Compare and Contrast Leadership Theories

  • Updated July 25, 2023
  • Pages 17 (4 093 words)
  • Views 905
  • Subject
  • Category
This is FREE sample
This text is free, available online and used for guidance and inspiration. Need a 100% unique paper? Order a custom essay.
  • Any subject
  • Within the deadline
  • Without paying in advance
Get custom essay

Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits,[l] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and charisma, and intelligence among others. Aerie, A. Defines a leader as “a person capable of inspiring and associate others with a dream. ” It is therefore important that organizations have a visionary mission, nice it is a powerful way to strengthen the leadership of its directors. Early history The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries.

History’s greatest philosophical writings from Plat’s Republic to Plutarch Lives have explored the question of “What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader? ” Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the “trait theory of leadership. This view of leadership, the trait theory, was explored at length in a number of works in the previous century.

Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Gallon, whose works have prompted decades of research. In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841 Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Gallon’s (1869) Hereditary Genius, he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving from first degree to second degree relatives, Gallon concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed.

Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader. For decades, this trait-based perspective dominated empirical and theoretical work in leadership. [3] Using early research techniques, researchers conducted over a hundred studies proposing a number of characteristics that distinguished leaders from mainlanders: intelligence, dominance, adaptability, persistence, integrity, socioeconomic status, and self-confidence just to name a few. 4] Rise of alternative theories In the late asses and early asses, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e. G. , Bird, stodgily, Mann, 1959[7]) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stodgily and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations.

Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories low) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades. Reemergence of trait theory New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership.

For example, improvements in researchers’ use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. 8] Additionally, during the asses statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive and parsimonious picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past.

Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following: Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and Significant relationships exist between leadership and such tasks[8] individual traits as: adjustment[9] extroversion[9] intelligence[9] openness to general self-efficacy[14][15] While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks. J Specifically, Zacchary noted that trait theories still: 1. Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills 2. Fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes 3. Do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences 4.

Do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership Attribute pattern approach Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differences – the leader attribute pattern approach. 16][17][18][19][20] In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute pattern approach is based on theorists’ arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of individual variables. [19][21] In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.

Behavioral and style theories Main article: Managerial grid model In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of ‘successful’ leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy and identifying broad leadership styles. [22] David McClellan, for example, Leadership takes a strong personality with a well developed positive ego.

Not so much as a pattern of motives, but a set of traits is crucial. To lead; self-confidence and a high self-esteem is useful, perhaps even Mica] [pick [pick] A graphical representation of the managerial grid model Kurt Lenin, Ronald Lippie, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal irk on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate.

In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: (1) authoritarian, (2) democratic and (3) laissez-fairer. [24] Authoritarian climates were characterized by leaders who make decisions alone, demand strict compliance to his orders, and dictate each step taken; future steps were uncertain to a large degree. The leader is not necessarily hostile but is aloof from participation in work and commonly offers personal praise and criticism for the work done.

Democratic climates were characterized by collective decision processes, assisted by the leader. Before accomplishing tasks, perspectives are gained from group discussion and technical advice from a leader. Members are given choices and collectively decide the division of labor. Praise and criticism in such an environment are objective, fact minded and given by a group member without necessarily having participated extensively in the actual work. Laissez Eire climates gave freedom to the group for policy determination without any participation from the leader.

The leader remains uninvolved in work decisions unless asked, does not participate in the division of labor, and very infrequently gives praise. [24] The results seemed to confirm that the democratic climate was preferred. [25] The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane MOUton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders’ concern for people and their concern for goal achievement. [26] B. F. Skinner is the father of Behavior Modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement.

Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future. [27] The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforce for a particular employee. This employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes o work on time more often because the employee likes to be praised.

In this example, praise (i. E. Stimulus) is a positive reinforce for this employee because the employee arrives (i. E. Behavior) to work on time more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time. The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, MM, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase productivity. [28] Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that enforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance.

