Tag Archives: Contingency Theory

Leadership

Leadership Theories – What Does it Take to Be an Effective Leader?

There are more leadership theories than you can shake a stick at. Theories have evolved from “Great Man” and “Trait” theories to “Transformational” leadership – each with a different set of dynamics, contexts and focus.

Early theories tend to focus upon the characteristics and behaviours of successful leaders, whereas the later theories consider the role of followers and the contextual nature of leadership.

Here is an overview of leadership theories – but first here are 2 quick questions for you: (1) see if you can spot which applies to Genghis Khan and which applies to Mother Theresa; and (2) try to figure out which of these theories best describes the style you feel would be most appropriate for leading your change initiative?

(1) The Great Man theory – this was based on the belief that leaders are exceptional people, born with leadership qualities and are destined to lead. This theory reflects the male-oriented view of leadership which has predominated until the late 20th century.

(2) Trait Theory – is based around an extensive list of all of the qualities or traits associated with leadership.

(3) Behaviourist Theories – focus on what leaders actually do rather than on their qualities. Their different patterns of behaviour are observed and categorised as leadership styles.

(4) Situational Leadership – sees leadership as situation specific – where the style of leadership is adapted to the requirements of the context in which it is exercised.

(5) Contingency Theory – is a development of the situational theory – focusing on the situational variables which will determine the most appropriate or effective leadership style to fit the specific circumstances at that time.

(6) Transactional Theory – emphasises the importance of the transaction – or relationship – that takes place between the leader and the led. It focuses on the perceived mutual benefits derived from that relationship whereby the leader dispenses favours in the form of tangible and intangible rewards in return for the commitment, loyalty or [at least] compliance of his or her followers.

(7) Transformational Theory – The central concept here is change and the role of leadership in envisioning and implementing the transformation of organisational performance

(8) Servant Leadership – emphasises the leaders’ duty to serve his/her followers – leadership thus arises out of a desire to serve rather than a desire to lead. It is a practical philosophy which supports people who choose to serve first, and then lead as a way of expanding service to individuals and institutions. It encourages collaboration, trust, foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power and empowerment.

(9) Dispersed Leadership – an ‘informal’, ’emergent’ or ‘dispersed’ leadership, this approach argues a less formalised model of leadership where the leaders’ role is dissociated from the organisational hierarchy. Individuals at all levels in the organisation and in all roles can exert leadership influence over their colleagues and thus influence the overall leadership of the organisation.

(10) Primal Leadership – refers to the emotional dimension of leadership. The articulation of a message that resonates with their followers’ emotional reality, with their sense of purpose-and so to move people in a positive direction.

I know it is now fashionable and politically correct to vote for theories 6 – 10, and that for many years it has been fashionable to assume that inherited traits were far less important than learned and situational factors in those people fulfilling leadership roles. However, the science and study of behavioural genetics is gradually refocusing attention on the fact that far more is to do with our genes and our inherited traits and characteristics than has been assumed or accepted for several decades.

So I have to say that the latest research on genetics does appear to indicate what I have long believed – namely that leaders are born not made – so I would go for an element of theory 1 with Genghis Khan. I am not sure how appropriate the Mother Theresa number 8 style is for a business environment? But maybe elements of this are covered in 7 and 10?

Clearly, there are strengths in all of the types of leadership – but in the present turbulent climate, I personally will nail my colours to the mast and select a combination of type 7 and 10 – because transformational and primal leadership qualities applied in a change management context are ideally suited to the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management and, as such, would form key elements of successful strategies for managing change.

And, to ensure that you are employing successful strategies for managing change – that are appropriate to your organisation – you need to know how to apply: (a) these transformational and primal leadership styles, AND (b) how to apply the supporting programme management based processes – that will ensure that you avoid the catastrophic failure rate of ALL business change initiatives.

For more on this: “What is effective leadership?”

Equip yourself to avoid the 70% failure rate of all change initiatives with the “Practitioners’ Masterclass – Leading your people through change, putting it all together and managing the whole messy business.”

