There are few things more important to human activity than leadership. Most people, regardless of their occupation, education, political or religious beliefs, or cultural orientation, recognize that leadership is a real and vastly consequential phenomenon. Political candidates proclaim it, pundits discuss it, companies value it, and military organizations depend on it. The French diplomat Talleyrand once said, “I am more afraid of an army of 100 sheep led by a lion than an army of 100 lions led by a sheep.”
Aristotle suggested that “men are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or be ruled,” an idea that evolved into the Great Person Theory. Great leaders of the past do seem different from ordinary human beings. When we consider the lives of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., it is easy to think of their influence as a function of unique personal attributes.
This trait approach was one of the first perspectives applied to the study of leadership and for many years dominated leadership research. The list of traits associated with effective leadership is extensive and includes personality characteristics such as being outgoing, assertive, and conscientious.
Order custom essay The Trait Approach to Leadership with free plagiarism report
Other traits that have been identified are confidence, integrity, discipline, courage, self-sufficiency, humor, and mystery. Charles de Gaulle described this last trait best when he noted that “A true leader always keeps an element of surprise up his sleeve, which others cannot grasp but which keeps his public excited and breathless.”
What do leaders do the behavioral approach
Three major schools of thought—the Ohio State Studies, Theory X/Y (McGregor, 1960), and the Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1984)—have all suggested that differences in leader effectiveness are directly related to the degree to which the leader is task oriented versus person oriented. Task-oriented leaders focus on the group’s work and its goals.
They define and structure the roles of their subordinates in order to best obtain organizational goals. Task-oriented leaders set standards and objectives, define responsibilities, evaluate employees, and monitor compliance with their directives. In the Ohio State studies this was referred to as initiating structure, whereas McGregor (1960) refers to it as Theory X, and the Managerial Grid calls it task-centered.
Harry S. Truman, 33rd president of the United States, once wrote, “A leader is a man who can persuade people to do what they don’t want to do, or do what they’re too lazy to do, and like it.” Task-oriented leaders often see their followers as undisciplined, lazy, extrinsically motivated, and irresponsible. For these leaders, leadership consists of giving direction, setting goals, and making unilateral decisions. When under pressure, task-oriented leaders become anxious, defensive, and domineering.
Situational Approaches to Leadership
The Great Person theory of leadership, represented by such theorists as Sigmund Freud, Thomas Carlyle, and Max Weber, suggests that from time to time, highly capable, talented, charismatic figures emerge, captivate a host of followers, and change history. In contrast to this, Hegel, Marx, and Durkheim suggest that there is a tide running in human affairs, defined by history or the economy, and that leaders are those who ride the tide.
The idea of the tide leads us to the role of situational factors in leadership. For example, Perrow (1970) suggests that leadership effectiveness is dependent upon structural aspects of the organization. Longitudinal studies of organizational effectiveness provide support for this idea. For example, Pfeffer (1997) indicated that “If one cannot observe differences when leaders change, then what does it matter who occupies the positions or how they behave?” (p. 108). Vroom and Jago (2007) have identified three distinct roles that situational factors play in leadership effectiveness.
One of the first psychologists to develop a contingency approach to leadership effectiveness was Fred Fiedler (1964, 1967), who believed that a leader’s style is a result of lifelong experiences that are not easy to change. With this in mind, he suggested that leaders need to understand what their style is and to manipulate the situation so that the two match. Like previous researchers, Fiedler’s idea of leadership style included task orientation and person orientation, although his approach for determining a leader’s orientation was unique. Fiedler developed the least-preferred coworker (LPC) scale.
On this scale, individuals rate the person with whom they would least want to work on a variety of characteristics. Individuals who rate their LPC as uniformly negative are considered task-oriented, whereas those who differentiate among the characteristics are person-oriented. The second part of his contingency theory is the favorableness of the situation. Situational favorability is determined by three factors: the extent to which the task facing the group is structured, the legitimate power of the leader, and the relations between the leader and his subordinates.
Another theory that addresses the relationship between leadership style and the situation is a path-goal theory (House, 1971). In this theory, path refers to the leader’s behaviors that are most likely to help the group attain a desired outcome or goal. Thus, leaders must exhibit different behaviors to reach different goals, depending on the situation. Four different styles of behavior are described:
- Directive leadership. The leader sets standards of performance and provides guidelines and expectations to subordinates on how to achieve those standards.
- Supportive leadership. The leader expresses concern for the subordinates’ well-being and is supportive of them as individuals, not just as workers.
- Participative leadership. The leader solicits ideas and suggestions from subordinates and invites them to participate in decisions that directly affect them.
- Achievement-oriented leadership. The leader sets challenging goals and encourages subordinates to attain those goals.
Charismatic and Transformational Leadership
Leaders provide vision, a sense of mission, and their trust in their followers. Leaders take stands on difficult issues and urge their followers to follow suit. They emphasize the importance of purpose, commitment, and ethical decision making. The second component is inspirational motivation.
Leaders communicate high expectations, express important purposes in easy-to-understand ways, talk optimistically and enthusiastically about the tasks facing the organization, and provide encouragement and meaning for what has to be done. They often use symbols to focus the efforts of their followers.
The third component is intellectual stimulation. Leaders promote thoughtful, rational, and careful decision making. They stimulate others to discard outmoded assumptions and beliefs and to explore new perspectives and ways of doing things. The fourth component is individualized consideration.
Leaders give their followers personal attention and treat each person individually. They listen attentively and consider the individual needs, abilities, and goals of their followers in their decisions. In order to enhance the development of their followers they advise, teach, and coach, as needed. Yukl (2002) offers the following guidelines for transformational leadership:
- Develop a clear and appealing vision.
