Here is a compilation of term papers on ‘Leadership’ for class 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short term papers on ‘Leadership’ especially written for college and management students.
Term Paper on Leadership
Term Paper Contents:
- Term Paper on the Definition of Leadership
- Term Paper on Leadership is a Mutual Influence Process
- Term Paper on the Theories of Leadership
- Term Paper on the Contingency Theories of Leader Effectiveness
- Term Paper on the Managerial Grid
- Term Paper on Leaders and Followers
- Term Paper on How to be an Effective Leader?
1. Term Paper on the Definition of Leadership:
According to Jeorge R. Terry, “leadership is the activity of influencing people to strive willingly for group objectives”. Robbort Taannenbaun , Weschler and Fred Massarik defined leadership as “Interpersonal influence exercised in a situation and directed through the communication process towards the attainment of a specialized goal or goals”.
Harold Koontz and C. Odonell state that “Leadership influencing people to follow in the achievement of common goal”. From the above definition of leadership, it follows that the leadership process is a function of the leader, the follower, and other situational variables.
L = f (l.f.s)
It should be remembered that the leaders and followers must be in a hierarchical relationship.
We quote a few important definitions on leadership from the existing literature.
These definitions reveal the essence of leadership:
1. “Leadership is the process of encouraging and helping others to work enthusiastically towards objectives”.
2. “Leadership is the behaviour of an individual which he is in-directing the activities of a group towards a shared goal”.
3. Leadership is “interpersonal influence, exercised a situation, and directed, through the communication process towards the attainment of a specified goal or goals”.
4. Leadership is “an interaction between persons in which one presents information of a sort and in such a manner that the other becomes convinced that his outcomes (benefits/considerations) will be improved if he behaves in the manner suggested or desired”.
5. Leadership “is both a process and property. The process of leadership is the use of non-coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of the members of an organized group towards the accomplishment of group objectives. As a property, leadership is the set of qualities or characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to successfully employ such influence”.
6. Leadership is “the relationship in which one person (the leader) influences others to work together willingly on related tasks to attain goals desired by the leader and/or group”.
The core points that run through all these definitions and which constitute their essence of leadership are the following:
(a) Leadership refers to the ability of one individual to influence others.
(b) The influence is exercised to change the behaviour of others.
(c) Behaviour is changed through on-coercive means
(d) Change of behaviour is caused with an objective of achieving a shared goal.
(e) The person influencing others (leader) possesses a set of qualities or characteristics which he uses to influence others.
(f) Leadership is a group phenomenon. It involves interaction between two or more people.
There are also many instances that hold good the very idea of leadership as working definition. Imagine that you have accepted a new job and enter a new work group. How would you recognize its leader?
One possibility of course is through the formal titles an assigned roles each person in the group holds. In short the individual designated as department head or project manager would be the one, you would identify as the group leader.
Now imagine that during several staff meetings you notice that this person was really not the most influential. Although she/he held the formal authority, there meetings were actually dominated by another person who was the top persons subordinate.
What would you conclude about the leadership in this case? Probably that the real leader of the group was the person who actually ran things—not the one with the formal titles and authority. This facts point to the following working definition of leadership that is accepted by many experts.
Leadership is the process where one individual influences other group members towards the attainment of defined group or organisational goals. Leader is an individual within a group or an organization who wields the most influence over others. Leadership influences is goal directed and involves non-coercive influence.
Leadership and Management:
Management, manager-ship and leadership are terms which are so closely related that the distinctions among them have become blurred. It is useful to place each of them in its right perspective.
Management is a process of planning, organizing, coordinating, directing, and controlling the activities of others.
Manager-ship is the process of influence for the purpose of achieving shared goals.
Both manager-ship and leadership are management tools with which managers can influence the behaviour of employees to achieve organisational goals. The distinction between them can be made on the basis of the qualifications that managers have. Managers, by virtue of being in a managerial position, have manager-ship, but they may not possess leadership or the ability to influence other people.
There are certain other differences between leaders and managers:
1. Leaders have followers, but managers do not have. Subordinates may obey managers out of fear but such compliance is not response to leadership. Similarly, all leaders are not managers. Leaders have followers but do not possess authority to manage informal leaders. Manager-ship is a fundamental characteristic of a manager.
