LEADERSHIP

Leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of
goals. Not all leaders are managers , nor are all managers leader. Leaders can emerge from
within a group as by formal appointment. Non sanctioned leadership- the ability to influence
that arises outside the formal structure of the organization-is often as important, or more
important, than formal influence. Organizations need strong leadership and strong
management for optimal effectiveness. Leaders challenge the status quo, create visions of the
future and inspire organizational members to achieve the visions. Managers formulate
detailed plans, create efficient organizational structures, and oversee day-to-day operations.
TRAIT THEORIES
Trait theories of leadership are theories that consider personal qualities and characteristics
that differentiate leaders from non leaders. A comprehensive review of the leadership
literature, when organized around the Big Five, has found extraversion to be the most
important trait of effective leaders, but it is more strongly related to the way leaders emerge
than to their effectiveness. Sociable and dominant people are more likely to assert themselves
in group situations, but leaders need to make sure they’re not too assertive—one study found
leaders who scored very high on assertiveness were less effective than those who were
moderately high. Extraverted leaders may be more effective when leading passive employees
rather than proactive employees. Although extraversion can predict effective leadership , the
relationship may be due to unique facets of the trait and the situation.
Unlike agreeableness and emotional stability, conscientiousness and openness to experience
may predict leadership, especially leadership effectiveness. In sum, Leaders who like being
around people and are able to assert themselves (extraverted), who are disciplined and able to
keep commitments they make (conscientious), and who are creative and flexible (open) do
have an apparent advantage when it comes to leadership, suggesting good leaders do have
key traits in common.
Research indicates that Dark side personality traits (of Machiavellianism, narcissism and
psychopathy are not all bad for leadership. Study in Europe and US found that :
 Normative (midrange) scores on Dark side personality traits were optimal.
 Low (and high) scores are associated with Ineffective leadership.
 High emotional stability may accentuate ineffective behaviours.
 However, high scores on dark side traits and emotional stability can contribute to
leadership emergence.
Both study and international research indicates that self-awareness and self-regulation skills
may help leaders to control effects of dark side traits.
Another trait that may indicate effective leadership is emotional intelligence (EI), A core
component of EI is empathy. Empathetic leaders can sense others’ needs, listen to what
followers say (and don’t say), and read the reactions of others. A leader who effectively
displays and manages emotions will find it easier to influence the feelings of followers, by
both expressing genuine sympathy and enthusiasm for good performance and by using
irritation for those who fail to perform. Research demonstrated that people high in EI are
more likely to emerge as leaders, even after taking cognitive ability and personality into
account,
Based on the latest findings, we offer two conclusions. First, we can say that traits can
predict leadership. Second, traits do a better job predicting the emergence of leaders and
the appearance of leadership than actually distinguishing between effective and
ineffective leaders. The fact that an individual exhibits the traits and that others consider him
or her a leader does not necessarily mean the leader is successful at getting the group to
achieve its goals.
BEHAVIORAL THEORIES
Trait research provides a basis for selecting the right people for leadership. In contrast,
behavioral theories of leadership implied we could train people to be leaders.
The most comprehensive theories resulted from the Ohio State Studies in the late
1940s,which sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior. Beginning with
more than a thousand dimensions, the studies narrowed the list to two that substantially
accounted for most of the leadership behaviour described by employees: initiating structure
and consideration.
Initiating structure is the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her
role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. It includes behavior that
attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals. A leader high in initiating structure
is someone who “assigns group members to particular tasks,” “expects workers to maintain
definite standards of performance,” and “emphasizes the meeting of deadlines.”
Consideration is the extent to which a person’s job relationships are characterized by mutual
trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. A leader high in
consideration helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable, treats
all employees as equals, and expresses appreciation and support(people oriented).most people
want to work for considerate leaders.
Leadership studies at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center had aimed to
locate behavioral characteristics of leaders that appeared related to performance
effectiveness. The Michigan group also came up with two behavioral dimensions: the
employee-oriented leader emphasized interpersonal relationships by taking a personal
interest in the needs of employees and accepting individual differences among them, and the
production oriented leader emphasized the technical or task aspects of the job, focusing on
accomplishing the group’s tasks. These dimensions are closely related to the Ohio State
dimensions. Employee-oriented leadership is similar to consideration, and production-
oriented leadership is similar to initiating structure.
Research from the GLOBE program (a study of 18,000 leaders from 825 organizations in
62 countries) suggests there are international differences in preference for initiating structure
and consideration. Based on the values of Brazilian employees, a U.S. manager leading a
team in Brazil would need to be team oriented, participative, and humane. Leaders high in
consideration would succeed best in this culture. Compared to U.S. employees, the French
have a more bureaucratic view of leaders and are less likely to expect them to be humane and
considerate. A leader high in initiating structure (relatively task-oriented) will do best and can
make decisions in a relatively autocratic manner. A manager who scores high on
consideration (people oriented) may find that style backfiring in France. According to the
GLOBE study, Chinese culture emphasizes being polite, considerate, and unselfish, but it
also has a high performance orientation. Thus, consideration and initiating structure may both
be important.
