Examine the various theories of leadership.

 Leadership has several distinct theoretical bases. At first, leaders were seen as either ‘born’ or ‘made’. The ‘great person’ theory implied that individuals were born with certain traits. Dissatisfied with this approach, researchers shifted their emphasis on the group leadership. In the group approach, leadership is viewed more in terms of the leader’s behaviour and his relationship with his followers. Later, the situation began to receive increased attention in leadership theory. Now a leader is viewed as a product of the times and the situations. The person with particular qualities or traits that a situation requires will emerge as a leader. The following sections examine different theories of leadership:

Trait Theory

This theoretical approach is related to characteristics or traits that are required for a person to become as leader. This theory is known as “great man” theory assuming that leaders are born with certain special necessary traits for leadership. Ordway Tead and Chester I.Barnard are prominent trait theorists. Ordway Tead has brought out ten qualities of a leaders viz. 1) Physical and nervous energy 2) A sense of purpose and direction 3) Enthusiasm 4) Friendliness and affection 5) Integrity 6) Technical mastery 7) Decisiveness 8) Intelligence 9) Teaching skill and 10) Faith. Chester I.Barnard indicates two categories of leadership traits. The first category includes outstanding qualities in respect of physique, skill, technology, perception, knowledge, memory and imagination. These qualities are expected to command the subordinates’ admiration. The second category includes the individual merits of determination, persistence, endurance and courage.

Researchers do not welcome trait theory due to its low analytical value. But still the theory is alive with changed focus. Now the emphasis has shifted from personality traits to job related skills, such as technical, professional, conceptual and human skills needed for effective management.

Group and Exchange Theory

This theory has roots in social psychology. It assumes that there must be a positive and harmonious relationship between the leaders and followers to accomplish group goals. Chester Barnard was key proponent of this theory. According to this theory, leadership is an exchange process between the leader and followers. This theory strongly believes that the leader and his followers affect and influence each other.

Contingency Theory

The lacunas in the trait theory have led to the formulation of this theory. The theory stresses the significance of situational variables that affect leadership roles, skills, behaviour and followers’ performance and satisfaction. Fred Fiedler proposed a widely recognised situation-based or contingency theory for leadership effectiveness. This model contains the relationship between leadership style and the favourableness of the situation.

Fiedler was convinced that the favourableness of the situation in combination with the leadership style determines leadership effectiveness. In simple terms, this theory proposes that people become leaders not only because of the attributes of their personalities but also because of various situational factors and interaction between leaders and situations. This means that there is nothing automatic or good in leadership styles; leadership effectiveness depends upon various factors.

Path Goal Theory

This theory of leadership was developed by Robert House. It describes the most effective leaders as those who help subordinates achieve both the enterprise goals as well as their personal goals. Personal goals of subordinates includes money, promotion, opportunity of growth and development. Leaders of this theory remove obstacles to performance, increase opportunities for personal satisfaction in work performance by reducing unnecessary stress and strain.

In addition to the above traditional leadership theories, a number of modern theories have emerged in recent years. The following section provides an overview of these theories.

Charismatic Theory

This theory is also attributed to the work of Robert House. He suggests that charismatic leaders are characterised by self-confidence and trust in subordinates, high expectation for subordinates, ideological vision and the use of personal example. Followers of the charismatic leaders identify with the leader and the mission of the leader, exhibit extreme loyalty to and confidence in the leader, emulate leader’s values and behaviour, and derive self-esteem from their relationship with the leader. Charismatic leaders have superior oratorial and persuasive skills and technical expertise, and foster attitudinal, behavioural, and emotional changes among their followers.

Transformational Theory

This theory is based on transforming the values, beliefs and needs of their followers by the leader. Such a leadership facilitates superior performance in organisations that are facing demands for renewal and change. The organisation fosters transformational leadership through the processes of recruitment, selection, promotion, training and development. It has a positive impact on health, well-being, and effective performance of the organisation. Empirical research studies highlight that transformational leaders more frequently employ legitimising tactics and engender higher levels of identification and have better performance.

Social Learning Theory

This theory is model for the continuous and reciprocal interaction between the leader, the environment and behaviour itself. This model is called Situation Organism Behaviour Consequence (S–O–B–C) model. Subordinates are actively involved in the process and together with the leader they concentrate on their own and each other’s behaviour, environmental contingences and their mediating behaviour and cognitions. In this approach, the leader and the subordinate have a negotiable, interactive relationship and are consciously aware of how they can modify each other’s behaviour by giving or holding back desired rewards.

Substitutes Theory

This theory was proposed by Kerr Jermier. It suggests certain substitutes or neutralisers for leadership. Substitutes that make leader behaviour unnecessary and redundant, whereas neutralisers prevent the leader from behaving in certain way or which counteract a behaviour. These substitutes or neutralisers can be found among subordinates, tasks, and organisation characteristics. Those subordinates who don’t particularly care about organisational rewards will neutralise both supportive / relationship and instrumental / task leadership attempts. There are also a number of organisational characteristics that substitute for or neutralised leadership.

Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)