Leadership As Seen as Lord Kitchener of Kartoum - Essay Example

Assess how useful the traits model of leadership is in explaining the leadership of Lord Kitchener of Kartoum Introduction The development of various leadership styles through the years has been found to be related with specific personal perceptions but also with the response of the environment (workplace) to particular leadership choices. In order to evaluate the value and the reasons of leaders’ decisions in modern firms, researchers and theorists have developed specific theoretical models that can possibly explain the leadership decisions within a specific environment. In accordance with Pavitt et al. (1990) ‘the dominant theme in leadership research has been an attempt to determine the characteristics and behaviors most closely associated with effective leadership (Bass, 1981); a second theme is the concern with group members’ beliefs about and perceptions of leadership’ (Bass, 1981 and Calder, 1977, in Pavitt et al., 1990, 374). All leadership theories have developed appropriate frameworks in order to explain the behaviour of leaders within a specific environment but also to explain the behaviour of the public/ employees to the decisions made by a particular leader. Current paper refers specifically to the traits model of leadership as this one can be used in order to explain the leadership of Lord Kitchener of Kartoum. A thorough reference will be also made on the various theories of leadership (particularly those based on the traits model) in order to explain the style of leadership of the above leader. 2. Leadership theories – Traits theory – strengths and weaknesses Many different theories have been stated through the years regarding the behaviour of leaders within a specific environment. In accordance with Barker (2001, 472) ‘industrial leadership studies are usually conducted by isolating a single event or a bounded series of events as though this event has a definable beginning and end, and by analyzing as though this element is subject to cause-effect relationships’. In other words, the study of leadership is usually based on specific actions of leaders and there is no particular reference to the reasons that have led leaders to specific decisions. However, such an approach is not appropriate because valuable elements of the leaders behaviour are ignored; no measures can be taken towards the protection of the public/ employees from the decisions of leaders (referring to decisions that are false and inappropriate within a specific environment - also to decisions that do not involve in the resolution of specific problems or the suggestion of creative initiatives but they rather promote personal interests). On the other hand, if the reasons that have led a leader in a particular decision are not taken into consideration then no appropriate improvement of the relevant decisions can be made. The content of leadership has been examined in the literature and the empirical research; the development of effective leadership strategies has been the priority for analysts and theorists around the world. In this context, many different personal and social elements have been found to be related with the development of leadership decisions within a specific business or political framework. In accordance with Mello (2003) ‘leadership has been defined in terms of individual personality traits, leader behaviors, responses to leader behaviors, interpersonal exchange relationships, interaction patterns, role relationships, follower perceptions, task goals, organizational culture, and nature of work processes’ (Rost, 1991, Yukl, 1989 in Mello, 2003, 345). All the above elements have been used in order to present the various aspects of leadership as they can be observed in modern business and political framework. Leadership is not related only to business activities; it can be also related with political and social activities (political party, community association and so on). On the other hand, leadership can affect the lives of many people (either directly, employees, shareholders – or indirectly, the firm’s stakeholders in general); for this reason it is very important that the decisions of leaders are appropriately monitored and controlled as of their applicability under specific conditions; the consequences of these decisions both in the short and the long term should be also estimated – as possible. Many different theories have been developed by theorists globally in an effort to control the effectiveness of the leadership decisions taken into account the needs of the environment involved (business, state). Parts of these theories are the so-called Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs) which ‘place emphasis on the cognitive and perceptual processes underlying leadership and the role of employees’ prior expectations and cognitive prototypes in shaping their perceptions of managerial behavior’ (Foti & Lord, 1987, Lord, 1977, 1985, Kenney et al., 1996, Larson, 1982, Lord et al., 1985 in Martin et al., 2001, 248). Despite the fact that leaders around the world have to follow specific patterns when proceeding to a particular decision, there are also other issues that need to be considered when evaluating the leaders’ decisions either in the context of a specific political or social environment or as part of the socio-cultural characteristics of a specific society (the behaviour of leaders gives specific indications for the local social and cultural trends, even in general terms). In most cases, the leaders’ decisions are not appropriately monitored; in just a few cases these decisions are thoroughly reviewed as of their feasibility and their effectiveness regarding a particular target. Within the organizational environment the control over the leader’s decisions is considered to be easier than the control on the decisions of political leaders (specific political and social interests may lead to the lack of appropriate control on the decisions of politicians – acting as leaders within a specific political context – even when this control exists it is usually partial avoiding to refer to personal choices of the leader or to cause severe turbulences