Re-Emergence of Trait-based Theories of Leadership - Essay Example

Does the New Twenty-First Century Transformational form of super Leader Simply Represent the Re-Emergence of Trait-based Theories of Leadership Introduction The study of leadership has been an intellectual pursuit since the writings of Sun-Tzu in 400BC. Interested in the way in which leadership was directed: His list of desirable qualities would not appear inappropriate in a 21st Century leadership book: 'leadership is a matter of intelligence, Trustworthiness, humanness, courage, and sternnesswhen one has All five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can Be a military leader". (Footdown, 2004) Leadership, or rather the concept of leadership, is definitely altered from those ideals, but yet it seems that the essential factors which make leaders have remained the same. The 21st Century mix of transformational leadership with a super-leader is perhaps not very far away from this ideal. This essay seeks to answer the question of whether this version of leadership is truly unique, or whether it is merely a re-naming of the older theories of trait-based leadership. By looking at the history of ideas of leadership, from the writings of Machiavelli in the 16th Century, via Max Weber's hero-based theories, to trait and behavioral theories, and then to the origins of transformational theory in the 1970's, this essay will consider the similarities between such theories. Eventually concentrating on the three main ideas of leadership: Trait theory, Situational or behavioral theory, and Transformational theory, this essay will compare and contrast these ideas in order to discover whether modern ideas of super-leadership is really a 21st century innovation. The first part of this essay will look at the history of leadership, and consider how these theories changed over time, and how they were affected by the politics of the day - whether Weber's hero-based theories fall out of favor because of "charismatic" leaders such as Hitler and Stalin, for example. The essay will then consider the two prime theories of leadership prior to the 1970's; trait theory, and situational theory. Through analysis of all of these historical theories, it is hoped that common perspectives and behaviors might be more clearly seen. Having noted similar themes or behaviors within the historical theories, the next part of the essay will consider transformational leadership, and its development in the twentieth century. Notions of the Super-leader will also be examined. The conclusion will consider the different types of 20th century leadership theory, and compare this with the 21st century development of the transformational form of super-leader. A History of Leadership Theories Leadership theories do not just describe leaders of countries, or empires; indeed, leadership theory in the 20th century has also focused upon business leaders; modern theorists consider teachers, football coaches, and even parents, as leaders. There are a great many books written about it also: so anyone who can buy a book from a store can learn the tricks and secrets to being a great leader. Therefore, in order to understand what theorists mean when they are discussing leadership, a definition seems necessary. For the purposes of this essay, leadership is "The effort to influence the behavior of individuals or members of a group in order to accomplish organizational, individual, or personal goals" (National Resources Management, 1997). The main focus of most pre-twentieth century theories of leadership was the monarch, or rulers of countries. Sun-Tzu's theories have already been described: clearly they relate to the idea of a war-lord, or leader with military capability, not the average equipment of the business leader. Rulers were also clearly the object of Machiavelli's work "The Prince"; in his theory, rulers are made great or weak through the popular perception of them: "Whenever men are discussed.they are noted for various qualities which earn them either praise or condemnation" (Machiavelli). In general, he believed that the fate of countries lay in the hands of their monarchs: "Machiavelli thought the power to change kingdoms and societies rested with the superior talents of great men, the Princes" (Boje, 1). Machiavelli is, of course, well known for his cunning and two-faced princes; however, he discussed the personality traits of many different princes, including Jesus. Where Plato preferred the enlightened philosophy-king, Machiavelli imagined the Prince who would make the tough choices in hard times, and be merciful in bountiful onesleaders can be "Loved", usually by being liberal and merciful; leaders "Can be 'hated' because they are too rapaciousor are perceived as 'effeminate'Leaders "Can be feared without being hated, as is the case when greatness, spiritedness, gravity and strength are recognized in their actions (Boje, 1). According to the Machiavellian theory of leadership, therefore, a leader needs to demonstrate their strength; they must be tough when necessary, but merciful too, according to the situation. His 'Prince' is not merely a negative bully or tyrant, but a subtle, intelligent and forceful man who moves with the times in order to benefit his kingdom. It is possible to see in Machiavelli's ideas of a ruler, the beginnings of both trait leadership theory (the Prince must be strong), and situational leadership theory (the Prince must be able to move with the time). Leadership theories of the