Evolution of Leadership Thinking - Essay Example

Topic: Evolution of Leadership Thinking Affiliation: Introduction Leadership practices have been diverse and dynamic throughout the years. Trends in leadership have always captured the attention of scholars in various academic fields. This follows the evolvement of leadership thinking over time. Essentially, changes and improvements in leadership perspectives are backed up by leadership theories that trace, examine, assess, evaluate, and analyse evolution of leadership thinking. The movement from traditional to contemporary theories of leadership is aligned with the leadership needs, interests, issues, and concerns of today’s world. Notably, this movement is informed by leadership thinking evolution relative to leadership theories. Great Man Theory Leadership perspectives have substantially changed since the 19th century. The traditional leadership theory of the Great Man regarded leadership as something which was acquired at birth (Gill, 2011, p.152). In this respect, leaders were not necessarily expected to emerge every now and then. In the light of contemporary leadership practices, this theory downplayed the skills approach to leadership but relatively upheld the trait approach. Inborn traits and personality development influenced leadership thinking within the period associated with the ‘great man’ leadership. The Great Man Theory made no provisions for learned leadership. This implies that it was not believed a person could actually learn and become a skilled leader. Following this observation, it would be correct to argue that ‘great man’ leadership was based on traditional beliefs and subsequent practices that called on leaders only when need be. Difficult times would essentially see the surfacing of leaders who would go dormant after the underlying issues and/or concerns were addressed. Worth to note is that ‘great man’ leadership was highly driven by charismatic heroes (Winkler, 2009), and today’s leadership practices still account for charismatic leaders. Behavioural Theory Entry into the 20th century saw critical changes and improvements in the leadership arena. The at-birth factor in leadership was countered in the 1930s when behavioural leadership theory was introduced (Gill, 2011). The underlying shift in this case considered more than just leadership acquisition at birth. Trait approach to leadership became a proactive measure of leadership in the first half of the 20th century. Through their character traits and personalities, potential leaders could be identified from the rest of the population. The stage of life of an individual was a critical factor to account for in behavioural leadership theory. This helped in the assessment of whether or not an individual was a leader, potential leader, or future leader. Great leaders who had emerged or surfaced in the ‘great man’ era were used as the guiding principles in behavioural leadership. Specifically, their traits and personalities were used. Individuals who portrayed leadership qualities that matched those of great leaders were regarded as leaders, potential leaders, or future leaders. Leadership was now based on identification of behaviour as opposed to acquisition. Participative Theory Schools of thought relative to leadership kept emerging as leadership persistently became more diverse and dynamic. Leadership thinking shifted along the process. Participation of many people who played leadership roles in many and different fields informed the transition from behavioural to participative leadership. The thought of participative leadership brought together individuals who shared insights into decision making and problem solving. Thought evolution in the participative theory context allowed leadership-driven insights to be shared among individuals. In other words, leadership practices acknowledged that other people can work with the leader to arrive at effective and efficient decisions and/or solutions to problems. This thought transition from the prior perspective essentially shaped social, economic, and political organization of the world. It established a sharing platform that allows leaders to work with other interested parties/stakeholders in making informed choices, decisions, and resolutions. The dynamics of participative theory identify three vital leadership styles, namely: autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire (Winkler, 2009, p.47). Under autocratic leadership, the leader is the ultimate decision maker. The involvement of any other person is not observed, an aspect that could result in work-based disputes or conflicts. However, the leader still works with other people within that given environment. For example, in the event where workers are laid off without any consultation with other parties, the leader practices autocratic leadership. The direct implication is that the laid off workforce could challenge the move. Democratic leadership is works on a group basis. In other words, this style of leadership allows groups of people to take part in decision making and problem solving. The idea is to enable different people to discuss the underlying leadership issues or concerns, and subsequently propose a way out. This kind of thinking seems to have streamlined leadership practices right after the emergence of behavioural leadership to date. For instance, today’s organizational leadership has become more oriented towards collaborative efforts among interested groups. Finally, the evolution of leadership thinking under participative theory accounts for laissez-faire style of leadership. Under laissez-faire leadership style, the leader gives other people the power to decide on the necessary, relevant, or applicable course of action (Dasborough, 2006, p.169). This style has its functional implications, especially in relation to its overall effectiveness and efficiency. Its reliability is notably at stake, and the final result might or might not be desirable. For this reason, the use of this leadership style is critical relative to the achievement of the set goals and objectives. Situational Leadership Shifts in leadership trends continued to be realized after the introduction, integration, use, and application of behavioural theory. Leadership thought that introduced situational leadership saw it necessary to consider the environment within which decisions are made and problems are solved. In other words, internal and external factors in leadership became critical within and across the leadership process. Considerations relative to these factors influence, in one way or another, the course of action taken by the leader. This theory acknowledges that leaders can work with teams to realize great accomplishments. However, it is not clear whether or not this kind of leadership is more oriented towards the trait or skills approach to leadership. The common denominator noted in situational leadership is that the need to consider the environmental factor of leadership is vital, regardless of which leadership approach this theory sides with. In the process, the relationship and interaction between leaders and their followers cannot fail to be prioritized. Skills Approach to Leadership Evolution of leadership practices moved swiftly to show that leadership can be learned, acquired, and developed. This countered and critically challenged the previously held notion that leadership was an inborn thing. Skills approach did not by any chance oppose the connection