2. Leaders have emotional appeal. They are expected to be charismatic people with great visions who can alter the mood of their followers and raise their hopes and expectations. On the other hand, managers are executed to be rational decision-makers and problem solvers. They are expected to use their analytical minds in the process of establishing and achieving organisational goals.
3. Leaders fulfill followers’ needs. Managers and leaders try to meet organisational and employee’s personal needs. But the emphasis differs. The main aim of a manager is to meet organizational goals. Similarly, the main job of a leader is to satisfy his followers’ needs.
4. Peter Drucker and Warren Bennis have thus rightly pointed: “management is doing things right, leadership is doing right things. Management’s efficiency lies in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall”.
The distinction between management and leadership gets blurred in actual practice. In real life organizations there are no distinct leaders, there are only managers. They will be acting both in the capacity of managers as well as in the capacity of leaders. A successful manager is the one who has both the qualities and who makes use of them discretely, depending on whether he or she is required to lead or to manage.
2. Term Paper on Leadership is a Mutual Influence Process:
The discussion on the nature of leadership till now makes a reader believe that leadership is unidirectional, i.e., the leader influencing his followers. It is true that leadership refers to the influence of the leader on followers. At the same time, the characteristics of employees and their tasks do yield influence on the leader. Leadership is, therefore, a mutual influence process.
Leader’s Influence on Followers:
Why is leader able to influence his followers? What makes followers simply obey whatever their leader says?
A leader is able to change the behaviour of his followers because he enjoys power which comes to him from at least five sources:
They are:
a) Reward power which refers to the leader’s capacity to reward followers,
b) Coercive power which is the full side of reward power and refers to the leader’s capacity to coarse or punish followers
c) Legitimate power which refers to the power a leader possesses as a result of occupying a particular position or role in the organisation
d) Expert power that refers to power that a leader possesses as a result of his knowledge and expertise regarding the task to be performed by subordinates; and
e) Referent power which is dependent upon the extent to which subordinates identify with , look up to, and wish to emulate the leader.
Followers’ Influence on Leader:
The fact that the followers and situations will influence their leader is a recent discovery. Several sources of influence on the leader’s behaviour are identified.
The more important of them are:
a) Responses or performance of subordinates;
b) Characteristics of subordinates, namely, male or female, young or old, personal background, and the like;
c) The nature of the task;
d) Organizational policy and climate;
e) Peers and their influence on the leaders;
f) Influence of superiors on the leader; and
g) The leaders’ abilities and traits.
The terms Leader vs. Manager tend to be vised interchangeably. Although we understand the temptation, to do so. The two terms are not identical. The concept of managerial leadership is important because the term itself suggest necessary bringing together of the managerial and leadership roles for more effective tasks accomplishment, organisational effectiveness and human satisfaction.
A manager can manage by fear and without considering the wellbeing of organisational members—just as long as formal goals are met. Yet clarifying paths towards personal and organizational objective is a function of the managerial leader. The tasks of making these paths congruent individual can accomplish his/her personal motives while meeting the organisational goals.
The manager’s effectiveness is measured by how well formal goals are make through the productive effort of subordinate. The managerial leader should be evaluated for effectiveness on both sets of criteria, both formal goal accomplishment and informal goal accomplishment. The importance of incorporating the leadership role into the managerial role can be seen if we compare the productivity of manager who displayed concern for the wellbeing of the subordinates with those who need not.
Likert demonstrated the superior productivity associated with managers who were seen by their subordinates as “supportive” (building and maintaining employees’ sense of personal worth and importance), as compared with those who were not. The supportive managers’ units were significantly more productive than the units of the non-supportive managers.
The differences between the effective (supportive) and ineffective (non-supportive) supervisors were described in terms of the superior—subordinate relationship; the effective managers considered their subordinates “human beings rather than just as persons to get the work done”.
Low-producing managers attempted to control through their authority. In contrast, the high-producing managers used extensive participation and group leadership techniques in building an integrated team that was committed to organizational goals.
