FREE ESSAY ON LEADERSHIP THEORIES

LEADERSHIP THEORIES

LEADERSHIP THEORIES
1**Leadership itself, has been accompanied throughout time, by numerous theories, all
claiming to answer the question, Are leaders born or made? Those who accept the verdict,
that leaders are born and not made, maintain, 
... that there are certain inborn qualities such as initiative, courage, intelligence and
humour, which altogether pre-destine a man to be a leader ... the essential pattern is
given at birth
(Adler, 1991, p. 4) 
Two leadership theories which concentrate on this point, are the Great man/great woman
and theTrait theories. The great man/great woman theory, accordingly to Wrightsman,
involves its followers believing that major events, both nationally and internationally,
are influenced by those persons in power. 
A sudden act by a great man could, according to this theory, change the fate of the
nation
(Wrightsman, 1977, p. 638) 
The trait theory expands further on this conjecture, by concentrating on the personal
characteristics of the leader. The theory, which until the mid-1940s formed the basis of
most leadership research, cited traits believed to be characteristic of leaders, the list
of which grew in length over the years, to include all manner of physical, personality
and cognitive factors, including height, intelligence and communication skills. However,
few traits emerged to conclusively differentiate leaders from non-leaders. The traits an
individual has may, increase the probability that a person will become a leader, though
whether such leadership is guaranteed, is uncertain. Nevertheless, it can be seen to be
true that some people are more likely than others to assume leadership positions. 
The research on trait theories of leadership has shown that many other factors are
important in determining leader success, and that not everyone who possesses these traits
will be a leader
(Adler, 1991, p. 267) 
2)*As interest in the trait approach to leadership declined, researchers focussed their
attention on the leader's actions rather than their attributes, which led to the
emergence of the behaviourist theories. The most widely publicised exponent of this
approach was Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's Managerial Grid, which attempted to explain
that there was one best style of leadership, by various combinations of two factors
regarding a concern for production and people. Five leadership styles were determined
from this research, of which one, the team management style was deemed as preferable. 
3)*Due to the disillusionment with the fore-mentioned trait theory, the situational
approach arose, which suggested that the traits required of a leader differed, according
to varying situations. The situational approach, which predominated in the 1950s, held
that whether a given person became a leader of a group, had nothing to do with his/her
personality, but had everything to do with such factors as the flow of events and
circumstances surrounding a group. To put it simply, the leader was a person who was in
the right place at the right time. 
Rather than a great man causing a great event to happen, the situational approach claims
that great events are the product of historical forces that are gong to happen whether
specific leaders are present or not 
(Adair, 1984, p. 8) 
Unfortunately, this theory still didnat answer, why one member of a group emerged as the
leader, rather than another, or why one particular leader proved to be a better leader in
some situations than another.
4)* The emergence of a related theory, the interactionist approach, attempted to explain
the existing anomalies. 
The interactionist theory, proposed that both the characteristics of the individual, and
the situation in which the group found itself, accounted for whom would become the
leader. Resulting from this theory, was the view that leaders are both born and made, due
to the leader requiring certain abilities and skill, but as the situation and the needs
of the group changed, so too the person acceptable as leader changed. 
5)*Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership effectiveness, was one theory which evolved
from this interactionist approach. It related the effectiveness of the leader, to aspects
of the situation in which the group operated, suggesting that factors such as the task
structure, the leaders personal relations with the group and his/her power basis,
interact to determine what style of leadership would be effective for the situation, ie a
task-oriented or group-oriented approach. 
At one extreme, is the leader who values successful interpersonal relations to the
exclusion of task accomplishment. The leader at the other extreme, places the highest
value on task accomplishment, at the expense of interpersonal relations
(Saks, 1988, p. 490) 
To determine whether a leader was task-oriented or group-oriented, Fiedler devised a
model, which used as its basis, the measurement of a leader's perceptions and relations
to the least preferred co-worker (LPC), with whom he/she has ever worked with. Those with
a high score, were deemed group-oriented, while those with a low score, were
task-oriented. Fiedler's research concluded, that a task-orientedapproach was more
effective when conditions were either highly favourable (good leader/group relations,
strong leadership position and a clear task structure) or, highly unfavourable (poor
leader/group relations, weak leadership position and an ambiguous task) A group-oriented
approach, was deemed as preferable, when conditions were comparatively stable, so more
attention is paid to the preservation of group relationships, to starve off conflict and
inefficiency which could eventuate from any disharmony in the group setting. 
From this research, we can discern(farketmek,ay?rt etmek) , that there are no necessarily
good or bad leadership styles, but their effectiveness depends on how appropriate they
are to the group situation. However, Fiedler's theory had its critics, who questioned its
use of a model to measure leadership style and situational favourability, and emphasised,
and emphasised its inconclusiveness. 
Still, Fiedler's theory was not the only interactionist theory circulating during the
time period concerned, although, each differed slightly in their prime objectives. 
6)*Robert House's path-goal theory proposed a leader 's effectiveness was based on a
leader's ability to raise satisfaction and motivation in group members, by use of an
incentive scheme to reward or punish those responsible for success or failure in reaching
group objectives. In order to accomplish these goals, a leader would be required to adopt
differing styles of leadership behavior as the situation dictated. 
7)*Varying, but related to this view, is Vroom and Yetton's normative theory, which
focussed on the degree of participation, a leader should allow, in making any given
decision, and the selection of an approach which would maximise benefits, and a t the
same time, minimise potential obstacles to the groups goals. 
An examination of the relationship between leaders and group members, and how different
kinds of relationships develop with different individuals, was the main concern of yet
another interactionist theory, the verticle dyad linkage theory. Such factors as age,
experience and knowledge of the task, can affect a memberas standing with the leader; ie
an older experienced worker with extensive knowledge of a task would be able to work
largely unsupervised, whilst, a relatively inexperienced worker, would require a higher
degree of supervision.
*****From a review of leadership theories, it is obvious, that there are no best
leadership styles. Leaders, are rarely totally group or task-oriented; group members and
the situation itself, all influence a leaders effectiveness. The leader needs to be aware
of his own behaviour and influence on others, individual differences of group members,
group characteristics, task structure, environmental and situational variables, and
adjust his leadership style accordingly. Leadership needs to be adaptive.