Contemporary Leadership Theory - Literature review Example

?Contemporary Leadership Theory Introduction Leadership is a perennial topic in management studies, because of the elusiveness of the essential elements that distinguishes a manager from a leader. It is generally acknowledged that managers are designated, but leaders emerge, and where the former works his unit towards achieving his objectives, the latter motivates his followers in the attainment of his vision. Management has a formal power base, while the power of leadership is relational among persons. As a result, a manager’s power extends only as far as the scope of his office and may be aided by promises of reward or threat of sanction, while a leader’s power inspires and empowers individuals of their own accord even beyond the workplace, and without promise of incentive (Flaherty & Stark, 1999; Tripathi & Reddy, 2006; Leitner, 2007; and Bertocci, 2009). In the interest of further exploring the many dimensions by which leadership has been conceptualised, this paper will discuss and compare two academic articles involving leadership theories with each other, citing contributions that each makes to the body of literature on leadership.  Leadership Theories There is a wide range of leadership theories which have been developed through the years. The theories are classified into seven. The first is the known as the Great Man theories, which are founded on the idea that leaders are extraordinary individuals whose leadership qualities are inborn. The use of the term “Man” was intentional since it was generally held throughout the early half of the twentieth century that leadership is a male attribute; in fact, William James (1880) wrote that the course of history is determined by great men, without whom the masses could not progress (Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 49). Needless to say, these theories have lost their relevance as early as the 1960s. The next group is the trait theories, referring to the focus on traits or qualities that a good leader is thought to possess (though which are not necessarily inborn). The study of “great men” that preceded this yielded very few commonalities among them, giving rise to the idea that what defines a leader would be the set of admirable characteristics he possessed, such as intelligence, self-confidence, determination and integrity (Shriberg & Shriberg, 2011, p. 66). Behaviourist theories, which came next, are anchored on the actions of leaders rather than their attributes. Behaviour patterns are studied and categorised to comprise “leadership styles”. Behaviourist theorists conceive of leadership in terms of the roles they fulfil, and the manner in which they are expected to fulfil them (Crainer & Dearlove, 2003, p.1). The next school of leadership theories is known as situational leadership. This set of theories views effective leadership not in terms of traits or actions, but the match between these and the situation being addressed. The situational leadership model holds that “the style of leadership should be mathed ot the level of readiness of the followers” (Hellreigel & Slocum, 2007, p. 221). The model (also known as contingency model) is comprised of three basic components – a set of possible leadership styles, a taxonomy of alternative situations which leaders are likely to encounter, and a stipulation of which style constitutes appropriate response to which situation. More recently, the transactional theory of leadership has emerged, focusing on task orientedness and ability to direct groups in a particular way so as to accomplish specific goals. Compliance is ensured through different approaches, such as offering incentives, threatening sanctions, appealing to the group’s sense of duty or selflessness, or prevailing upon their followers’ rational judgment, with the leader having little personal involvement with the group other than driving them to achieve an objective (Martin, et al., 2006, p. 47). Finally, the transformational leadership theory is based on the belief that leadership is not just the sole prerogative of people at the top, but leadership can be practiced at all levels of the organization, and even on an individual basis. It is the primary responsibility of leaders to develop leadership in those who function under them, a “notion at the heart of the paradigm of transformational leadership” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 2). The tenets which are espoused by this theory are basic to the effective practice of leadership, and may be applied not only to organizational settings, but to all aspects of life, in order to create social change. There is a progression in the development of leadership theories. Early theories tended to concentrate on the behaviours and characteristics of successful leaders as self-possessed traits. Subsequent theories were more focused on the roles leaders play and their relationship with their followers, thus delving more into the contextual nature of leadership. It will be noted that the traditional views hold leaders as exceptional people and held a more individualistic perspective of what a leader is. More contemporary views, however, tend to view leadership as a “dispersed” element, “a process that is