Additionally, many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher performance for lower costs. Situational and contingency theories Main articles: Fiddler contingency model, Broom-Yet decision model, Path-goal theory, and Hershey-Blanchard situational theory Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around . ] This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal cryptographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, “what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lenin et al. , academics began to normative the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style works better in.

The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the “hearts and minds” of their followers in the day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissez fairer leadership style is appreciated by the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leader does not “take charge”, he can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems. 31) Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in the recent years: Fiddler contingency model, Broom-Yet decision model, the path-goal theory, and the Hershey- Blanchard situational theory. The Fiddler contingency model bases the leader’s effectiveness on what Fred Fiddler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational variableness (later called “situational control”).

The theory defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good-relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out he task itself According to Fiddler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a “favorable situation”.

Fiddler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate affordability. Victor Broom, in collaboration with Phillip Yet (1 973)[33] and eater with Arthur Ago (1 988),[34] developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, taxonomy that was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. 35] This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred as situational contingency theory. [36] The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) ND was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Broom. 37] According to House, the essence of the theory is “the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates’ environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance. [38] The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower characteristics.

In contrast to the Fiddler contingency model, the path- AOL model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path- goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, but also as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers. The situational leadership model proposed by Hershey and Blanchard suggests four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development.

For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level f fellowship-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well. [39] Functional theory Main article: Functional leadership model Functional leadership theory (Hickman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness.

This theory argues that the leader’s main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when hey have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleischman et al. , 1991; Hickman & Washman, 2005; Hickman & Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership (Zacchary, Raritan, & Marks, 2001 it has also been effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as well (Zacchary, 2001).

In summarizing literature on functional leadership (see Kowalski et al. (1996), Zacchary et al. (2001 ), Hickman and Walton (1986), Hickman & Washman (2005), Morrison (2005)), Klein, Geiger, Knight, and Ixia (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs hen promoting organization’s effectiveness. These functions include: (1) environmental monitoring, (2) organizing subordinate activities, (3) teaching and coaching subordinates, (4) motivating others, and (5) intervening actively in the group’s work.

A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleischman (1953) observed that subordinates perceived their supervisors’ behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others.

Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those standards. Transactional and transformational theories Main articles: Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership Eric Berne[40] first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of Transactional Analysis. The transactional leader (Burns, s given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance.

It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. The transformational leader (Burns, motivates its team to be effective and efficient. Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing the group on the final desired outcome r goal attainment.

This leader is highly visible and uses chain of command to get the job done. Transformational leaders focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by people who take care of the details. The leader is always looking for ideas that move the organization to reach the company’s vision. Emotions Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social influence process. [42] In an organization, the leader’s mood has some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in 3 1.

The mood of individual group members. Group embers with leaders in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion. [43] Mood contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers. (44] 2. The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or homogeneous affective reactions within a group.

Group affective tone is an aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood. [43] 3. Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods.

For example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and behaviorally n ways that are reflected in the group processes. CA] In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were other findings. [45] Beyond the leader’s mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and negative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead to emotional response.

Certain leader behaviors displayed during interactions with their employees are the sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affective events. Examples – feedback giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since employee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is imperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational leaders. [46] Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective leadership in organizations. [45] Leadership is about being responsible.

Neo-emergent theory The Neo- emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses that leadership is created through the emergence of information by the deader or other stakeholders, not through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by the majority. It is well known that the great naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his own versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in England he would receive a true hero’s welcome.

In modern society, the press, blobs and other sources report their own views of a leader, which may be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a payment, or an inherent interest of the author, media or leader. Therefore, it can be contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their true leadership qualities at all. Styles Leadership style refers to a leader’s behavior. It is the result of the philosophy, personality and experience of the leader.