between personality characteristics and leadership (trait approach). Rather, skills approach to leadership emphasized that leadership skills and abilities can be learned and developed (DuBrin, 2013). In this respect, skills approach becomes a complementary factor in personality-based leadership. Ultimately, this approach fosters leadership efficiency and effectiveness. Contingency Theory The progressive evolution of leadership thinking further led to the emergence of the contingency theory. This theory upholds the fact that leadership skills are fundamental in the leadership process. Notably, the theory of contingency accounts for diversity and dynamism in leadership. In so doing, it is noted that the knowledge and skills of practice vary from one field to another, one situation to another, and across organizations. In other words, different leadership situations may or may not require different sets of leadership skills. The determining factor in this case is the desired final outcome. Changes in the leadership environment need to be accompanied by similar responses and/or trends relative to leadership skills (DuBrin, 2013). Leaders do not necessarily handle similar issues across the leadership practice. For this reason, the functional and operational success of leaders varies within and across situations, and so do the employed strategies and styles of leadership. All these aspects are fully provided for by the contingency theory. As leadership practices became more diverse and dynamic, leadership thinking evolved along the realized changes to redesign, restructure, and reorganize leadership processes. Transactional Leadership Max Weber assumed that chain of commands that are clear and well defined constitutes effective leadership, where rewards and/or punishments are used to influence employees in one way or another (Kuckartz, 2010). Specifically, the point of influence was based on employee motivation. A transactional leader is driven by the need to achieve a set of given goals and objectives. Here, results are of critical concern. The transactional leader sets and clearly defines the desired goals and objectives. Directions are then presented on the specific course of action to be followed in pursuing those goals and objectives. On the same note, implications of achieving or failing to achieve the desired results are made known to all participants. The leader plays a supervisory role in the whole matter. Transformational Leadership Contemporary leadership practices are highly reflective of transformational leadership. Transformational form of leadership integrates and combines personality characteristics and learned and developed aspects to inspire, motivate, encourage, coach, and mentor others (Kuckartz, 2010). In this case, leadership can be a realized practice through inspiration and motivation from others. A number of features inform transformational leadership, namely: vision setting, passion leveraging, and enthusiastic practices (Kuckartz, 2010, p.173). A charismatic leader serves as an effective and efficient driver of transformational leadership. From the Traditional ‘Great Man’ to Transformational Leadership The evolution of leadership thinking throughout the years has marked immense changes and improvements in leadership practices and processes. Leadership has moved from being limited to at-birth personality characteristics to inspirational and motivational leadership. This has followed the progressive identification of gaps and loopholes in leadership. On the same note, needs, issues, and concerns in leadership have exhibited diversity and dynamism. In response, progressive changes in execution of leadership have been realized. Trait and skills approach to leadership have become essentially intertwined. People have moved from being born leaders to learning and developing leadership from learning. Knowledge has, therefore, become a vital component of the leadership process. The inborn abilities have been subjected to complementary factors, learning and knowledge. Whilst the traditional perspectives of leadership have not been shunned, ways have been designed to improve them for the purpose of making them more effective and efficient. Different schools of thought relative to leadership have emerged throughout the years. This has helped trace points of transition from one leadership theory to another. Changes in leadership practices have not happened just for the sake. The underlying evolution has been prompted by emerging trends within and across the leadership environment. An emergent need, issue, or concern prompts significant evolution in leadership thinking. When the progressive trend is summed up right from the traditional ‘great man’ era to the contemporary times, a road map to the evolution of leadership theories is realized. The evolution of leadership thinking from traditional ‘great man’ theories to more contemporary theories of leadership has presented up to eleven types of leaders, namely: bureaucratic, charismatic, autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire, people-oriented, task-oriented, servant, transactional, transformational, and environment leaders (Lussier & Achua, 2009, p.225). The personal and professional growth and development of these leaders are highly dependent on the actual leadership theory or theories they employ alongside their preferred leadership styles. The diversity created by evolvement of leadership thinking allows leaders to prioritize contemporary insights of leadership while choosing to work with or abandon ‘great man’ perspectives. Examples of leaders from all over the world evidence the process of shifting from traditional to contemporary leadership theories. Charismatic leaders have been gaining strong grounds worldwide, with President Obama being an example of just how much charisma can achieve for a leader (Bligh & Kohles, 2009, p.485). Social, economic, and political leadership trends have also served fundamental roles in the underlying transitions. From dictatorship to totalitarianism to democracy, private and public leadership have reflected the traditional ‘great man’ to transformational leadership transition process. Conclusion Effective and efficient leadership is designed to realize great accomplishments. This process encompasses thinking and acting in a way that enhances the entire pursuit. Leadership perspectives have progressively evolved to challenge the ‘great man’ practice of leadership. The outcome has been the notion that leadership can be learned and developed. Leadership theories discussed in this paper attest to the evolution of leadership thinking. Reference List Bligh, M. & Kohles, J. (2009). “The enduring allure of charisma: How Barack Obama won the historic 2008 presidential election”, The Leadership Quarterly, 20 (2009) 483–492. Dasborough, M.T. (2006). “Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviours”, The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2):pp. 163-178. DuBrin, A. J. (2013). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills (7th ed.), London: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gill, R. (2011). Theory and Practice of Leadership, London: SAGE. Kuckartz, R. (2010). Transformational and Transactional Leadership, London: LAP Lambert Acad. Publ. Lussier, R. & Achua, C. (2009). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development, London: Cengage Learning. Winkler, I. (2009). Contemporary Leadership Theories, London: Springer. Read More