diffuse throughout an organisation rather than lying solely with the formally designated ‘leader’” (Bolden, et al., 2003, p. 6). To date, the traditional views are still more generally accepted in practice and taught in the academe. From the “Great Man” theory (see table above), the Trait Approach developed, focusing on the personal attributes of a leader. Results were understandably inconclusive, because the absence of some attributes did not necessarily render a person unsuitable to be a leader. From this, the Behavioural school emerged, producing such popular theories as McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, and Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid. For purposes of quick recollection, these two theories are encapsulated in the following table and figure. In the highly popular Theory X and Theory Y, two types of manager are presented and contrasted. Theory X sees managers are assuming an adversarial role to counter the perceived “natural” tendency of employees to avoid and resent work. Theory Y envisions a more benevolent and liberal relationship, where management harnesses the perceived “natural” tendency of employees to love the type of work that challenges them and develops their skills and talents. In the second theory, the Blake Mouton Managerial Grid views managerial leadership as a combination of degrees of concern for people, balanced against the concern for production (Bolden, et al., 2003). The impoverished type of managerial leadership is one that has both low concern for people and for production at the same time; the best type of leadership is one that gives high regard for both, best encountered as team management. A moderate balance between the two (and presumably the most commonly encountered) would be organisation man management, which is less liberal than country club management but more than authority and obedience (see figure foregoing). Following the trait and behavioural schools are the situational theories, which were built on claims that effective leaders need to play different roles and adapt their styles to the demands of the given situation; however, it makes the presumption that leadership qualities exist in one person (Barry, 1991; Yang & Shao, 1996). In contrast with situational leadership theories, a controversial concept was introduced by Kerr and Jermier (1978) that suggested that leadership is not necessarily essential, and may be even redundant or unnecessary, to a group’s effectiveness. They suggested that subordinates can manage themselves based on their skills, training and experience, thus the concept of self-managed teams. From this, the distributed leadership model emerged, where leadership became conceived as “a collection of roles and behaviours that can be split apart, shared, rotated, and used sequentially or concomitantly.” (Barry, 1991 in Yang & Shao, 1996, p. 523). Critical Review of “Attributional theory of leadership: a model of functional attributions and behaviors” by C. Lakshman (2008) The article by C. Lakshman proposes a relatively different approach to leadership theory than the traditional trait and behavioural schools described earlier. Called Attribution Theory, it is based on the idea that the behaviour of individuals are seen as resulting from underlying traits or dispositions (Heider, 1958). Pursuant to this school of thought, behaviour is considered to always have an internal or external cause (referring to either a characteristic within the individual, or something occurring outside the individual), which are the things to which the behaviour is attributed (Kelley, 1967). Attribution means “observing behaviour and seeing stable characteristics in individuals we observe” (Steiner, 1997, p.61). Research has shown that the study of attributions in leadership and organizational behaviour have merit in understanding how organizations may be enhanced. For instance, persons make attributions more freely and readily of other people they expect to be interacting with, and on whom they are dependent for certain expected results (Monson, Keel, Stephens & Genung, 1982). Because of this, leaders must be made aware that the attributions they make about their subordinates, peers and superiors may affect the way the former relate to and influence the behaviour of the latter, eventually impacting on the performance of the organization. In the Lakshman article, the author seeks to create a functional leadership model based on attribution theory. The principal parameters used for the model’s criteria specifications are leadership perceptions and leadership effectiveness. The model’s intent is to make use of available knowledge about leadership information processing, leadership attributes and their accuracy, and behaviors that result from leadership attributions, and how such are mediated by the self-efficacy, satisfaction, and motivation of their subordinates. The resultant variables sought to be associated with these are leadership perceptions and subordinate performance. The resulting model arrived at by the study is summarized in the diagram that follows: The emphasis of the model is to investigate the relationship between the functional and positive attributional processes leaders go through, on the one