Research indicates that there is validity for both trait and behavioural theories as they help
explain facets of leadership emergence and effectiveness. But, identifying exact relationship
is not an easy task it is difficult to 1. Identify whether a trait or a behaviour predicts certain
outcome 2. Explore which combination of traits and behaviour yields certain outcomes. 3.
Determine causality of traits to behaviours so that predictions toward desirable leader
outcomes can be made. Hence, the theories doesn’t guarantee success.
CONTINGENCY THEORY
Fiedler Model
Fred Fiedler developed the first comprehensive contingency model for leadership. The
Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group performance depends on the proper
match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives the leader
control.
Identifying leadership style: Fiedler believes a key factor in leadership success is the
individual’s basic leadership style. He created the least preferred co-worker(LPC)
questionnaire to identify that style by measuring whether a person is task or relationship
oriented. The LPC questionnaire asks respondents to think of all the co-workers they have
ever had and describe the one they least enjoyed working with by rating that person on a
scale of 1 to 8 for each of 16 sets of contrasting adjectives (such as pleasant–unpleasant,
efficient–inefficient, open–guarded, supportive–hostile). If the person with whom one is
least able to work with is described in favourable terms (a high LPC score), Fiedler labelled
person as relationship oriented. If one see least-preferred co-worker in unfavourable terms (a
low LPC score), she/he is primarily interested in productivity and is task oriented.
Fiedler assumes an individual’s leadership style is fixed. This means if a situation requires a
task-oriented leader and the person in the leadership position is relationship oriented, either
the situation has to be modified or the leader has to be replaced to achieve optimal
effectiveness.
Defining the Situation : After assessing an individual’s basic leadership style through the
LPC questionnaire, we match the leader with the situation. Fiedler has identified three
contingency or situational dimensions:
1. Leader–member relations is the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members
have in their leader.
2. Task structure is the degree to which job assignments are regimented
(structured/unstructured).
3. Position power is the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as
hiring, firing, discipline, promotions and salary increases.
The situation must be evaluated in terms of these variables. Fielder states that better the
leader member relations, the more highly structured the job, and stronger the position power,
the more control the leader has.
Matching Leaders and Situations: Combining 3 contingency dimensions yielded 8 possible
situations and matching it with LPC score helps to achieve maximum leadership
effectiveness. Fielder later condensed 8 situations down to 3.Task oriented leaders perform
best in situations of high and low control, while relationship oriented leaders perform best in
moderate control situations.
Studies testing overall validity of Fiedler model were initially supportive but model hasn’t
been studied much in recent years. While it provides some insights that we should consider,
its strict practical application is problematic.
Situational Leadership Theory
It is a contingency theory that focus on follower’s readiness to accomplish a specific task. It
focus on followers and states that successful leadership depends on selecting right leadership
style contingent on follower’s readiness- the extent to which followers are willing and able to
accomplish a specific task. A leader should choose one of 4 behaviours depending on
follower readiness.
If followers are unable and unwilling to do a task , the leader needs to give clear and specific
directions; if unable but willing, display a high task orientation to get them to accept leader’s
desires. If followers are able but unwilling, leader needs to use a supportive and participative
style; if both able and willing, leader doesn’t need to do much.
SLT has an intuitive appeal as it acknowledges importance of followers and builds on logic
that leaders can compensate for followers’ limited ability and motivation. Research efforts to
test and support theory have been generally disappointing. Possible explanations include
internal ambiguities and inconsistencies in model itself, and problems with research
methodology.
Path-Goal Theory
Developed by Robert House, path gaol theory extracts elements from research on initiating
structure and consideration and expectancy theory of motivation. It states that it is the
leader’s job to assist followers in attaining their goals and to provide necessary direction and/
or support to ensure that their goals are compatible with the overall objectives of the group or
organization. The term path goal implies effective leaders clarify follower’s paths to work
goals and make the journey easier by reducing road blocks. Theory predicts the following:
Directive leadership yields greater employee satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous or
stressful than when they are highly structured and well laid out.
Supportive leadership results in high employee performance and satisfaction when employees
are performing structured tasks.
Directive leadership is likely to be perceived as redundant among employees with high ability
or considerable experience.
Like SLT, path-goal theory has intuitive appeal especially from goal attainment perspective
and can be adopted only cautiously for application but is a useful framework to examine vital
role of leadership.