Stephen Warrilow, based in Bristol, works with companies across the UK providing specialist support to directors delivery significant change initiatives. Stephen has 25 years cross sector experience with 100+ companies in mid range corporate, larger SME and corporate environments.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Stephen_Warrilow/361805

 

Leadership

Theoretical Leadership Philosophies

he purpose of my writings is to assist people with personally developing themselves to lead a healthy life mentally and physically. With the advancements of technology the deliverables of communicating information has been more prevalent than ever before.

The fact of the matter is; we indeed live in what we call the “information era”. Information is being provided in various forms such as: displays, social networks, iPods, blackberries, various creative technological gadgets, PC’s etc. Never before has there been such a phenomenal movement of people paying to purchase information. Information is being treated as a product and people are in search for answers to their bewilderment.

If you are seeking answers to those issues that cause delays to your progress then you are looking for certain qualities that will separate you from the followers. That being the case; it is important to review those variables that will elevate you to that higher level of leadership and success personally, professionally and financially. I mean let’s face it; though money and finances are not “everything” it sure does help to make things happen for those you would like to help and lead. Let’s assume for a moment that you are the type of person that chooses to be successful for the purpose of being one who does have intent to help others. If you are that type of person, then finding the right information to equip you with the theoretical knowledge to help others must be gathered.

Now that we have gotten that out of the way let’s take a look at what is the make-up of a leader. I don’t believe that one has to be a hero or a trend setter just to be a leader. I also don’t believe as some have said the “Great Man” theory in leadership. You see times have changed and leadership comes in all shapes and sizes. Leadership today has no gender requirement; nor cultural perquisites of some sort. Years ago it was unheard of to observe female leaders in high ranking positions in the military today it is not far from the ranks of colonel, and generals and women in high levels in the private sector to the public sector such as the Supreme Court, Governor’s and U.S. Senators.

I am with the contention that the information era will produce a new sector of theory based leadership; that will be part of the current terms and theory leadership philosophies. It will now have to be included along with the theory of “trait leadership theory”. In others words were the traits of our leadership skills “inherited”? If so, then why do we at times have people who may have inherited certain leadership skills yet aren’t leaders? While we can grapple with the various leadership theories in place along with the variables connected with them; we nevertheless must review the other leadership theories bestowed upon us such as “Contingency leadership theory”. Again, the issues of information input; in theory formulation involves variables such as methods, skills of people being led (followers), and the surrounding circumstances, i.e. what is the situation.

Contingency theory is manifested through setting determination and/or environmental; one must ask who the best leader for a particular situation is? My information era leadership theory again is at the helm of playing a role in the basket of leadership theories and one that must be included in scholarly dialogues. In my view there are not many separating issues between contingency leadership theory and “Situational leadership theory”. The similarities lie with the matters of the various forms of decision making processes.

The information era leadership theory will reap most of its benefits by collaborating with what is called the “Behavior Leadership Theory”. This is a leadership theory that has the philosophy that leaders are taught to be leaders not born with it but rather tutored along to become leaders.

If we analyze the situation closely we can identify that the information era leadership theory will be most helpful to “participative leadership theory”. Participative leadership theories depend on information and are a perfect fit for the two to collaborate for the purpose of leadership development in applying it to decision-making processes. This is the leadership style of participation, openness, all ideas are good ideas and leave no stone unturned. Participative leadership theory and information leadership theory are a perfect fit for a positive progressive and explosive leadership manifestation.

If you would like more from Dr. Richard C. Baiz, D.B.A. on Personal and Leadership Development [http://www.leadershipinstituteofsuccess.com] and his Leadership Institute click on the the link provided: [http://www.leadershipinstituteofsuccess.com]. Dr. Baiz is a Doctorate in Business Administration. He is a College and Corporate Personal and Leadership Development Instructor and Coach. Dr. Baiz is also an expert in the field of Organizational Development and Management and gets his clients top notch successful results.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Dr._Richard_C._Baiz,_D._B._A./196924

Leadership

Thoughts on Leadership

Today, modern corporate organizations face compound pressures driven by competition, talent finding and retention, globalization, financial expectations, technology innovation, energy trends, diverse workforces, environmental sustainability, corporate responsibility, the proliferation of the Internet, etc. The bottom line is that maintaining the status-quo or doing marginally better is not a formula for success. Change management and adaptation is ever more necessary to be able to set direction, to identify priorities, to manage complexity, and to deliver exceptional results.