hand, and their effect on unit and organizational effectiveness on the other. The attributions are described in terms of their accuracy and positiveness; they include the absence of gender or other biases, the perception of self as a source of poor unit performance, the view of success as a result of unit members’ performance, and the overall accuracy of the attributions made. The model developed here makes a significant contribution to research, in that it opens up new considerations in attribution theory that specify accuracy and positiveness, and then links them in a functional way to organizational performance. Most theories in the traditional approach to leadership do not adopt a directional or normative viewpoint (i.e., negative versus positive), describing the trait or behaviour as it exists, as objectively as possible. Another departure from previous approaches is the stress on accuracy. Most perceptions are viewed in traditional literature as neither right not wrong, only on whether they result in behaviours that are desirable for the end intended or not. In this case, stressing on accuracy signifies an emphasis on what is right or correct, and that the opposite would be wrong. Finally, the model gains its legitimacy from the result – corporate performance – which most behavioural theories would not so directly link in order to be adjudged legitimate. There may be some difficulty in the application of the findings of this theory, because while it specifies that the attribution must be positive in order to contribute to good performance, it also specifies that the attribution must be accurate; therefore, where the attribution points to a negative but accurate implication or perception, or is positive but inaccurate, then the leadership attribution ceases to be effective, and the model is not helpful in describing organizational phenomena. Critical Review of “Competing values leadership: quadrant roles and personality traits” by Belasen & Frank (2008) Competing Values Framework is a tool for clarifying leadership roles and expectations; it is most useful in ambiguous situations where conflicting situations within teams or units calls upon one or another of several leadership approaches. Persons in positions of leadership often experience the need to resort to a wide range of behaviours in response to different roles. Each of these roles calls on a varied set of skills in dealing with people, while simultaneously ensuring that the organizations’ goals are achieved. Where the various roles and the behaviour they call for are not clarified, however, leaders often tend to apply the role inappropriate for the needs of the developing situation. The competing values framework, of CVF, was first developed by Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1983) and further elaborated on by Quinn (1984 & 1988), who viewed the leadership as comprised of eight competing roles aligned along four quadrants; these roles and quadrants are summarized in the table below, and graphically depicted in the diagrams following (two were presented for clarity of concept). The eight, oftentimes conflicting, supervisory roles are the director and producer role (along the rational goal model); the monitor and coordinator roles ( in the internal process model); the facilitator and mentor roles (in the human relations model), and the roles of innovator and of broker (under the open systems model). Overall, the competing values framework is viewed as making three major contributions to the study of leadership theory. Its first contribution is that it integrates four different perspectives about leadership into a single framework, referring of course to the human relations model, the open systems model, the internal process model, and the relational goal model, and aligns them across the intersecting continuums of flexibility versus control, and internal versus external perspectives. The second important contribution is that the competing values framework depicts how opposing values may be made to coexist in the organization and may even be the means to strengthen and balance it. Finally, the model clarifies that there are necessarily contradictory values in the organization, but they are interrelated and vital to organizational life. It thus affords managers the opportunity to systematically draw insight into what particular values may be given emphasis during different stages in the development of the organization (Yang & Shao, 1996, p.526). The article by Belasen and Frank (2008), sought to validate the leadership roles described in the competing values framework, and to identify the personality traits that influence the person’s choice of which roles to assume. What makes this study different from the mainstream CVF studies is that it links CVF with leadership trait theory and behavioural theory. It is premised on the concept that the choice of competing value is not so much a proactive decision (as the CVF suggests), as it is a result of personal traits and behaviour. The proposition being made by the study is one of causality, that traits influence behaviour that in turn determines the choice of role and values. It observed, and in the course of investigation confirmed, that corresponding traits and roles were