Leader-Participation Model
Lea provides a set of rules to determine the form and amount of participative decision making
in different situations. The model relates leadership behaviour to subordinate participation in
decision making. Like path-goal theory, it says that leader behaviour must adjust to reflect
task structure (such as routine, non-routine or in between), but it does not cover all leadership
behaviours and is limited to recommending what types of decisions might be best made with
subordinate participation. It lay the groundwork for the situations and leadership behaviours
most likely to elicit acceptance from subordinates.
All the above stated theories assume that leaders use a homogenous style with everyone in
their work unit.
CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
A theory that supports leaders’ creation of in-groups and out-groups; subordinates with in-
group status will have higher performance ratings, less turnover, and greater job satisfaction.
argues that, because of time pressures, leaders establish a special relationship with a small
group of their followers. These individuals make up the ingroup—they are trusted, get a
disproportionate amount of the leader’s attention, and are more likely to receive special
privileges. Other followers fall into the outgroup. The theory proposes that early in the
history of the interaction between a leader and a given follower, the leader implicitly
categorizes the follower as an “in” or an “out” and that relationship is relatively stable over
time. Leaders induce LMX by rewarding those employees with whom they want a closer
linkage and punishing those with whom they do not. But for the LMX relationship to remain
intact, the leader and the follower must invest in the relationship.
How the leader chooses who falls into each category is unclear, but there is evidence ingroup
members have demographic, attitude, and personality characteristics similar to those of their
leader or a higher level of competence than outgroup members. Leaders and followers of the
same gender tend to have closer (higher LMX) relationships than those of different genders.
Even though the leader does the choosing, the follower’s characteristics drive the
categorizing decision.
Research to test LMX theory has been generally supportive, with substantive evidence that
leaders do differentiate among followers; these disparities are far from random; and followers
with ingroup status will have higher performance ratings, engage in more helping or
“citizenship” behaviours at work, and report greater satisfaction with their superior. LMX
influences these work outcomes by improving employee trust, motivation, empowerment and
job satisfaction (although trust in leader has largest effect). When treatment of ingroup is
starkly different from outgroup research (eg: study in Turkey)indicates that both ingroup and
outgroup realize negative effects from LMX .
Charismatic Leadership
Max Weber, a sociologist, defined charisma (from the Greek for “gift”) more than a century
ago as “a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he or she is set apart
from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least
specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are not accessible to the ordinary person
and are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual
concerned is treated as a leader.”
The first researcher to consider charismatic leadership in terms of OB was Robert House. It
states that followers make attributions of heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities when
they observe certain behaviours..
Key characteristics of Charismatic Leader
1.Vision and articulation. Has a vision—expressed as an idealized goal—that proposes a
future better than the status quo; and is able to clarify the importance of the vision in terms
that are understandable to others.
2. Personal risk. Willing to take on high personal risk, incur high costs, and engage in self-
sacrifice to achieve the vision.
3. Sensitivity to follower needs. Perceptive of others’ abilities and responsive to their needs
and feelings.
4. Unconventional behaviour. Engages in behaviours that are perceived as novel and
counter to norms.
Are charismatic leaders born or made
Individuals are born with traits that make them charismatic. In fact, studies of identical twins
have found they score similarly on charismatic leadership measures, even if they were raised
in different households and had never met. Personality is also related to charismatic
leadership; charismatic leaders are likely to be extraverted, self-confident, and achievement
oriented. Most experts believe individuals can be trained to exhibit charismatic behaviours.
Research indicates that all can develop it within one’s own limitations. To develop an aura of
charisma, use passion as a catalyst for generating enthusiasm, speak in animated voice,
reinforce message with eye contact and facial expressions and gesture for emphasis. Bring
out potential in followers by tapping into their emotions and create a bond that inspires them.
How charismatic leaders influence followers
Charismatic leaders influence followers through a 4 step process that is , by articulating an
appealing vision, a long-term strategy for attaining a goal by linking the present with a better
future for the organization. Desirable visions fit the times and circumstances and reflect the
uniqueness of the organization. A vision is incomplete without an accompanying vision
statement, a formal articulation of an organization’s vision or mission. Charismatic leaders
may use vision statements to imprint on followers an overarching goal and purpose. They
build followers’ self-esteem and confidence with high performance expectations and belief
that followers can attain them. Next, through words and actions the leader conveys a new set
of values and sets an example for followers to imitate. Finally, the charismatic leader engages
in emotion-inducing and often unconventional behaviour to demonstrate courage and
conviction about the vision. Followers “catch” the emotions their leader is conveying.