within the political party involved. In organizations, the role of leaders seems simpler but in fact there are many problems that need to be resolved and initiatives to be taken by leaders within modern organizations. Under these terms, the response of employees to the decisions of their leaders is most likely to be based on their personal perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the leader’s decisions and less likely to the style of leadership followed by the particular leader; the effects of leader’s decisions on their rights in the workplace are also considered to be a fundamental criterion for the evaluation of the leader’s skills both in the short and the long term. In accordance with Martin et al. (2001, 259) ‘people high in organizational identification are motivated to evaluate their social world through their work environment and as a consequence will expand effort to evaluate their manager from the traits they perceive within him/ her rather than relying upon their prototypes’. The theory of traits – as it can be derived through the information given above regarding the response of employees to specific leader’s decisions – can lead to the assumption that within all organizations the ‘traits of leadership’ are identified and evaluated primarily from the employees that are high in the organizational hierarchy; these employees have the power to influence the leader’s aspects on specific issues or ask for the review of leader’s decisions – in other words their intervention on the leader’s decisions can be direct if compared to the employees of low organizational levels that have no specific power of pressure on the decisions made by the firm’s leader. In order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of traits theory – as part of the leadership theories – it is necessary to review the historical development of this theory and understand its fundamental elements. In accordance with Mello (2003, 346) ‘trait theories were most popular from the turn of the century until the late 1940s; the various types of traits examined by researchers included physical characteristics, personality characteristics, social characteristics, and personal abilities and skills’ (House & Podsakoff, 1994, in Mello, 2003, 346). The reasons for the development of trait theories have been many; the most important reason seems to be the need for the identification of the leader’s motives regarding specific organizational initiatives (designed and enforced by the leader within a specific organization). When being tested under a specific political and social environment, trait theories have been found to have specific strengths and weaknesses. In this context, it is noticed that ‘traits may help to distinguish leaders from nonleaders in terms of perceptions of subordinates but fail to distinguish effective from ineffective leaders’ (Mello, 2003, 346). In other words, trait theories can help only partially in the identification of the effectiveness of a leader’s decisions; the fact that a person has all the qualities in order to be a leader verifies the power of this leader to proceed to specific decisions; the appropriateness of these decisions in terms of a specific political and social context is an issue that cannot be explored using the traits theory; rather the evaluation of these decisions using specific criteria have to be employed in order for the effectiveness and the appropriateness of these decisions to be identified. Various opinions have been stated in the literature regarding the role of traits theory in the identification of a leader’s ability to respond to the needs of a particular social, organizational or political environment. In this context, it is stated by Stogdill (1974) that ‘certain traits exhibited by leaders might well be quite universal’ (Stogdill, 1974 in House et al., 1997, 412). It was approximately in the above period that Bern and Allen (1974) noticed that ‘traits are more predictive on behavior for some people than for others’ (Bern and Allen, 1974 in House et al., 1997, 411). In general, the trait theories that have been considered to be mostly important for the evaluation of the leader’s decisions and initiatives are the following ones: ‘McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory (developed primarily in 1940, McClelland’s Leader Motive Profile Theory, House’s Theory of Charismatic Leadership and Kenny and Zaccaro’s leader sensitivity and flexibility constructs’ (House et al., 1997, 413). Other theoretical frameworks have also developed through the years in order to explain the behaviour of leader within a particular social or political context; however all these frameworks are related with specific organizational or political environments and thus they cannot be used in exploring leaders’ behaviour in general. From all the above theories the most indicative one regarding the motives of leaders within states or organizations internationally is that of McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory. In this context it is noticed that ‘achievement motivation is defined as a non-conscious concern for achieving excellence in accomplishments through one’s individual efforts’ (House et al., 1997, 413). Through the years, the influence of traits on the explanation of leaders’ behaviour had been reduced; in the decade of 1990s traits were re-considered as potential tools for the identification of the role of leaders internationally. In this context, Barker (2001) refers to the work of Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) who noticed that there are ‘six traits that differentiate leaders from other people: drive, motivation, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of business’ (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991, in Barker, 2001, 478). From another point of view, it is noticed by House et al. (2004) that ‘some traits (e.g. visionary, intelligent, trustworthy and decisive) are endorsed universally as positive attributes for a leader to possess, whereas the endorsement of other traits is more culturally contingent (e.g. compassionate, domineering, orderly and risk taker)’ (House et al., 2004, in Casimir et al., 2007, 49). All the above theories can be used in order to evaluate the decisions and the behaviour of leaders in modern political and social environments; however most of these theories are limited as of their area of applicability – referring to specific political, organizational or social context; the above weakness of traits theory can be considered as quite important; despite the fact that traits theories identify key issues regarding the behaviour of leaders they are limited by the fact that they cannot be used in all cases that the evaluation of a leader’s behaviour is attempted. 