Compare and contrast the Four Leader-centric Approaches - Term Paper Example

Compare and contrast the four leader-centric approaches with the four group centric approaches Table of Contents Introduction 3 FOUR LEADER CENTRIC APPROACHES 3 Amoralism and Reason 3 Traits and Virtues 4 Exceptionalism and Relativism 5 Self-Interest and Power 5 FOUR GROUP- CENTRIC APPROACHES 6 Consent and Permission 6 Moral Particularity and Membership 6 Circumstances and Situations 7 Leadership Ethics 7 COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS 8 References 9 Bibliography 10 Introduction Leadership means influencing people. It signifies creating a change in the society and in the minds of people and directs them towards achieving a goal. The person possessing these qualities is considered a leader. A leader has certain important leadership traits such integrity, self-confidence, intelligence and determination. Style in leadership signifies the behavior of the leader. The style of leadership focuses mainly on the activities and the ways of approaching them. However, the leader centric approaches assist in determining the styles of the leaders. These can also be regarded as the qualities or traits which are hidden in different leadership styles. In this study the leader centric as well as the group centric approaches would be discussed to draw a comparative analysis. The study begins with a brief overview on leadership and traits of a leader. Further a detailed discussion on four leader centric approaches has been stated and four group centric approaches has also been discussed, so that the readers get a clear idea about these approaches individually. Finally a comparative analysis would be stated to highlight the contrasts. FOUR LEADER CENTRIC APPROACHES The four leader centric approaches are explained in details below: Amoralism and Reason The common question that is often asked is that, is the leaders above the law or does the moral values that applies to all, also applies to the leaders? Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), suggested that according to the deontological ethics, morality binds every one which also includes the leaders. So it can be said that if Kant is right in his approach, the leaders cannot have a rule breaking attitude, and cannot appeal if he/she is regarded wrong. However, in spite of this if a leader engages in any unethical behavior is simply an unreasonable person. So reasons demand that every person has to act in one way including a leader. The golden rule is that, which Kant has suggested, that says that, we should treat everyone the way we want to be get treated by others. This view is very much applicable for authoritative leaders, who must understand that he is not different but part of the same crowd. According to Kant, the actions of a leader should be universal. He also adds that a leader can think that he will lie to others for achieving his own goals, but he should also imagine a life where everyone else lie to him to achieve their goals. The charismatic leaders such as Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler depended on the referent power for maintaining a relationship with their followers. The feeling such as loyalty or respect cannot be termed as rational. So rationality can be also a power which leaders use to treat followers. Kants ethics are very much grounded to value of reason. In this part Kant reveals that leader should have moral values and respect towards law. However, if the leader does not have the ability to express the reasons behind his actions then the morality is no good for him. By this he wants to put forward that laws are obeyed not because it’s the only ways of doing things right, but because of respect for the policy or system. When a leader cannot express his view or the reasons behind his actions in the name of morality or respect for law, it can be considered Amoralism. Traits and Virtues The term trait signifies the different attributes that an individual has or possess. This includes his personality, motives, needs, and values. The personality traits of a person determine the way he/she behaves in a particular situation. In the twentieth century it was believed that this trait of the leader that is the difference in the personality differentiated the leaders and the followers. It was also considered that a person does not only become a leader just by virtue, but because of having certain personal characteristics. These finding led to the advent of situational and contingency leadership approaches or styles. Recent research on this theory proves the fact that the personal characteristics of a person hardly die out and this is what makes the leader an effective leader. Gary Yukl suggested that there are several characteristics of leaders that can be associated with trait approaches, and Yukl also suggests that these characteristics of the leaders differentiates them from the followers, these characteristics are: Stress tolerance ability and effectiveness, focused, controlled, achievement oriented, emotionally stable, confident, and integrity. Effective leaders have these characteristics in higher levels than the followers. In this context it can be said that self confidence is regarded as a non-moral quality, but leaders are not different because they have a non-moral quality like self-confidence, but they are different because they have a moral quality called virtue. A question which arises in our mind is that are the leaders morally specially, that is why they are leaders, or there is some other reason behind it? In order to answer this question we have to study another special trait, which is called virtue. Virtue is the personal dispositions for responding to a particular situation in morally right or appropriate ways. There are two general virtues of effective leadership, first is emotional maturity and stability, and the second is personal integrity. Virtue theorist, Aristotle (384-22 B. C.), suggested that morality does not only include moral actions, but also moral feelings. The leaders who are emotional are more likely to feel the right decision before take them and acting upon them. Secondly, personal integrity relates to the personal behavior of a person such as honest, trustworthy or ethical. According to Aristotle, a leaders morality should be consistent and also ethical. Exceptionalism and Relativism It is generally seen that leaders have their own rule books. What is wrong for everyone might be right for a leader. So this phenomenon of leadership ethics can be understood with the help of moral relativism. Moral relativism is a view which depicts that the right or wrong differs from one person to another. Leaders can also react to same situations in different ways based on their cultural preferences. The first approach may be regarded as personal relativism and the second may be considered as cultural relativism. So relativism can be regarded as the different ways in which leaders set their own code of ethics. Moral Exceptionalism suggests that leaders have something morally very special because of which they are leaders. The case might be that the situation that they face is unique from a moral point of view, or they have a very special relation with their followers. Self-Interest and Power Self-interest and power are two vital things that a leader must balance if he/she wants to be an effective leader. In this regard it has been said by many eminent historians and theorists, that it is the leader who is responsible for determining the parameters of ethical behavior, so we can say that leaders are vested with great responsibility and with great power comes the great responsibility of handling it too. Now we can relate that does the power allotted to a leader give him/her enough liberty to