Reference no: EM131953469

Leadership Theories and Models

Note. This lecture is property of the University of Phoenix, not the course facilitator.

The study of leadership requires examining various leadership models. The study of leadership also requires aligning theory and practice, as most organizations combine theory and practice to achieve organizational goals. The following highlights prevalent leadership theories and approaches.

The Trait Approach

Leadership research in the 1920s and 1930s focused on the traits that constituted effective leadership. Researchers tried to determine the characteristics that differentiated leaders from nonleaders. Despite rigorous effort, it was impossible to identify a set of traits that always differentiated a leader from a nonleader. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) noted six characteristics or traits associated with successful leadership, which include persistence, the desire to lead, integrity, self-confidence, intelligence, and job knowledge. The trait perspective assumes all leaders share the same personal characteristics.

This approach also assumes the same leadership traits apply in all situations. The idea that the same leadership approach applies in all situations is probably a false assumption. Leadership is too complex to assign a universal set of traits that apply to every situation. In addition, a review of leadership literature cites a variety of traits associated with leadership behavior. No single list or set of leadership characteristics has been validated as most effective (Bass & Avolio, 1992).

The Behavioral Approach

The behavioral approach focuses on the observable behaviors that constitute effective leadership. Fleishman (1953) described the famous Ohio State and Michigan leadership studies of the 1940s and 1950s, where researchers administered questionnaires asking subordinates to rate their supervisors on a variety of behavioral dimensions.

Two primary behaviors emerged from this research: people-oriented behaviors and task-oriented behaviors. People-oriented behaviors included developing rapport with employees, demonstrating mutual respect, engaging employees in decision making, and supporting employee interests. Task-oriented behaviors included structuring work tasks and roles, clarifying work processes and procedures, and ensuring that employees comply with company policy (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995).

People-oriented leaders emphasized interpersonal relationships. Task-oriented leaders emphasized the technical aspects of work. Originally, the researchers conducting these studies assumed that people-oriented and task-oriented styles were mutually exclusive. Thus, a task-oriented leader would have little or no people orientation, and a people-oriented leader would focus exclusively on interpersonal relationships. Studies later concluded that these styles were independent of each other, and a leader could demonstrate high or low ability in both styles (Vecchio, 1998).

Managerial Grid

A leadership approach that grew out of the behavioral perspective was the managerial grid. This model evaluates an individual's concern for people and concern for production (Blake & Mouton, 1982). A leader with a high concern for production often demonstrates an autocratic leadership style. The autocratic leader retains all authority, dictates how work should be performed, and makes decisions without gathering input from others.

The autocratic leader discourages employee participation. Leaders with a high concern for people often demonstrate a democratic style. The democratic or participative leader involves employees in decisions that affect them, delegates authority and tasks, encourages employee input, and uses feedback as an opportunity for performance improvement (Blake & Mouton, 1982).

Theory X and Y

McGregor (1960) categorized leaders into two distinct styles: Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X leaders (also called autocratic) believe that managers must exert force for employees to produce at high levels. As a result, theory X leaders closely supervise and monitor employees.

Theory X leaders often demonstrate a my-way-or-the-highway approach when managing people. They normally do not engage employees in decision making or seek their input on matters that affect them. Theory X leaders attempt to maintain total control. These leaders may motivate employees to produce, but they motivate by creating fear. They may gain compliance, but they rarely engender employee commitment.

Theory X leaders experience high turnover and low employee morale. Theory Y leaders (also called democratic or participative) believe that, under the right conditions, people will invest in work to the same extent they invest in their leisure and personal activities. Theory Y leaders engage and empower employees. These leaders involve employees in decision making, seek their input, and foster committed employees-people who are inspired to do their best (McGregor, 1960).

Contingency Theories

The contingency approach to leadership is based on the idea that the situation dictates the most appropriate leadership style to use. Contingency theories maintain an if-then connection. In other words, if this is the situation, then this is the leadership style to use (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). Leaders, therefore, must be able to adapt to the situation and use different leadership styles flexibly.

The contingency approach is often difficult to implement in practice, because leaders normally have one preferred style that is difficult to alter. The most widely used contingency approach is Hersey and Blanchard's (1996) situational leadership model.

This model maintains that a leader should adjust his or her style based on the follower's competence level. For example, a leader managing a new employee might use a directive approach and closely supervise the employee. A leader managing a competent, committed, peak performer might use a more delegating style, allowing the employee to retain more decision-making authority (Hersey & Blanchard, 1996).

Leadership Discussion

Leadership thought has evolved significantly from the early 1920s, and organizations are changing in response. Encouraging teamwork, empowering employees, and embracing diversity are just a few examples of how organizations are emerging into the postmodern world, yet some leaders are in transition between old versus new styles of management.

The primary difference between the old and new paradigm is the emphasis on control, stability, and engagement (Vecchio, 1998). Old-paradigm leaders attempt to retain power and control. New-paradigm leaders strive to engage and empower.

Leadership style influences employees' job satisfaction, and business and educational leaders realize the value of a more enlightened, new-paradigm approach. Holdnak, Harsh, and Bushardt (1993) determined that a democratic leadership style increases engagement, suggesting that a leader who uses participation in leadership has a positive influence on subordinates' job satisfaction.

They also discovered that autocratic behavior reduces job satisfaction, suggesting that leaders who attempt to control and dominate will see a decrease in their employees' level of satisfaction with work. Other researchers have presented similar findings (Bordieri, 1988; Vecchio, 1988).

The Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina, brought the importance of acquiring new leadership skills to light. In a recent Center for Creative Leadership (2006) study, 70% of respondents stated that their greatest organizational challenge is developing competent leadership at all organizational levels.

The center also compared 20 successful executives with 20 executives who had experienced disruption in their careers. The unsuccessful managers were individuals who were expected to excel but were either fired, forced into early retirement, or plateaued in their existing positions. The difference between the two groups of managers was their ability to demonstrate effective leadership skills.

Another factor influencing leadership success is followership. A good leader knows how to follow. According to Buckingham (2005), leaders and followers are not opposites, but rather complements of each other. To achieve the highest organizational performance, leaders must not only be able to direct organizational activity, they must be able to concede. Great leaders can change from the leader role to the follower role as the organization requires (Seteroff, 2003).

Individuals will successfully lead organizations when their behavior aligns with contemporary management skills-when they promote change versus stability, empowerment versus control, cooperation versus competition, and diversity versus conformity. Although leaders and managers must continually monitor efficiency, they cannot ignore the human side of organizations. Doctoral learners of leadership should begin to acquire insight into their leadership styles and determine if their styles are appropriate for obtaining the desired organizational results.

References

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21-27.