foreman. A leader can non make everything he needs to larn how to depute undertaking to his subsidiaries. But the how much the grade of clasp should be at that place in this manner of leading is questionable.

Factors that affect Leadership Style

A good leader uses all manners of leading, depending on what factors are involved between the followings, the leader, communicating and the state of affairs.

hypertext transfer protocol: //www.skagit.com/ % 7Edonclark/leader/factor.jpg

All leading manner is different in each state of affairs. The leading manner does n’t work the same for all state of affairss. For each state of affairs a leader has to make up one’s mind on leading function he/she is traveling to follow. If a leader has to cover with a state of affairs of in which employees behaviour was inappropriate, but if he is excessively autocratic or weak so the consequence to it can be unproductive. ( www.skagit.com ) Factors impacting leading manner can depend on construction, on the sum of power leader holds within the organisation and on the relationship with followings. ( www.skagit.com )

Leadership manner varies depending on communicating with employees, for illustration a new employee is hired who requires a batch of supervising and way in the administration in comparing to an old employee. Leadership manner differs because of followings. As leaders function is to actuate worker and make an environment best suited for employees. So it depends on the motivational degree of single followings and leaders need to take in different ways in order to acquire more out of the workers. Leadership and motive goes side by side. A motivational theory Herzberg ( 1964 ) is linked with the leading manner adopted by leaders. Herzberg in his theory distinguished between factors in the work topographic point that usher to employee satisfaction and employee dissatisfaction. Those factors that result in satisfaction is called incentives and the factors which help maintain employees from being dissatisfied were called the hygiene factors. This theory ties to leading, because leaders will be really acute to cut down the factors of dissatisfaction and increase the factors of satisfaction and make an environment best suited to employee satisfaction and public presentation. ( Honer, 1997 ) Other motive theories besides be relevant to leading has they will assist what leader can make rock the behaviour of others ‘ . ( e.g. Maslow, 1954 ; McGregor, 1960 ; Vroom, 1964 ; Porter and Lawler, 1968 )

As more research and development has been made in leading theories over old ages has resulted in a survey of leading with organisational civilization ( Schein, 1985 ) . In this position if leaders are to be successful they should be adapt to civilization and alteration in civilization. Leadership is to make with alteration direction. For today ‘s leader to be successful they need to be able to pull off civilization of the organisation for which they will necessitate more accomplishments to execute good. The ground of civilization alteration has resulted due to more flexibleness in the organisation and more liberty and empowerment given to employees. ( Schein, 1985 ) “ Leaderships are besides involved in pull offing the civilization by set uping an expressed strategic way, pass oning that way, and specifying the organisational vision and values ” . ( Honer, 1997 ) There is so far no theory in literature which tells about different leading manner in different cultural factors. But civilization does play a function and consequence the leading manner so for leader to be successful they need to accommodate to civilization alteration.

Situational Leadership – Eventuality Theory

Harmonizing to Hersey and Blanchard ( 1988 ) situational leading theoretical account has been categorized into four leading behaviours: relation, merchandising, take parting and deputing. The theoretical account describes leader ‘s behaviour on two dimensions: Directive behaviour on horizontal axis and Relationship behaviour on perpendicular axis. Whether leaders should be more undertakings or relationship ( people ) oriented? ( See the theoretical account below ) The significance of the research can non be overrated since leaders tend to hold a more of a dominant manner. The research shows that there is no 1 best manner of leading, leading manner will change harmonizing to state of affairs and harmonizing to followings. The theoretical account is a good model as it helps us separate that non all employees are the same and one can non handle or take everyone in the same manner. A good flow of communicating demands to be between the leader and employee so that the employee knows the leading manner used by leaders and the leaders can cognize the preparedness of their employees. The key to the theoretical account is for the leader to separate when to utilize a peculiar style/ behaviour.

Beginning: ( www.meritmatters.org )

Real life Example of no 1 best manner of Leadership

As a Chief executive officer of dress company Warnaco, Linda Wachner was an scratchy but successful director in the 1990s but was fired in 2001 after the company filed bankruptcy. Contingency theory would hold argued that while Wachner ‘s production-oriented manner worked at Warnaco in the 1990s, conditions changed, doing this manner ineffective at the terminal of the decennary. ( Robbins, 2003 ) This shows that there is no 1 best manner of leading, a leader has to alter manner to be successful and should be antiphonal to alter.

“ It is n’t ever easy to alter leading chapeaus or to change the manner you assess a concern job ” . ( Schaeffer ‘s, 2002 ) Under force per unit area, leaders adopt the same manner as they use to work out the past job as a last resource but fail as for each state of affairs and scenario at that place seem to be need for a different leading manner. This was advocated in Schaeffer ‘s ( 2002 ) to acquire a clear apprehension of how leading attack is adopted, Leonard Schaeffer ‘s leading manners can be taken into history how in his 30 old ages of calling he changed his leading manner at three important points. Schaeffer ‘s is president and CEO of WellPoint Health Networks. He adopted different techniques depending on the concern challenges at manus. He has turned into a reformist from an bossy leader. In the in-between stage of his calling he besides adopted participative manner of direction. There are booby traps in exchanging leading manners, but this flexibleness is necessary for recognizing corporate and personal success.

There is no formula for either taking or pull offing alteration. Every organisation and leader is typical. The alteration in leading manner is signifier of art instead than scientific discipline and whereas managing alteration is a signifier of scientific discipline instead than art. Leader ‘s manner and personality is non a subject in taking alteration but it is a leader ‘s manner of life of how to bring forth and mobilise the resources of an organisation to do possible it to be its best. ( Bruhn, 2004 ) Whereas, pull offing alteration is to convey solidness in an organisation and to manage unwanted and unanticipated fortunes in order of alteration. “ Leaders set the bounds of success in their organisations by how they manage alteration ” . ( Bruhn, 2004 )

Lindgreen et Al ( 2009 ) in their survey discusses the connexion between leading manner and selling pattern and suggest a strong linkage between them. In web selling survey reveals a positive correlativity with transformational manner of leading. If leaders try to avoid leading manner so at that place seem to be no consequence on selling patterns, demoing that leading manner matters a batch in state of affairs and for different patterns. This research adds weight to the statement that leading manners need to be deliberately adapted with relation to selling patterns. ( Lindgreen et.al, 2009 ) This survey can give us a thought as for each pattern and nature of job/ environment and follower there will be different leading manner. One manner of leading can non work.

Decision

Is there a clear, individual profile that exists for a great leader? Most likely there is non. Based on the reviewed theories, there is non a consistent definition of a successful leader or one best apprehension of what causes people to move as they do at work. ( Honer, 1997 ) Although it is difficult to specify and capture leading, the belief clearly prevails that intercessions will assist develop and better leading in today ‘s organisations. The recent literature negotiations about transformational/ magnetic leaders those who can get by with alteration. Some work has been done to understand what makes good leaders successful with the purpose of developing better leading in organisations. But there is no 1 best manner of leading manner, the leading alterations, with every state of affairs, with every employee, alteration in organisation civilization, different motivational degree of employees, depending on the construction of the organisation and power of the leader itself. The illustrations in the above instance give us a good apprehension that leaders need to alter leading manner to be successful.