distributed into the appropriate competing quadrant relationships, as shown in the following diagram: The diagram has the added dimensions of personality traits aligned in accordance with the appropriate quadrant and roles. These traits are openness to new experiences (between flexibility and external), assertiveness (between external and control), conscientiousness (between control and internal), and agreeableness (between internal and flexibility). The study further established causal paths between conscientiousness to analyser (monitor/coordinator), openness to vision-setter (innovator and broker), agreeableness to motivator (facilitator and mentor), and assertiveness to task master (director and producer). At the onset, one is tempted to ask why such a study is needed, when traits had already been established relating to leadership by any one of the earlier theories. Upon analysis, however, it becomes apparent that the model developed by Belasen and Frank provides a practical model by which candidates for leadership positions in an organization may be chosen on the basis of how closely their personality traits match the role called for. It brings one to the realization that not all individuals possess all the personality traits called for by the various roles, and therefore not one person would effectively fulfil all the roles with equal effectiveness An understanding of one’s personality traits would therefore be useful in assigning that individual to the role he would most effectively discharge for the organization.   Critical comparison between Attributional and Competing Values Theories The two articles discussed were similar in the sense that they have the same principal objective: to find causal relationships between attributes and traits, and the resulting leadership performance (Lakshman) or role behaviour (Belasen & Frank). They do so in a way that combines different leadership theories, namely trait, behavioural, and situational theories of leadership, aspects of which are present in both studies. The articles’ treatises differ, however, in the manner they apply the theories to practice, the stages in an organizations efforts at which they apply, and the measure they regard as the result or output. Lakshman seeks a direct link through the attributional theory, relating employee performance with specific leadership actions that provided the motivation. On the other hand, Belasen and Frank applied a more probabilistic approach where certain traits were seen to give rise to tendencies where certain individuals may be seen to be more effective in certain roles. The differences in approach is immediately apparent: Lakshman traces leadership attributions to the resulting performance of the organizational unit; Belasen and Frank underscore the likelihood of success in particular defined roles given certain traits, but does not concern itself with the effects upon the unit’s or subordinates’ performance. In the overall analysis, the two paradigms are as similar and different in the same way as apples and oranges are also similar and different: they are of the same genus, but of different species. Leadership practitioners in search of methods will be best guided by Lakshman’s article, which describes more strategies and techniques which produce tangible results. On the other hand, for the purposes of human resources staffing in leadership positions, Belasen and Frank provides useful insights into matching a candidate’s personal traits with the role called for by a particular leadership position in the organization. It will be useful for matching job appointees to the appropriate leadership job.   Conclusions   There is a confluence of leadership theories that the modern manager can employ in his arsenal, and while they sometimes appear to contradict each other, a broad perspective of leadership in the organization shows all of them to be valid, depending on the particular circumstances, and given the complexities of the modern organization. Two articles were discussed and analysed herein. Both, while meritorious within the scope of their necessary assumptions and delimitations, are not meant for objective application without qualification, and to the exclusion of other theories. As with most management studies, the findings are but aids in support of the broader perspective called for by management practice. They provide valuable nuggets of insight, and where judiciously employed, can produce effective and tangible results. At best, the articles provide practicable versions combining the trait, behavioural and situational leadership theories. Wordcount = 3,170 References Barry, D 1991 “Managing the bossless team: lessons in distributed leadership.” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 20, pp. 31-47 Bass, B M & Bass, R 2008 The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory , Research, and Managerial Applications, 4th edition. Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, NY Bass, B M & Riggio, R E 2006 Transformational Leadership, 2nd edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey Belasen, A & Frank, N 2008 “Competing values leadership: quadrant roles and personality traits.