The following table summarizes a portion of results of this study:
3. Term Paper on the Theories of Leadership:
(i) Trait Theory:
Before 1945 the most common approach to the study of leadership concentrated on leadership traits, suggesting that certain characteristics such as physical energy or friendliness were essential for effective leadership.
These inherent personal’ qualities like intelligence were fell to be transferable from one situation to another. But this is not possible rather requires training of the individuals for future leadership. Leadership training would gain be helpful only to those with inherent leadership traits. Certain traits predict success or failure. As Gary Yukl has observed “leadership traits are relevant and appropriate to the particular situation”. The premise that some leader traits absolutely necessary for effective leadership and possession of this traits increase the effectiveness.
Warran Bennis completed a five years study of 90 outstanding leaders and their followers. He identified 4 common traits or areas of competence shared by all 90 leaders.
i. Management of Attention:
The ability to communicate a sense of outcome, goal, or direction that attracts followers.
ii. Management of Meaning:
The ability to create and communicate meaning with clarity and understanding.
iii. Management of Trust:
The ability to be reliable and consistent.
iv. Management of Self:
The ability to know one’s self and to use one’s skills within the limits of one’s strengths and weaknesses.
Table of Traits and skills found most frequently to be Characteristic of Successful Leaders:
Leaders should also create an environment where quality matters and dedication to work energizes efforts.
i. Business Literacy:
Does the manager know the business—the real feel of it?
ii. People Skills:
Does the manager have the capacity to motivate, to bring out the best in people?
iii. Conceptual Skills:
Does the manager have the capacity to think systematically, creatively, and inventively?
iv. Track Record:
Has the manager done it before and done it well?
v. Taste:
Does the manager have the ability to pick the right people-not clones, but people who can make up deficiencies?
vi. Judgment:
Does the manager have the ability to make quick decisions with imperfect data?
vii. Character:
The core competency of leadership is character, but character and judgment are the qualities we know least about when trying to teach them to others.
Evaluation of the Trait Theory:
The trait approach to leadership has been severely criticized by many.
Some of the limitations of the theory are the following:
1. The list of personality traits of successful leaders is too long and there seems to be no finality about it. Although hundreds of traits have been identified, no consistent pattern has emerged.
2. How much of which trait a successful leader must have is not clear. Furthermore, certain traits, particularly psychological, cannot be quantified.
3. The theory assumes that a leader is born and not trained. This assumption is not acceptable to the contemporary thinkers on the subject.
4. Contrary to what the theory assumes, leadership effectiveness does not depend on the personality of the leader alone. Other variables like the situation, the task, the organization and the characteristics of followers will equally determine the effectiveness of leaders.
5. It is a well-known fact that the people who .fail as leaders and people who never achieve positions of leadership often possess some of the same traits as successful leaders. Thus, for example, although taller people may generally be more successful as leaders, many tall people have neither the inclination nor the capabilities to be leaders. At the same time, many short people have risen to positions of leaders.
6. There is little consensus on the meaning of words used to label traits. In a study of extensive leadership qualities, a researcher demonstrated the magnitude of this problem when he asked 75 top executives to define the term “dependability”, a trait associated with effective leadership. The executives defined this trait in 147 different ways. Even after similar definitions had been combined 25 different definitions remained.
It does not mean to say that the trait theory of leadership is irrelevant. With all its limitations, the theory is still relevant because of certain merits.
One merit relates to the qualities of successful leaders. Focusing on personality traits, a review of studies carried out from 1900 to 1957 showed that leaders tend to be consistently better adjusted, more dominant, more extroverted, more masculine, and more conservative, and have greater interpersonal sensitivity than non-leaders.
The second merit relates to the influence of personality on one’s effectiveness. To define person’s personality, what he fundamentally is as a person, is an ever present and massive influence on how, and with what success, he functions as a manager.
The personality of man is his inner life, including such inner elements as background, life history, beliefs, life experiences, attitudes, prejudices, self-image, fears, loves, hates, hopes and philosophy of life. In this sense, a man is like an iceberg: only a small fraction of what he appears above the surface (his observable behaviour, what he does); the rest is his inner life, the 7/8th of the iceberg that lie, unobservable, below the surface.