- Create a strategy for attaining the vision.
- Articulate and promote the vision.
- Act confident and optimistic.
- Express confidence in followers.
- Use early success in achievable tasks to build confidence.
- Celebrate your followers’ successes.
- Use dramatic, symbolic actions to emphasize key values.
- Model the behaviors you want followers to adopt.
- Create or modify cultural forms as symbols, slogans, or ceremonies.
Not everyone is born with “the right stuff” or finds himself or herself in just the right situation to demonstrate his or her capacity as a leader. However, anyone can improve his or her leadership skills. The process of training people to function effectively in a leadership role is known as leadership development and it is a multimillion-dollar business. Leadership development programs tend to be of two types: internal programs within an organization, designed to strengthen the organization, and external programs that take the form of seminars, workshops, conferences, and retreats.
Typical of external leadership development programs are the seminars offered by the American Management Association. Their training seminars are held annually in cities across the country and address both general leadership skills as well as strategic leadership. Among the seminars offered in the area of general leadership are critical thinking, storytelling, and team development in a variety of areas such as instructional technology or government. Seminars on strategic leadership address such topics as communication strategies, situational leadership, innovation, emotional intelligence, and coaching.
A second approach to leadership development is a technique known as grid training. The first step in grid training is a grid seminar during which members of an organization’s management team help others in their organization identify their management style as one of four management styles: impoverished management, task management, country-club management, and team management.
The second step is training, which varies depending on the leader’s management style. The goal of the training is greater productivity, better decision making, increased morale, and focused culture change in the leader’s unique organizational environment. Grid training is directed toward six key areas: leadership development, team building, conflict resolution, customer service, mergers, and selling solutions.
Internal leadership development programs tend to focus on three major areas: the development of social interaction networks both between people within a given organization and between organizations that work with one another, the development of trusting relationships between leaders and followers, and the development of common values and a shared vision among leaders and followers. There are several techniques that promote these goals.
One such technique is 360-degree feedback. This is a process whereby leaders may learn what peers, subordinates, and superiors think of their performance. This kind of feedback can be useful in identifying areas in need of improvement. The strength of the technique is that it provides differing perspectives across a variety of situations that help the leader to understand the perceptions of his or her actions. This practice has become very popular and is currently used by virtually all Fortune 500 companies.
Like all forms of assessment, 360-degree feedback is only useful if the leader is willing and able to change his or her behavior as a result of the feedback. To ensure that leaders don’t summarily dismiss feedback that doesn’t suit them, many companies have arranged for face-to-face meetings between the leaders and those who have provided the feedback.
- Allen, T. D. Eby, L. T. Poteet, M. Lima, L. and Lentz, E. Outcomes associated with mentoring proteges: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology vol. 89 (2004). pp. 127–136
- Avolio, B. J. Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory building. American Psychologist vol. 62 (2007). pp. 25–33
- Avolio, B. J. Sosik, J. J. Jung, D. I. & Bierson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. In W. C. Borman, ed. D. R. Ilgen, ed. & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 277–307). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
- Bass, B. M. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundariesAmerican Psychologist vol. 52 (1997). pp. 130–139
- Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. New York: Perseus.
- Bennis, W. The challenges of leadership in the modern world: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist vol. 62 (2007). pp. 2–5
- Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1984). Solving costly organizational conflicts: Achieving intergroup trust, cooperation, and teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Dansereau, F. Graen, G. G. and Haga, W. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizatons. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance vol. 13 (1975). pp. 46–78
- Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Eagly, A. and Johnson, B. Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin vol. 108 (1990). pp. 233–256
- Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.
- Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Gibb, C. A. (1969). Leadership. In G. Lindzey, ed. & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 205–282). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- Graen, G. B. and Uhl-Bien, M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly vol. 6 no. (2) (1995). pp. 219–247
- Hackman, J. R. and Wageman, R. Asking the right questions about leadership. American Psychologist vol. 62 (2007). pp. 43–47
- House, R. J. A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 16 (1971). pp. 321–328
- House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, ed. & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
- House, R. J. ed. Hanges, P. J. ed. Javidan, M. ed. Dorman, P. W. ed. & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- House, R. J. and Mitchell, R. R. Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business vol. 3 (1974). pp. 81–97
- Howell, J. M. and Avolio, B. J. The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberationAcademy of Management Executive vol. 6 no. (2) (1992). pp. 43–54
- Indvik, J. Path-goal theory of leadership: A meta-analysis . Proceedings of the Academy of Management Meeting , (1986). pp. 189–192.
- Judge, T. A. Bono, J. E. Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M. W. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology vol. 87 (2002). pp. 765–780
- Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Lord, R. G. & Maher, K. (1989). Perceptions in leadership and their implications in organizations. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (Vol. 4, pp. 129–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Lord, R. G. & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
- McClelland, D. C. and Boyatzis, R. E. Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology vol. 67 (1982). pp. 737–743
- McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Miller, R. L. Butler, J. and Cosentino, C. J. Followership effectiveness: An extension of Fiedler’s contingency model. The Leadership and Organizational Development Journal vol. 24 (2004). pp. 362–368
- Murphy, S. E. and Ensher, E. A. The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in the development of leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology vol. 29 (1999). pp. 1371–1394
- Perrow, C. (1970). Organization analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Pfeffer, J. The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review vol. 2 (1977). pp. 104–112
- Strube, M. J. and Garcia, J. E. A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin vol. 90 (1981). pp. 307–321
- Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. G. The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist vol. 62 (2007). pp. 17–24
- Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Zaccaro, S. J. Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist vol. 62 (2007). pp. 6–16
Did you know that we have over 70,000 essays on 3,000 topics in our database?