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 127-143 Bertocci, D I 2009 Leadership in Organizations: There is a Difference Between Leaders and Managers. University Press of America, Inc., Plymouth, UK Bitsch, V & Olynk, N J 2007 “Skills Required of Managers in Livestock Production: Evidence from Focus Group Research.” Review of Agricultural Economics, Winter 2007, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p749-764; DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2007.00385.x Bolden, R; Gosling, J; Marturano, A; & Dennison, P 2003 “A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks.” Report for Chase Consulting and the Management Standards Centre. Center for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter. Accessed 27 November 2011 from http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/documents/mgmt_standards.pdf Burch, P 2007 “The professionalization of instructional leadership in the United States: competing values and current tensions.” Journal of Education Policy, Mar 2007, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p195-214; DOI: 10.1080/02680930601158943 Crainer, S & Dearlove, D 2003 Business, the Universe, and Everything: Conversations with the World’s Greatest Management Thinkers. Capstone Publishing Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex Denison, D R & Fornell, C 1990 “Modeling Distance Structures in Consumer Research: Scale Versus Order in Validity Assessment” Journal of Consumer Research, Mar 1, 1990, Vol. 16, Issue 4 Flaherty, J S & Stark, P B 1999 The Competent Leader: A Powerful and Practical Tool Kit for Managers and Supervisors. HRD Press, Amherst, Massachusetts Heider, F 1982 The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Routledge Hellriegel, D & Slocum, J W 2007 Organizational Behavior, 11th edition. Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH Kelley, H H 1967 “Attribution theory in social psychology.” In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Levine D (ed.), Vol. 15, pp. 192-238. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE Kerr, S & Jermier, J M 1978 “Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, vol. 22, pp. 375-403 Kim, H-S & Shim, S 2003 “Gender-Based Approach to the Understanding of Leadership Roles Among Retail Managers.” Human Resource Development Quarterly, Fall 2003, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p321 Kinghorn, B H; Black, J A; & Oliver, R 2007 “Leadership Roles and Organizational Environment: Relationships Between Competing Values Frameworks, Leader Roles, and the Context for Learning” SouthWest Decision Sciences Institute. Accessed 28 November 2011 from http://www.swdsi.org/swdsi07/2007_proceedings/papers/526.pdf Lakshman, C “Attributional theory of leadership: a model of functional attributions and behaviors.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal. Vol. 29, no. 4, 2008, pp. 317-339 Leitner, A 2007 Concept of Leadership and Management Within the Manufacturing Industry. GRIN Verlag, Norderstedt Germany Martin, B; Cashel, C; Wagstaff, M; & Breunig, M 2006 Outdoor Leadership: Theory and Practice. Human Kinetics, Stanningley, Leeds Martin, J & Simons, R 2002 “Managing Competing Values: Leadership Styles of Mayors and CEOs.” Australian Journal of Public Administration, Sep 2002, Vol. 61 Issue 3, p65-75 Monson, T C; Keel, R; Stephens, D; & Genung, V 1982 “Trait attribution: Relative validity, covariation with behaviour, and prospect of future interaction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 1014-1024 Quinn, R E 1984 “Applying the competing values approach to leadership towards an integrative framework” in Hunt, J G; Hosking, D; Schriesheim, C; & Stewart, R (eds) Leaders and Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and Leadership. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY Quinn, R E 1988 Beyond Rational Management, Josey-Bass, San Francisco, CA Quinn, R.E.; Faerman, S R; Thompson, M P; & McGrath, M R 2003 Becoming a master manager: A competency framework, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY Quinn, R E & Rohrbaugh, J A 1983 “A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: toward a competing values approach to organizational analysis.” Management Science, Vol. 29, pp. 363-377 Schriberg, A & Schriberg, D 2011 Practicing Leadership: Principles and Applications, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY Steiner, D D; Dobbins, G H; Trahan, W A 1991 “The Trainer-Trainee Interaction: An Attributional Model of Training” Journal of Organizational Behavior, Jul 1, 1991, Vol. 12, Issue 4 Steiner, D D 1997 “Attributions in Leader-Member Exchanges: Implications for Practice.” European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 1997, Vol. 6 Issue 1, p59 Tripathi, R & Reddy, P N 2006 Principles of Management, 3rd ed. Tata McGraw-Hill, Delhi Yager, E 2001 “Paradox and leadership.” Enterprise/Salt Lake City, 04/09/2001, Vol. 30 Issue 39, p13 Yang, O & Shao, Y E 1996 “Shared leadership in self-managed teams: A competing values approach.” Total Quality Management, Dec 96, Vol. 7 Issue 5, p521-534; DOI: 10.1080/09544129610621 Zafft, C R; Adams, S G; & Matkin, G S 2009 Measuring Leadership in Self-Managed Teams Using the Competing Values Framework.” Journal of Engineering Education, Jul 2009, Vol. 98 Issue 3, p273-282 Read More