Autocratic or authoritarian style Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader, as with dictator leaders. They do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It permits quick decision- making, as only one person decides for the whole group and keeps each decision to himself until he feels it is needed to be shared with the rest of the group. 47] Participative or democratic style The democratic leadership style favors decision-making by the group as shown, such as leader gives instruction after consulting the group. They can win the co-operation of their group and can motivate them effectively and positively. The decisions of the democratic leader are not unilateral as with the autocrat because they arise from consultation with the group members and participation y them. [47] Laissez-fairer or free rein style A free-rein leader does not lead, but leaves the group entirely to itself as shown; such a leader allows maximum freedom to subordinates, i. . , they are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and methods. Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is little time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has significantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic leadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team with a inhomogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-fairer style may be more effective.

The style adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the group while balancing the interests of its individual members. [47] Narcissistic leadership Main article: Narcissistic leadership Various academics such as Sets De Varies, Macomb and Thomas have identified narcissistic leadership as an important and common leadership style. Toxic Main article: Toxic leader A toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an organization, and who abuses the leader-follower relationship by leaving the roof or organization in a worse-off condition than when s/he first found them.

In the past, some researchers have argued that the actual influence of leaders on organizational outcomes is overrated and romanticizes as a result of biased attributions about leaders (Mined & Earlier, 1987). Despite these assertions however, it is largely recognized and accepted by practitioners and researchers that leadership is important, and research supports the notion that leaders do contribute to key organizational outcomes (Day & Lord, 1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). To facilitate SUccessfUl performance it is important to understand ND accurately measure leadership performance.

Job performance generally refers to behavior that is expected to contribute to organizational success (Campbell, 1990). Campbell identified a number of specific types of performance dimensions; leadership was one of the dimensions that he identified. There is no consistent, overall definition of leadership performance (Yuk, 2006). Many distinct conceptualizations are often lumped together under the umbrella of leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader effectiveness, leader advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et al. 2008). For instance, leadership reference may be used to refer to the career success of the individual leader, performance of the group or organization, or even leader emergence. Each of these measures can be considered conceptually distinct. While these aspects may be related, they are different outcomes and their inclusion should depend on the applied/research focus. Contexts Organizations [pick The photo shows a training meeting with factory workers in a stainless steel geodesics company from ROI De Jeanine, Brazil.

People in the dark blue shirts are the leaders of this formal organization An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weeper’s definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority.

Each employee receives a salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards her/him from the arbitrary influence f superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the hierarchy, the greater his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their position . 48] In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal organization that underlies the formal structure. The informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension of the social structures that generally characterize human life ? the spontaneous emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.

In prehistoric times, humanity was preoccupied with personal security, maintenance, protection, and survival. Now humanity spends a major portion of waking hours working for organizations. Her/His need to identify with a community that revised security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging continues unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial, Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization.


Cite this paper

Compare and Contrast Leadership Theories. (2021, Apr 12). Retrieved from https://samploon.com/compare-and-contrast-leadership-theories/



What are similarities and differences between trait theory and contingency theory?
Similarities between trait theory and contingency theory include their focus on leadership effectiveness and the idea that certain traits or behaviors contribute to successful leadership. However, contingency theory also emphasizes the importance of situational factors in determining effective leadership, whereas trait theory suggests that leaders possess innate characteristics that are not influenced by context.
What are the 4 leadership theories?
The four leadership theories are autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire, and transformational. Autocratic leaders make decisions without input from others, while democratic leaders solicit input from followers before making decisions. Laissez-faire leaders delegate most decision-making to followers, while transformational leaders seek to inspire and motivate followers to achieve common goals.
What do all leadership theories have in common?
Theories of leadership vary in their focus and approach, but all share a common goal: to explain how leadership works. Each theory has its own strengths and weaknesses, but all offer valuable insights into the nature of leadership.
What is the difference among the theories of leadership?
The Theravada tradition believed in individual salvation while the Mahayana tradition believed in collective salvation.
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Peter is on the line!

Don't settle for a cookie-cutter essay. Receive a tailored piece that meets your specific needs and requirements.

Check it out