John Kotter, Konosuke Matshushita Professor of Leadership at Harvard maintains that “Most US corporations are over managed and under led.” In essence, today’s managerial jobs require management and leadership skills with varying degrees of focus. The higher we go on the corporate ladder, the greater the demand for leadership ability. Thus, the increasingly fast changing environment we face requires more leadership from more people. To cope with these forces good mastery of leadership and management skills is essential in order to marshal and manage any organization effectively. Hence, the great need to institutionalize leadership development. “Institutionalizing a leadership centered culture–where the business rewards people who successfully develop leaders–is the ultimate act of leadership.” (Kotter 51-65, 1999).

Leadership Differs from Management

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines leader as “a person who by force of example or qualities of leadership plays a directing role, wields commanding influence, or has a following in any sphere of activity.” The strength of leadership comes from the enrolment of minds to a common cause or vision, and the release of intrinsic motivation to achieve extraordinary results. This means that anyone in an organization can be a leader, whether or not that individual is formally identified as such. Indeed, informal leaders are extremely important to the effectiveness of most organizations.

Allen Scherr and Michael Jensen (2-4) offered in their recent Barbados Group Working Paper that “a leader is an ordinary human being with both a commitment to deliver a result–whose realization would be remarkable and visionary given the current circumstances–and the integrity to execute on this commitment to accomplish the desired results.” One key idea of this definition is that “integrity” in the sense of leadership includes honoring your word–and that means either keeping your word or acknowledging that one will not be keeping it, and cleaning up any mess that causes for those who were counting on that word being kept.” (Erhard et al. 36).

Kotter defines management as being about coping with complexity, planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, controlling and problem solving. To this end, he asserted that management involves setting targets and goals, establishing detailed plans for reaching goals, allocating resources, establishing organizational structure, delegating authority and responsibility, monitoring results vs. plan, identifying deviations from plan, and planning and organizing solutions (51-65, 1999). Consequently, what great managers have in common is an appreciation of their strengths as well as an understanding of their limitations. Being aware that performance hinges on how well they figure out the pressures and priorities of their particular job, they find a course that works for them. According to Sternberg “finding this individual path to success is the hallmark of managerial intelligence.” (314-315).

Management is fundamentally about minimizing risk and maximizing adherence to plan and predictability. In comparison, leadership copes with the unknown, the dreams, and the vision that generates breakthrough performance. Accordingly, what one person views as possible may be a pipe dream to another. The subject of leadership is one where the results to be produced are accompanied by greater risk and uncertainty than what is normally considered to be acceptable in the realm of management. A scholarly gem of the Renaissance was Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513/1962). Machiavelli’s thesis is as good today as it was in 1513. It declared that “there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

Obviously, both leadership and management are vital for a well-functioning organization. It is critical to emphasize and understand Kotter’s incisive conclusion about the tensions between leadership and management: “. . . even more fundamentally, leadership and management differ in terms of their primary function. The first can produce useful change, the second can create orderly results which keep something working efficiently. This does not mean that management is never associated with change; in tandem with effective leadership, it can help produce a more orderly change process. Nor does this mean that leadership is never associated with order; to the contrary, in tandem with effective management, an effective leadership process can help produce the changes necessary to bring a chaotic situation under control.” (Kotter 7, 1990). This conflict can be useful; however, it is not a trivial exercise. Proper balance is essential for both short-term and long-term success of any business.

