Theories of Leadership

Leadership

Leadership is a phenomenon which successfully mobilizes a group towards the attainment of the organizational goal. Thus, the leadership of the leader is critical to the organization. There are a large number of theorists in this regard.

1.      Trait Theory- This is the earliest theory on leadership. It remained influential till mid-1940s. The proponents of this theory advocate that there are certain leadership qualities, individuals possessing these qualities are leaders and those who do not are non-leaders. There is no agreement between the proponents of this theory. Each of the proponents has come out with their own list of qualities. Among these theorists, one group of theorists believes that leaders are leaders by birth or leadership is an inborn quality. They emphasize that anybody who is a leader is a leader by birth. Also, they believe that anybody who is a non-leader will remain non-leader for life. Thus, nobody can be trained with these qualities or nobody can acquire these qualities. They are being referred to as Great Man Theorists.

There was one another category of theorists which has a similar line of thought but they did not believe in the fact that these qualities cannot be acquired, in fact they believed that people can be trained to become leaders. Thus, the Trait Theories of Leadership primarily emphasize on what leaders are? This theory started getting setbacks from mid-1940s and became irrelevant sometime after. A study was conducted and it was found out that various leadership qualities which were given by these theorists had very little similarity (only 5%). Individuals with a set of qualities are acting as leaders in a particular situation. But, individuals with same set of qualities are acting as non-leaders in some other situation. Number of such inconsistencies made this theory irrelevant.

2.  Behavioural Theory- This theory gained prominence during mid-1940s. It emphasized on what leaders do as against the trait theory which emphasized on what leaders are.

a.       University of Michigan- This study has already been discussed under the theory of Likert.

b.      Ohio State Studies- This study was undertaken by the Bureau of Business Research Studies. This study was conducted by scholars like Fleisure and Others. In this study, they discussed the types of leadership under two dimensions.

1.      Initiating Structure- This refers to Job Orientation.

2.      Consideration- Concern for the people i.e. Employee Orientation.

A study has been conducted across a similar line as Michigan studies but it has come up with 4 styles/types. It brought further sophistication.

Low IS and Low C- They are neither Employee Orientated nor Job Orientated. They merely act as a link.

High IS and Low C- They are Task Oriented and Authoritarian in behaviour.

Low IS and High C- They try to keep everyone happy and in good humour.

High IS and High C- They are relationship oriented as well as Job Oriented. They are not only concerned with the subordinate but at the same time they are concerned with the goal or the job.

The study found out that that the High IS, High C leaders proved to be most efficient.

c.       Managerial Grid Theory-

                                                              i.      Impoverished (1, 1) - Low on Consideration for task and people.

                                                            ii.      Task Oriented (9, 9) - Low on Consideration for people and high on consideration for task.

                                                          iii.      Country Club (1, 9) - Low on consideration for task and high on consideration for people.

                                                          iv.      Team Oriented (9, 1) - High on consideration for people and high on consideration for task.

                                                            v.      Middle of the Road (5, 5) - Intermediate type.

The study found out that the team oriented leader has been the most efficient leader of all the above mentioned types. All these theories emphasize that the leaders who have high consideration for people as well as the task proves out to be the most efficient leader.

These theories also came under criticism during early-1970s. A number of studies invalidated the above mentioned findings.

    3.      Situational or Contingent or Contemporary Theories of Leadership- They are called as    Contemporary because these theories in contemporary organization have proven to be more relevant. These     theorists emphasize that a single style of leadership will not remain efficient under all the situations rather as the situation changes, the leadership must also change accordingly. The leadership should be appropriate to the situation.

a.       Fiedler’s Contingency Theory- This theory has tried to bring about a correlation between the leadership style and the job situation/environment. The theory finally concluded that in every situation or job environment, same style of leadership is not successful, as the leadership changes, the style must also change. This theory states that any job contains three critical factors and scores on these factors define the job environment.

                                                              i.      Leader Member Relation- It refers to the extent to which the members accept the leader as their leader. The score is high when the members accept the leader as their leader and the score is low if the leader is rejected by the members.

                                                            ii.      Task Structure- It refers to the extent to which the job is clearly or well defined. It means that the job under consideration is clearly defined or not. If job is well defined, the score is high.

                                                          iii.      Leader’s Positional Power- It refers to the capability of the leader to award punishments or rewards to his subordinates. If the leader can give punishments or rewards, the score is high and if the leader cannot punish or reward, the score is low.