nineteenth century tended to focus upon Kings and princes too. A great many of the ideas which we now retain about English Kings and rulers, for example, originated in the Victorian era, indeed, it is from this age that the term leadership originated: The Oxford English Dictionarynoted the appearance of the word "Leader" in the English language as early as the year 1300; the word "Leadership" itself did not appear until the first half of the nineteenth Century. (Zacko-Smith, 2007). The work of Frederich Nietzsche in the late nineteenth century discussed leadership in terms of the "superior man". As with Machiavelli "For Nietzsche the world is chaos and it takes a leader of great strength to change history" (Boje, 1). He also felt that the role of leaders was in many ways also situational; "Everything good is the evil of former days made serviceable" (Nietzsche), but his idea of the Superman, who was free, visionary, and able to grasp life, places his conception of leadership firmly in the 'trait' and hero-based notions. Before the beginning of the twentieth century, therefore, it is clear that there were some theories of leadership, but they focused solely upon those responsible for running countries, and therefore were more likely to refer to 'heroes' and public perception. However, history does seem to show that some leaders were judged upon their abilities, as a manager or 'leader' of a business. The reigns of two Kings of England during the 1300's (when the term leader was first being used), will illustrate this point: Edward I gained the throne from a weak and over-whelmed father. As Prince, he had defeated rebels in battle; gone to the crusades; produced many children by the time he became king, and fought and defeated the Scots, who had acknowledged him as overlords. His Son, Edward II, inherited the throne from a strong and militarily successful father. He was unmarried when he succeeded in 1307, and married the 12-year-old Isabella of France. Their first child was not born until 1312. He made war on the Scots, but was soundly defeated, and the Scots raided far into England, coming close to capturing the Queen. The Barons rebelled, and captured Edward's favorite, beheading him. Eventually, he was deposed. These kings both ruled the same country, and faced similar kinds of opposition, from the Scots, and from their own Barons. Edward I developed himself into the image of a medieval king: militarily successful, dynastically successful (he was never without a son), and a strong ruler with a vision. On the other side, his son, Edward II, was militarily unsuccessful; he was without offspring for the first five years of his reign; the Scots humiliated him more than once, and his barons rebelled and killed his servants. Edward II did NOT project the image of a strong king, and this was why his subjects eventually felt able to depose him. Neither of the Edwards had other heirs claiming the throne, nor were they conquered by a stronger power; it was the image of leadership which they projected which dictated whether they were successful or not. Edward I understood that medieval kingship required military and dynastic success from the start of the reign; Edward II either did not understand, or was unable to provide, this leadership. Therefore, even at the start of the use of 'leader' as a concept, there was general consensus about what constituted good leadership. These concepts paved the way for the more modern ideas of charismatic and situational leadership. Charismatic Theory Hero-based, or charismatic leadership, as a theory, was first developed by Max Weber in the mid-twentieth century. This theory suggests that charismatic leaders are revered by their followers: They are idolized as super-heroes by followers and are very effective As communicators, appealing to the myths, hopes and aspirations of Their followerscharismatic leaders have more 'extreme visions' And are willing to make major risks in a way that 'normal' leaders will Not. They often emerge during crisis periodsusing personal power (Attractiveness, expertise, and role modeling) rather thanpositional Power. (Leadership, 2007) Charismatic leaders, therefore, are goal-and-vision orientated, often risk-takers and prophet-like. They are often more like military leaders, or monarchs, than business or organizational leaders: "They demand absolute obedience and are reluctant to share the spotlight with others.", In Weber's concept of charismatic leadership, the leader is often a heroic figure: "The heroic leader has a deep and dedicated sense of mission. The heroic leader can devote themselves fully to the mission of the organization" (Boje, 1). As Boje points out, these heroic leaders still exist, although in a rather altered form: " The heroes of the 1800s to late 1900s were production types who began Industries and created inventions. The heroes of 2000s are sports figures And celebrities, heroes who have fortunes that come [from] consumerism Not from production. (Boje, 1) It is possible to describe the concept of heroic or charismatic leadership was the Great Man Theory. Weber's theory was generally used to compare the ideals of Hitler and Stalin with those of the current leaders; therefore, many theorists sought to develop a theory which held the same basic ideals as charismatic theory, but without the connotations of despotism, mass-murder, and lack of altering behavior to fit the situation. This form of leadership theory, whether charismatic or heroic, then lead on to the development