concentrate on his /her self-interest. It has been suggested that the self-interest within the boundaries of morality can be considers as leaders are also individuals who work for their own interest too, but unethical usage of power for self-interest is not only immoral, but also unethical. FOUR GROUP- CENTRIC APPROACHES In the group centric approach the perspective of the group or followers are stated to discuss those aspects that have been discussed in the leader centric approach. The four group centric approaches are discussed in details below: Consent and Permission E. P. Hollander, states the definition of a leader in a group. He states that a leader is an individual who is given the permission to exercise his influence or power on the other individuals. This is specifically indicated to those leaders who have transformed from a follower to a leader. So it can be said that in order to maintain a strong leader follower relationship, the consent from the group is very important. Hollander also says that leaders gain consent from the followers by showing them their competency to handle and control the group activities and has the ability to infuse innovation in them for achieving greater goals. This also depicts that the leader himself has to follow the group norms, yet he is person who makes and alter those norms (Reilly, 2006, p. 166-167). Kant states that the fundamental difference between the follower and the leader is not because of the moral status between them. The leaders are allowed to break rules not because they are leaders and have all the power to do so, but because the followers rationally decide that those rules are not applicable to the leaders, but to the followers. This also does not means that the leaders simply utilize the followers as a means to get permission for breaking rules, but they respect the rationality of the followers through their moral behavior (Dirks, & Ferrin, 2002, p. 3). Moral Particularity and Membership Communitarian is a concept that is often emphasizes on the connection between the community and an individual. The community may be the group or the followers and the individual is the leader. In this context Kant has suggested that a leader cannot utilize the special importance of the group in order to justify the authoritative behavior. The communitarian alternatives to the moral theories lead us to think the moral justifications in a different way. Based on this view, it can be stated that the justification for any moral agent is depended on the specific facts of that agent. Since the objectivity of the value is not defined in the third party sense, but rather in terms of membership, so the group-members consider its social meanings. In the morally vigorous relationships of professional and business life, a leader should owe to the group members more than they have expected from them. Milton Friedman in his famous paper "The Social responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits," has mentioned that the corporate executives should conduct business according to the desires of the employer, so as to earn maximum profit for them. Friedman viewed that the corporate executives were rigidly bound by morality and profit earning is the constraint that comes under this rule of morality. However, students study this paper as a manifesto of amoralism in business (Lansig, 1999, p. 13-14). Circumstances and Situations Moral situationism is the term utilized for the view which depicts that the decisions are not taken based on the principles or rule but by the characteristics of the situation. For example in some cases lying can be the best possible solution. So this is the reason why the leaders are given the rule breaking permission by his/her group members. In The Prince, a famous book on leadership styles, the author Machiavelli portrays a stark disparity between force and law. Like Kant, he has also identified law with force. He has expressed his respect for law, as it enforces rational behavior of the group. Machiavelli has associated force with an animal life and also stated that a leader has to get used to it. He has clarified the fact that the leader must not be treating his group badly like animals, but be ready to act like a beast himself (Machiavelli, & Marriott, 2007, p. 59). Leadership Ethics Leadership ethics on daily basis does not suggest the fact that leader are allowed to break rules just because they are morally allowed to do so. According to Kant there are certain essential components that need to be considered under everyday ethics of a leader. Firstly, the everyday leaders cannot pursue their personal goals without acknowledging their problems, but this does not mean that the leaders have to sacrifice their own goals in order to help the others in achieving what they think is valuable. Secondly, the everyday leaders do not establish superiority among them and their followers. The relationship should be such that it should seem that a better qualified group member is trying to help the other members in achieving the group goals (Koestenbaum, 2002, p. 41-43; Odom, 2010, p. 74-76). COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS After evaluating and understanding four leader centric and group centric approaches, we draw a combined analysis of both the approaches to derive a comparative conclusion in the study. Assuming that the unethical behavior of the leaders are also for some good intentions, it can be said that leaders have the liberty to break rules sometimes because they are the once who set the parameter of ethicality. However the group or the followers are very important because a leader does not exist without a group of followers. The leader centric approach states the traits or virtues which a leader must have in order to be an effective leader. Moreover, the concepts of power self interest, reasoning, morality which are very important in a leader are discussed to analyze that responsibilities of a leader and the traits which develops different leadership styles. Similarly in case of group centric approach, the supporting arguments are stated from the point of view of followers or groups. Born or natural leaders are exceptions, but those leaders who were once a follower or part of the group should be aware of the traits like permission or consent, membership, acting in accordance to the situation, and he must have the ingredients of an ethical leader. The power and responsibility to take moral decisions are vested to a leader by his group, and he should never forget that. A good leader is not the one who walks in front of the cue, but is one who follows his follower and walks behind them to guide and assist (Mendonca, & Kanungo, 2006, p. 11-14). References Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications For research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611- 628. Koestenbaum, P. (2002). Leadership: The Inner Side of Greatness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lansig, A. (1999). Lansig, A. (1999). Endurance: Shackletons Incredible Voyage to the Antarctic. New York: Carol and Graf. Machiavelli, N., & Marriott, W. K. (2007). The Prince (Special Student Edition ed.). Rockville: Manor. Mendonca, M., & Kanungo, R. (2006). Ethical leadership: Work and organizational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill International. Odom, L. (2010). Leadership Ethics. Indiana: Xlibris Corporation. Reilly, E. C. (2006). The future entering: Reflections on and challenges to ethical leadership. Educational Leadership and Administration, 18, 163-173. Bibliography Greenleaf, R. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New Jersey: Paulist Press. Johnson, K. D. (1974). Ethical issues of military leadership. Ethics in Forestry (pp. 83-89). Portland: Timber Press Inc. Read More