Leadership is about being comfortable with change, and understanding that the status quo works against progress in most cases. Every quarter and every month, there is change–things are in constant motion. While others may not be aware of this, leaders assume it. In knowing that change is inevitable, the true leader seeks positive change for a purpose and for the better. Kotter defines leadership as consisting of the following three elements: 1) establishing direction, 2) aligning people, and 3) motivating and inspiring them. This is a great definition but the paper of Allan Scherr and Michael Jensen, adds further insight into the domain of leadership by agreeing with Kotter’s work but adding two more elements: “Communicating breakdowns, and managing breakdowns.” (Scherr, Jensen 4).

Legendary leader, Jack Welch remarked in a WSJ editorial (2004) that after 30 years of leading he knows what leaders look like and act like. His process assesses four essential traits (each one starting with an E, a nice coincidence): 1) great positive Energy, 2) ability to Energize others, 3) Edge or the courage to make tough yes-or-no decisions, and 4) Execution follow through to get the job done. He concluded his assessment with an observation about integrity and general intelligence as necessary attributes to complete the profile of a strong leader type.

As we gather, there is no shortage of leadership definitions. The many dimensions into which leadership has been cast can make the subject ambiguous. Nevertheless, there is adequate similarity among definitions to find common ground. Leadership has been conceived as the exercise of influence, as a function of personality, as a mode of persuasion, as particular behaviors, as a means to achieve future visions, as an approach to induce commitment, as a creative mind set, as an achievement instrument, and as a mixture of such conceptions.

Situational Theories of Leadership

The inability of researchers to recognize conclusively all the dimensions of leadership resulted in the development of four popular situational theories of leadership. These theories propose that the most effective leadership style depends upon situational variables, especially the characteristics of the group and the nature of the task.

Hersey and Blanchard developed a “Situational Leadership” model that harmonized different combinations of task behavior and relationship behavior with the maturity of the followers. Depending on the readiness of the subordinates, the appropriate leadership style is first telling; then selling; then participating; and finally, for highly mature followers, delegating (Vecchio 334-350).

The most extensively researched situational leadership theory is Fred Fiedler’s “Contingency Theory” of leadership. Fiedler used the LPC scale to measure the leader’s orientation toward either the task or the person. The most appropriate leadership style was then determined by assessing three situational variables: whether the relationships between the leader and the members were good or poor, whether the task was structured or unstructured, and whether the power position of the leader was strong or weak. When these three situational variables created an extremely favorable or extremely unfavorable situation, the most effective leadership style was a task-oriented (low LPC) leader. However, a leader with a high concern for interpersonal relationships (high LPC) was more effective in situations where there were intermediate levels of favorableness (Ayman et al. 351-377).

The “Path Goal” model is another situational leadership theory. This theory is derived from expectancy theory and suggests that effective leaders must clarify the goal paths and increase the goal attractiveness for followers. Four distinct leadership styles are proposed in the model: directive, supportive achievement-oriented and participative leadership styles. The most appropriate style depends upon two types of situational factors: the characteristics of the follower and the characteristics of the environment. Three of the most important follower characteristics include the locus of control, authoritarianism, and personal abilities. The three environmental factors include the nature of the task, the formal authority system within the organization, and the group norms and dynamics (House et al. 259-273).

Vroom and Yetton’s “Normative Decision-Making” model is also a situational leadership theory since it identifies the appropriate styles leaders should use in making decisions. The three leadership styles include autocratic decision making, consultative decision making, and group decision making. The decision titles determining which style is most appropriate include such questions as whether the leader has adequate information to make the decision alone, whether the subordinates will accept the goals of the organization, whether subordinates will accept the decision if they do not participate in making it, and whether the decision will produce a controversial solution (Vroom 278).

Although most of the literature on leadership emphasizes the influence of the leader on the group, the influence of the group upon the leader should not be overlooked. The relationship between the leader and the group implies a reciprocal influence. Groups have the capacity to influence the behavior of their leaders by responding selectively to specific leader behaviors. The influence of a leader can also be constrained by several external factors, such as organizational policies, group norms, and individual skills and abilities. Other variables have been found to neutralize or substitute for the influence of a leader, such as the skills and abilities of followers and the nature of the task itself.

Continue reading →