of trait-based leadership theory, and its rival, situational or behavioral theory. Trait-based Theory Weber's theory of Charismatic Leadership found its truest followers in Trait-based, or personality, theory. "Since certain traits are associated with proficient leadership, it assumes that if you could identify people with the correct traits you will be able to identify leaders" (Leadership501). Research has shown there are a number of traits which can be linked to leadership; however, not all of these traits are linked to any one leader: " Leadership effectiveness has been found to be associated with age, height, intelligence, academic achievements, judgmental ability and insight. However, none of these have been correlated with leadership in all situations. The willingness to lead transcends all these traits. (Natural Resources Management 1997) Other sources agree that as many traits have been identified as there have been studies (Bolden, et al, 2003). There is no comprehensive list of traits by which a potential leader can easily be identified, although many researchers quote Stogdill (1974) and his leadership traits: Adaptability to situations; alert to social environment; ambitious And achievement-orientated; assertive; co-operative; decisive; Dependable; dominant; energetic; Persistent; Self-confident; Tolerant of stress; Willing to assume responsibility (Bolden, et all, page 7) This list of traits clearly links back to the ideals of a charismatic leader, particularly the goal-orientated and the assertive traits: decisiveness, dominance, self-confidence and assumption of responsibility also seem to originate from Weber's theories. It is also clear that modern trait-based theorists have attempted to mellow the charismatic leadership theory by adding more social awareness: Adaptability to situation, for example, which was certainly not part of the Charismatic theory. It became clear through these studies that "Leaders come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and genders, and that intelligence, self-confidence, courage and so on appear in a variety of forms." (Ehin, 2005). Trait-based theories of leadership, by themselves, were not enough to define leaders. What is clear, however, is that personality and trait-based theory relied upon the notion of one person in charge; Charismatic leaders, for example, were unable to share; trait-theory developed this into "Willing to assume responsibility", but the emphasis upon the trait-leader taking sole power remains. In both instances, it is that 'one person', who leads his followers to either greatness or destruction. In no sense is it a community or group decision. Situational/Behavioral Theory Also arising from the ashes of Weber's charismatic theory was the situational and behavioral theories of leadership. As traits which define leaders are so difficult to quantify, it was perhaps appealing for theorists to speculate that it was not the personality of the leader which influenced them, but firstly how they perceived their followers, and secondly, the separate situations in which leaders found themselves. The first idea, that leaders were influenced by their followers and their traits, developed into Behavioral theory: that is, not the personality of the leader, but how they act. Three different types of leaders have been established according to behavior: Autocratic leaders: Who exclude subordinates from the process of Decision making Democratic or Participative leaders are more effective and more Productive because they consult subordinates on various matters And include them Laissez-faire leaders have little or no self-confidence in their Leadership ability, do not set goals for the group, and do not Enhance group interpretation and communication (Natural resources, 1997) Further research into this era also developed other types of leader; however, these appear to be just variations on the types named above. Behavioral theory has lead to innovations in the concept of the workplace, including the idea that Team leadership "is the most effective style of leadership, since it has concern for both production and people", and the idea that worker performance may be improved if consideration is given to the worker's problems and behavior, through methods such as motivation, communication, interaction, involvement in decision-making, goal-setting, and performance consideration. Situational theories considered that leadership is centered on environmental factors, which have both positive and negative effects upon a leader's ability to lead, and the style of that leadership. This has many aspects in common with Machiavelli's notion of an adaptable Prince, who can be stern in times of crisis, and then amiable during good periods. Situational theory divides leadership styles into two main branches: Relationship-based leadership, which places emphasis upon personal relationships with workers; group participation is a must, and "Leaders with this style perform most effectively in modest-control situationsthe relationship based leader gets cooperation from the group by being sensitive, diplomatic and tactful" (Natural Resources, 1997). In contrast, the Task-based leader prefers goal-orientated work methods: They have strong task-orientation and perform best in high-control or low-control situationsin addition, leaders have high authority, which enables them to use their powers of reward and punishment appropriately. (Natural resources, 1997) As can be seen, by the 1970s, the concept of