This belief can be seen in the thousands of Naira spent annually by individual companies on leadership training programmes. In the broader society, the cry is often heard that a more dynamic leader is required, and the issue is debated from boardrooms to bar rooms. Regardless of the setting, therefore, leadership is a topic of great concern to managers, employees and the general public.
Leadership Defined: Leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals. It is the activity of influencing people to strive willingly for group objective. The definition has several key elements. First, leadership is a process of influence. A person cannot be a leader without being influential. Secondly, leadership involves interactions between two or more people. It takes place when one person (leader) influences the actions of others (followers). Finally, it involves a concept of shared goals.
When a leader attempts to influence other people, he has a certain goal in mind. His leadership is then judged by how well this goal has been achieved. In short, leadership is a reciprocal process between a leader and followers. According to George R. Terry, Leadership is the activity of influencing people to strive willingly for group objective. Harold Kootz and Cyril Donell state that Leadership is influencing people to follow in the achievement of a common goal.
Leadership Theories: Since few topics have been so extensively covered and thoroughly researched, making some sense out of the wealth of leadership material available is a difficult task. Therefore, the topic has been separated into two articles, one dealing with universalist theories of leadership, and the other dealing with contingency theories. Universalist leadership theories are those arguing that there is one type of leadership behaviour inherently superior to others, irrespective of the situation in which the leader operates.
Contingency theories, on the other hand, assume that different situations require different leadership behaviours. In contrast to theorists who emphasize one best leadership style, contingency theorists suggest that circumstances dictate the best style of leadership. While many theories have been advanced over the years as the one best way to lead subordinates, the following ones are particularly popular:
1. THE GREAT MAN THEORY: The “great man” theory holds that most major historical events and the creation of powerful organizations are the work of a new understanding figures. Thomas Carlyle, the English philosopher, stated that the “history of the world is but the biography of great men”.
Included in this category are individuals such as Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser, Winston Churchill, Mahatam Gandhi and other prominent historical figures. Advocates of this approach also state that great men can be found in certain families with unusual frequency and that there may be a genetic reason for this. In the twentieth century, the Kennedy family was cited as an example.
CRITIQUE: The great man approach leans heavily towards the thinking that “leaders are born, not made”. It is therefore essential to staff the organization with born leaders. Given our present knowledge about leadership, it is simply not possible to do this. If the great man theory is accepted, no emphasis will be given to management development programmes in modern organizations.
If leaders are born, there is no need to develop them. There is also no use trying to develop “non-leaders” since, by definition, this is not possible. Although the great man theory is an interesting approach to leadership, the in-depth analysis of few exceptional individuals does not give us systematic insights into what is generally needed for leadership success. The theory is limited to ‘hindsight, as we have not yet developed a method of developing people, we have only bean able to observe them after they have achieved their greatness. It is small wonder; this theory has lost most of its appeal since World War 11.
2. THE TRAIT THEORY: The trait theory is based on the great man theory, but it is more systematic in its analysis of leaders. Like its predecessor, the trait theory assumes that the leaders’ personal attributes are the key to leadership success. However, unlike the great man theory, trait theorists do not necessarily assume that leaders are born with these traits, only that certain traits (whether inherited or developed) are necessary for leadership success.
Trait theorists suggest that leaders differ from their followers with respect to a small number of key traits and these traits remain unchanged across time. The most frequently mentioned attributes of an effective leader are fairness, intelligence, general knowledge-ability, understanding emotional balance, communicative ability and technical competence.
Critique: There are many conceptual and methodological problems with the trait approach to leadership. First, the mere possession of a trait does not guarantee its successful use for the purpose of leadership. Many highly intelligent people do not make good managers. Second, it is difficult to define traits. When posed with the question of defining a trait, executives often advance ambiguous explanations, making a mockery of the trait theory. Third, it is often difficult to measure traits.
The measurement tools employed to quantify traits (in ways that will make them useful to executives) are open to doubt. For example, some of the Psychological attributes (intelligence,initiative) cannot be observed, but can only be inferred from the behaviour. Fourth, even if a trait car be clearly defined and accurately measured, it is unclear how high a score a person must achieve on a given trait to make it effective.
Finally, effective leadership is not a function of trait alone. Executives often behave in a way they think is appropriate for their job. There is a wealth of scientific evidence pointing the importance of situational factors as determinants of leadership behaviour. The problem with trait theories is that while focusing on personal traits of leaders these theories overlook the importance of followers and task situations. Certain traits may be desirable in some situations but not in others.
And some traits work well with certain employees, but not with others. Intelligence, for example, can be an important trait for managing uneducated people who are performing simple tasks. Given the fact that many factors affect leadership effectiveness, it is doubtful whether research can produce a set of universal leadership traits. As things stand now, there is no universal list of traits for successful leaders. To summarize, the idea that leadership effectiveness can be determined by personal traits has proved to be too simplistic. The dream of measuring traits, developing an optimal traits profile, and selecting individuals who fit the mould and will automatically become effective leaders has not been realized.
3. LEADERSHIP: CONTINGENCY MODEL
hat a number of leadership behaviour styles may be effective or
ineffective depending on the important elements of the situation.
According to a leadership contingency model developed by Fred
E.Fielder, three major situational variables seem to determine whether
a given situation is favourable to leaders:
- Their personal relations with the members of their group (leader-member relations);
- The degree of structure in the task that their group has been assigned to perform (task structure); and
- The power and authority that their position provides (position power).
Leader-member relations seem to parallel the relationship concepts discussed earlier, while task structure and position power, which measure very closely related aspects of a situation, seem to be associated with task concepts. Fred E. Fielder defines the favourableness of a situation as “the degree to which the situation enables the leader to exert his influence over his group”.
In this model, eight possible combinations of these three situational variables can occur. As a leadership situation varies from high to low on these variables, it will fall into one of the eight combinations (situations).
The most favourable situation for leaders to influence their groups is one in which they are well liked by the members (good leader-member relations), have a powerful position (high position power), and are directing a well-defined job (high task structure); for example, a well-liked general making inspection in an army camp.
On the other hand, the most unfavourble situation for leaders is one in which they are disliked, have little position power, and face an unstructured task, such as an unpopular head of a voluntary hospital fund raising committee.
Be the first to comment