3. Using the traits theory of leadership in order to explain the leadership of Lord Kitchener (Khartoum) - practical usefulness of traits theory In order to understand the value of trait theories for the identification of the role of leaders in modern organizational and political context, it is necessary to refer primarily to the causal events of the development of these theories. Mello (2003, 346) suggested that ‘trait theories were largely designed to try to predict whether an individual would manifest leadership abilities’. There are also other hypotheses made regarding the role of trait theories throughout the years. In this context it is stated that ‘fifty years of study have failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate leaders and non-leaders’ (Jenkins, 1947, 68 in Mello, 2003, 346). However, trait theories still can be used in order to identify the key motives of leaders’ responses to specific political and social challenges. The case of Lord Kitchener of Khartoum is an indicative example of the power of a leader to proceed to radical changes in his area of influence but also of the power of his environment to prevent or to delay the realization of these plans in case that they opposite to specific political or social interests. As noticed above, traits theory of leadership focuses on specific personal characteristics of the leaders in order to explain their behaviour under specific political and social conditions. In the case of Lord Kitchener of Khartoum his perceptions regarding particular political and military issues could be considered as the basis for the explanation of the methods employed by him in all his initiatives. Lord Kitchener has become an important symbol of the British willingness to win. His career in the army started in 1886 when ‘he was appointed governor of the British Red Sea territories and subsequently became commander in chief of the Egyptian army in 1892; in 1898 he crushed the separatist Sudanese forces of al-Mahdi in the Battle of Omdurman and then occupied the nearby city of Khartoum, where his success saw him ennobled in 1898’ (BBC History, 2008, online article). Lord Kitchener tried to restructure the British army enforcing the idea of cooperation for the achievement of a target as well as the gradual development of the British Empire focusing on the development of military conflicts gradually; however, his aims were in opposition with the military authorities of that period that preferred that simultaneous development of military projects than the concentration on particular areas. The strategies followed by Lord Kitchener in the field of the battle were also strongly criticized by the military power of that period. Lord Kitchener seemed to be driven primarily by his instincts regarding the methods used throughout a specific military operation; on the other hand, we didn’t seem willingness to change his plans regarding the geographical development of military conflicts. His behaviour was perceived as extremely positive by the British soldiers but the British military authorities had a different view. 4. Conclusion The development of the various aspects of traits theory led to the conclusion that this theory can be practically useful regarding the evaluation of a leader’s behaviour within a specific political or social context. The main characteristic of this theory seems to be the emphasis paid on the personal characteristics and perceptions of leaders. In the case of Lord Kitchener of Khartoum the use of traits theory has led to the assumption that the above leader has been initiated primarily by his personal views on each specific issue; the various aspects of the above leader’s behaviour can be therefore explained and evaluated using the traits theory; however it should be considered that not all parts of the traits theory (as presented above) would be appropriate for the achievement of the above target; all parts of traits theory should be careful reviewed in order to identify those parts that could be used under the specific political and social conditions (strong political turbulences worldwide and an extremely strong military conflict, World War I). It should also be noticed that not all aspects of traits theory might be appropriate for explaining the behaviour of Lord Kitchener of Khartoum; the political and social conditions of that period (as described above) are normally expected to influence negatively any leader even if his incentives and motives were based on the promotion of his country’s interest. References Barker, R. (2001) The nature of leadership. Human Relations, 54(4): 469-494 BBC History (2008) Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, online, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/kitchener_lord.shtml Casimir, G., Waldman, D. (2007) A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Importance of Leadership Traits for Effective Low-level and High level leaders. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7(1): 47-60 House, R., Aditya, R. (1997) The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3): 409-473 Martin, R., Epitropaki, O. (2001) Role of Organizational Identification on Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs), Transformational Leadership and Work Attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(3): 247-262 Mello, J. (2003) Profiles in Leadership: Enhancing Learning through Model and Theory Building. Journal of Management Education, 27: 344-361 Pavitt, C., Sackaroff, P. (1990) Implicit Theories of Leadership and Judgments of Leadership among Group Members. Small Group Research, 21: 374-392 Read More