leadership had been revolutionized by these two concepts. Trait theory generally remained true to charismatic theory, although attempting to soften the nature of such leadership; behavioral theory divided leaders not according to personality, but dependant upon their acts; and situational theory also divided leaders based, not on personality, but upon the situation they were in, and the kind of managerial styles they adopted. Clearly, many of these situational and behavioral roles were not created with monarchs or world-leaders in mind; instead, these later theories are based firmly upon the style of managers and businessmen. By moving leadership theory away from the rulers, and giving it to lower-level leaders, these theorists were able to see beyond personality traits, and describe leadership through work-related roles. It may not be possible to apply these later theories to world-leaders: such theories as job-and-employee-based leadership could not be used to describe monarchial leadership without altering the meaning of such theories. However, the importance of leadership to managerial development cannot be ignored: "Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success. Leadership determines whether the ladder is leading against the right wall" (Covey, quoted in Footdown, 2004). Modern Leadership Theories The twentieth-century theories of leadership discussed above, finally resulted in the development of the theory of leadership which has been retained into the twentieth century. This theory, developed by MacGregor Burns in the late 1970's, considered there to be two kinds of leaders: transitional leaders, who bargained and negotiated, and transforming leaders, who were focused upon the ends. Boje considers that this theory is based very closely upon Weber, with Transformative leaders being charismatic or hero leaders, and transitional leaders the bureaucrats who otherwise rule countries. Burns also divided the leaders between amoral, and moral authority: Amoral leaders are coercive with a strong will to power, transactional leaders have the moral means to lead, and transformational leaders add to transaction what is lacking, the moral ends of leadership. (Boje, 2) Transactional Leadership Transactional leaders are the most common kind to be found in the public arena, from opinion-makers to focus groups; group or gang leaders, and party-political leadership, "Parties begin with transformational, even charismatic leadership and revolution and reform, and end up as anti-democratic, bureaucratic and political organizations" (Boje, 2). It is also visible in legislative leadership: "Burns did not remark at all on the relationship between legislative leadership and corporate power. Today's behind the scenes back-benchers are political action committees" (Boje, 2). Leaders negotiate and deal for the best outcome for both their followers and for themselves, and always wish to exchange: "Exchanging one thing for another: jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions". (Boje, 2) Transformational Theory Transformational leadership is an important feature of the twenty-first century work-place. It is used in many areas of life, from the classroom to the churchyard, with many teaching theorists seeing transformational leadership as the best method of educating: Views of school leadership are changing largely because of current reconstructing initiatives and the demands of the 90s. Advocates for school reform also usually advocate altering power relationships. (Liontos, 1992) Transformational leaders are those who have vision, much like charismatic leaders: transformational leadership therefore might become a revolutionary: "Revolutionary leadership demands commitment, persistence, courage, perhaps selflessness and even self-abnegation" (Boje, 2). Jim Collins further extended this idea in 2001, when he developed a list of personality traits necessary for great leadership: "A paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will". He Identified the five characteristics common toleaders as: Humility, Will, ferocious resolve, and the tendency to give credit to others while Assigning the blame to themselves. (Footdown, 2004) Transformational leaders can exploit "An existing need or demand of a potential follower, and looks for potential motives in followers" (Burns, quoted in Boje, 2). Clearly, the idea of a transformational leader is not dissimilar from that of a Charismatic or heroic leader. The Super-Leader Transformational leadership also encourages the idea of a 'super leader'. Super-leadership theories concentrate, not upon one man/woman performing all tasks, but one who has developed characteristics along the lines of Nietzsche: Will to power is essential: "A will to power is a move beyond the impulse to live up to others expectations. The Superman/superwoman is self-directed" (Boje, 1). The essential feature of this Super-leader is that the leader "inspires, stimulates and supports self-leadership in subordinates. It recognizes self-influence as a 'powerful opportunity for achieving excellence'" (Natural Resources, 1997). This inspiration and influence is controlled through a series of competences. 