Based on these factors, he has discussed sixteen different types of situations. But subsequently, he compressed it to eight situations. And finally, the current theory is based on four general situations.

                                                              i.      Highly Favourable Situation- When score relating to all the three factors (above mentioned) with regard to the job is high; the situation is called as a Highly Favourable Situation.

                                                            ii.      Highly Unfavourable Situation- When the score relating to all the three factors is low, the situation is referred to as Highly Unfavourable Situation.

                                                          iii.      Moderately Favourable Situation- When any two scores are high and any one score is low, the situation is referred to as Moderately Favourable Situation.

                                                          iv.      Moderately Unfavourable Situation- When any two scores are low and any one score is high, the situation is referred to as Moderately Unfavourable Situation.

Fiedler’s Discussion on the type of Leadership

He developed his view through a concept called as LPC i.e. Least Preferred Co-worker. LPC is the least preferred member in the group for the leader. With regard to this individual (LPC), the leader is able to least identify with. The leader might have two types of predispositions. With the use of concept, he came out with two types of leaders.

                                           I.            The leader is high on LPC- The leader is favourable disposed towards the LPC. When the job environment is moderately favourable or unfavourable, the leader who is high on LPC has proven to be successful

                                        II.            The leader is low on LPC- The leader is unfavourable disposed towards the LPC. When the job environment is highly favourable or unfavourable, the leader who is low on LPC has proven to be successful.

A.    Highly Favourable Situation- The members completely accept the leader and are highly committed to him. The leader has the power to punish and reward them.

In such a situation, directive behaviour of the leader appears to be a fatherly behaviour for the members. It proves to be motivational for the members.

B.     Highly Unfavourable Situation- In this situation, the leader is not accepted by the members and the task is not clearly defined. Also, the leader does not possess the power to punish or reward the members. In such a situation, directive behaviour of the leader won’t work. At the same time, a humanistic behaviour of the leader also won’t work.

Under this situation, the leader who has displayed task orientation has proven to be successful and motivational. The leader must display his superior qualities while handling the job.

C.     Moderately Favourable Situation- A leadership which has been supportive or associative has proven to be more motivational. In certain situations, the leader might have to be task oriented.

D.    Moderately Unfavourable Situation- The leader has to be favourably disposed towards the LPC. He has to act in a supportive manner.

According to Fiedler, the leader’s leadership style is constant. A leader’s innate style remains the same throughout his lifetime. It cannot be changed through training, education or even through a deliberate effort.

b.      Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory or Lifecycle Theory- This theory is not the only situation theory. Under this theory, the very effort has been to understand the leadership style or the types of leaders and the types of workers. This theory has explained that for the leaders to be effective, they should have the leadership style appropriate to the type of workers. There are four types of workers who are at different levels of maturity. This has been explained through two perspectives.

                                                              i.      Job Maturity- It refers to the skill, expertise or ability of the worker. If the worker is job wise mature, he is considered to be able.

                                                            ii.      Psychological Maturity- This refers to the motivation or willingness of the worker towards the job. If the worker is psychologically mature, he is considered to be willing towards the job. And if he is psychologically immature, he is considered to be unwilling to work.

Levels of Maturity- These levels reflect various levels of life, right from the infancy till the adulthood.

A.    M1- They are job wise immature as well as psychologically immature. They are unable and are unwilling. Such workers are best handled by leaders who are telling or directive in style. They are the type of leaders who are on high on Task but low on Relationship. The best type of behaviour will not be humanistic.

B.     M2- They are job wise immature but psychologically mature. They are unable but willing. The workers are not skilled but very enthusiastic. The leader needs to infuse confidence in the workers. Such workers are best handled by leaders who adopt a Coaching or Selling Style of leadership. They are the types of leaders who are high on Task and High on Relationship.

C.     M3- They are job wise mature but psychologically immature. They are able but unwilling. These workers are skilled but are unwilling to work. Skilled workers carry a high self-ego and have a more opportunities.

Such workers are best handled by leaders who are Participative/Associative in style. They are the types of leaders who are high on Relationship but low on Task.

D.    M4- They are job wise mature as well as psychologically mature. They are able and willing. They are unable but willing. Such workers are best handled by leaders who adopt a Delegative/Non-interfering style of leadership. They are the types of leaders who are on Task and low on Relationship.

This shows that a single style of leadership won’t be appropriate in all kind of situations because every worker does not respond in the same way for the same kind of leadership. Here, the leader’s leadership style is not constant. Unlike Fiedler’s theory, the leadership style can change through training, education or deliberate effort.