Does effective charismatic leadership depend on Situation
One factor that influences charismatic leadership is stress. People are especially receptive to
charismatic leadership when they sense a crisis, when they are under stress, or when they fear
for their lives. When people are psychologically aroused, they are more likely to respond to
charismatic leaders. Another situational factor apparently limiting charisma is level in the
organization. Top executives create vision; it’s more difficult to utilize a person’s charismatic
leadership qualities in lower-level management jobs or to align his or her vision with the
larger goals of the organization. An individual who lacks self-esteem and questions his or her
self-worth is more likely to absorb a leader’s direction rather than establish his or her own
way of leading or thinking.
Dark side of charismatic leadership
Charismatic leaders who are larger than life don’t necessarily act in the best interests of their
organizations. Many have allowed their personal goals to override the goals of the
organization. Research has shown that individuals who are narcissistic are also higher in
some behaviours associated with charismatic leadership. It’s not that charismatic leadership
isn’t effective; overall, it is. But a charismatic leader isn’t always the answer. Success
depends, to some extent, on the situation and on the leader’s vision, and on the organizational
checks and balances
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
They are leaders who inspire followers to transcend their own self-interests and who are
capable of having a profound and extraordinary effect on followers. They pay attention to the
concerns and needs of individual followers; they change followers’ awareness of issues by
helping them look at old problems in new ways; and they excite and inspire followers to put
out extra effort to achieve group goals. Transactional leaders are Leaders who guide or
motivate their followers in the direction of established goals by clarifying role and task
requirements. Transactional and transformational leadership complement each other; they
aren’t opposing approaches to getting things done. Transformational leadership builds on
transactional leadership and produces levels of follower effort and performance beyond what
transactional leadership alone can do. Although both are important , transformational tends to
be more important for group performance and satisfaction with leader, whereas
transactional(primarily contingent reward) is more important for leader effectiveness and
follower job satisfaction.
Full Range of Leadership Model
Laissez-faire, which literally mean “let it be” is the most passive and therefore least effective
of leader behaviours. Management by exception—active or passive—is slightly better, but
it’s still considered ineffective. Management-by-exception leaders tend to be available only
when there is a problem, which is often too late. Contingent reward leadership can be an
effective style of leadership but will not get employees to go above and beyond the call of
duty. with the four remaining styles—all aspects of transformational leadership—are leaders
able to motivate followers to perform above expectations and transcend their self-interest for
the sake of the organization. Individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation,
inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (known as the four I’s”) all result in extra
effort from workers, higher productivity, higher morale and satisfaction, higher
organizational effectiveness, lower turnover, lower absenteeism, and greater organizational
adaptability. Based on this model, leaders are generally most effective when they regularly
use each of the four transformational behaviours.
How it works: Transformational leaders are more effective because they are more creative,
but also because they encourage those who follow them to be creative, too. Companies with
transformational leaders have greater decentralization of responsibility, managers have more
propensity to take risks, and compensation plans are geared toward long-term results—all of
which facilitate corporate entrepreneurship. Most research suggests that the reason
transformational leadership works is that it inspires and motivates followers. Companies with
transformational leaders also show greater agreement among top managers about the
organization’s goals, which yields superior organizational performance.
Evaluation of Transformational leadership: Transformational leadership has been
impressively supported at diverse job levels and occupations. Transformational leadership
isn’t equally effective in all situations. It has a greater impact on the bottom line in smaller,
privately held firms than in more complex organizations. The personal nature of
transformational leadership may be most effective when leaders can directly interact with the
workforce and make decisions than when they report to an external board of directors or deal
with a complex bureaucratic structure. The characteristics of the leader and followers may
also play roles in effectiveness of transformational leadership.
Transformational versus Transactional Leadership: Transformational leadership is more
strongly correlated than transactional leadership with organizational outcomes like lower
turnover rates, higher productivity, lower employee stress and burnout, and higher employee
satisfaction but it is not perfect. Research suggests that transformational leadership is highly
related to contingent reward leadership, to the point of being redundant.
Characteristics of Transactional Leader
Contingent Reward: Contracts exchange of rewards for effort, promises rewards for good
performance, recognizes accomplishments.
Management by Exception (active): Watches and searches for deviations from rules and
standards, takes correct action.
Management by Exception (passive): Intervenes only if standards are not met.
Laissez-Faire: Abdicates responsibilities, avoids making decisions.
Characteristics of Transformational Leader
Idealized Influence: Provides vision and sense of mission, instills pride, gains respect and
trust.
Inspirational Motivation: Communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts,
expresses important purposes in simple ways.
Intellectual Stimulation: Promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful problem solving.
Individualized Consideration: Gives personal attention, treats each employee individually,
coaches, advises.
Transformational versus Charismatic Leadership: charismatic leadership places
somewhat more emphasis on the way leaders communicate while transformational leadership
focuses more on what they are communicating. Still, the theories are more alike than different
as both focus on leader’s ability to inspire followers and sometimes do in the same way due
to which, researchers believe the concepts are somewhat interchangeable.