1)Emotional support of the worker 2)Goal setting 3)Being an example: Self discovery 4)Communication 5) Decision-making Through these methods, the Super-leader brings his followers into the will-to-power; however, there is no notion of the Super leader ever becoming less than a leader of a group of followers: There is nothing wring with this concept except that the super-leader does Not give up his or her 'throne' in the organization once everyone Else has passed the self-leadership test. I suppose the super-star Has to keep his or her rank permanentlyin order to ensure Complete adherence to self-leadership. (Ehin, 2005) Therein lies the problem of super-leadership. As with all the theories that have been examined here, they essentially require a charismatic leader at the top in order to ensure that the system remains intact. Footdown, in its work on super-leadership, suggests that there is still a place for the very extreme form of charismatic leader: Such leaders believe that people can think for themselves, and that Whether or not they buy-in to them, and the organization, is based On common sense. They are most orientated towards a visionary Style of leadership (Footdown, 2004). Footdown also emphasize that it is important to create a culture of leadership, "Important both for succession planning, and in correcting the balance between managing and leading" (Footdown, 2004). In this description, the leader appears as a despot, organizing inheritance, and seeking out those who can also be converted into leader-managers, clones of the leader. The super leader does not necessarily involve himself in the day-to-day running of the team - he has his self-managing team to do that. Instead he "prefers super leader role of facilitator and boundary spanner" (Boje, 3). The Super leader establishes the vision, defines the goals, and manages and enables change (Cox, 1996). The role of a super leader is a complex one, as the ideal of that role is to both be a leader (have creative vision, motivate followers, provide role-model), and to create self-leadership within the followers. Conclusion The purpose of this essay has been to examine some of the theories of leadership, in order to better understand the 21st Century transformational form of super-leadership. The Question concerned whether the latter was simply a re-invention of the discredited Trait-theory of leadership. In order to answer that question, it was necessary to examine other forms of leadership, so that the origins of super-leadership theory might be understood. It is clear that, in many ways, Charismatic theory has been the most influential theory of leadership in the twentieth century. Both trait theory and situational/behavioral theory emerged from Weber's idea, and it is from these that the transitional/transformational theory of leadership was developed. The Charismatic leader is visionary, autocratic and goal-orientated. Emphasis is upon his ability to communicate with and motivate the crowd, and his dedication to the mission. Also should be noted is his reluctance to share authority or the limelight with others. Trait-based theory essentially covered up the negative aspects of Charismatic leadership by stating that great leaders had the ability to adapt to different situations, and also to be alert to the social environment. This was not seen previously in the Charismatic leader. Behavioral and Situational theory also concentrated upon the goal-orientated role of the leader in decision making, although there was so agreement that groups and team-decision makers worked well at certain periods. Transitional leadership was supposed to be means orientated, so that the leader would bargain, and exchange values for service; the transformational leader is rather more like the Charismatic leader, being goal-orientated and responsible for the vision of the group. Super-leaders take some qualities from all of these theories: the super leader is comparable to the Charismatic leader by being visionary, goal-orientated, in the limelight, able to motivate followers through addressing their desires or needs, and responsible for any changes. Super-leaders may motivate their followers, but there is as yet no theory to explain how they approach abandoning power when their followers are self-actualized, and it may be the case that the Super-leader never steps down, being as reluctant to relinquish power as was the Charismatic leader. In this study, it has been demonstrated that the Transformational form of the super-leader is simply a re-emergence of trait-based theories of leadership. Bibliography Boje, David 1 "Theatrics of Leadership" 10 December 2000 http://business.nmsu.edu/%7Edboje/teaching/338/leader_model_boje.htm 2 "Transformational Leadership" 25 December, 2000 http://business.nmsu.edu/%7Edboje/teaching/338/transformational_leadership.html#burns 3 "The Isles Leadership: the Voyage of the Behaviorists" 7 December 2000 http://cbae.nmsu.edu/dboje/teaching/338/behaviors.htm Bolden, R. Gosling, J. Marturano, A, and Dennison, P. A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Center for Leadership Studies, Exeter, June 2003. Cox, Robert "Theoretical Foundations of Leadership in TQM" ASC Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference 18-20 April 1996. Ehin, Charles "Leadership and Self-Managing Systems" World Business Academy Volume 19, Issue 5, March 24 2005. Footdown Leadership: How to become a superleader Publisher unknown (2004) Leadership book "Chapter 4, types of leaders" from http://www.lhup.edu/leadership/book/4.htm Natural Resources Management and Environmental Department Management of Agricultural research: A training Manual 1997 Zacko-Smith, J David "The leader Label: Influencing Perceptions, Reality and Practice" Kravis Leadership Institute Leadership Review Volume 7, Summer 2007. Read More