However, the managers inner personality causes or ‘spills over’ into his behaviour which in turn affects others with whom he works, eliciting from them either cooperative or resistance reactions. And, therein lies the manager’s fate: cooperative reactions from his people spell success, resistance reactions, however irrational from the manager’s viewpoint, usually assure his failure.
“It is clear that there is an influential relationship between a manager’s total personality and his success as a manager on the job. I have submitted this precise concept to several thousand practising managers over the years and based on their experience virtually all acknowledge its validity”.
Third, the view that leaders are born, not made is in fact, still popular (through not among researchers). After a lifetime of reading popular novels and viewing films and television shows, perhaps most of us believe, to some extent, that there are individuals who have re-disposition to leadership, that they are naturally braver, more aggressive, more decisive, and more articulate than other people.
Finally, the theory has certain practical implications also. If leadership traits could be identified, then nations and organizations would become far more sophisticated in selecting leaders. Only those people who possess the designated leadership traits would become politicians, officers, and managers. Presumably, organizations and societies would then operate more effectively.
Evaluation:
The situational leadership theory has generated considerable interest because it recommends a leadership type that is dynamic and flexible rather than static. The motivation, ability and experience of subordinates must be constantly assessed in order to determine which style combination would be most appropriate under flexible and changing conditions.
If the style is appropriate, according to Hersey and Blanchard, it will not only motivate employees but also help them move towards maturity. Further, the theory gives specific attention to followers and their feelings about a task or job to be done. Finally, the theory is one of the more popular leadership training models available today. Partly enhanced by success of Balanchard’s book The One Minute Manager, many organisations make use of the model and its associated instruments.
(ii) The Great Person Theory:
The theory views that leaders possess special stress that set them apart from others. And that these traits are responsible for their assuming positions of power and authority. The questions here may be asked. Are some people born to live? It is unequivocally clear that leaders are both born and made. Leaders don’t have to great man or women by being intellectual geniuses. But they do need to have the right stuff. Leadership is a demanding , unrelenting job with enormous pressure and gave responsibilities.
This orientation suggests great leaders possess key traits that set them apart from most other human beings. Furthermore the theory contends that this traits remain stable over time and across different groups.
What are the Characteristics of the Great Leaders?
Researchers have identified the following characteristics of successful leaders.
Table of Characteristics of Successful Leaders:
However we will explain several others traits that are not quite as obvious.
Leadership Motivation:
The desire to lead and influence others especially towards the attainment of shared goals. Leaders who demonstrate such personalized power motivation which to dominant others and their desire to do so is often reflected in an excessive concern with status. On the other hand leaders who evidence such socialized power motivation cooperate with others develop networks and collision and general work with subordinates rather than try to dominant and control them.
Flexibility:
Another special characteristics of the effective leaders is flexibility. That is they act according to the situational variables.
Multiple Domains of Intelligence:
Scientists have acknowledge that leaders have to be smart in a variety of different ways. In other words they have to demonstrate what is known as multiple domains of intelligence.
Leaders have to be Intelligence in Special Ways:
(a) Cognitive Intelligence:
Leader must be capable of integrating and interpreting large amounts of information. Traditionally this is the measure of ability.
(b) Emotionally Intelligence:
Refers to people’s abilities to be sensitive to their own or others emotion.
(c) Cultural Intelligence:
Most of the research on leadership has focus on culture within which leaders operate and take decision.
(iii) Behavioral Theories:
Beginning in the late 1940’s and continuing through the early 1960’s researchers moved, away from an emphasis on traits and towards the study of leader behaviours. This new approach differed from the trait oriented research in at least two ways. First, actual leader behaviours instead of personal traits were the main focus. Second, whereas most trait studies sought to separate leaders from non-leaders, leader behaviour studies wanted to determine how various kinds of specific behaviour affect the performance and satisfaction of followers.
Thus, the difference between the two approaches is summarized in Table:
Behaviours:
Another approach has been identifying the behaviours by which the leader fulfills the leadership role; the rationale is that the leader must behave in some consistent set of ways in order to interact with followers, solve problems, or encourage enthusiastic participation in important activities. If sets of behaviours could be found that distinguished between effective and ineffective leaders, then ineffective leaders could be taught how the effective leaders acted and thus become more effective.
The range of behaviours that comprise the role of the leader can be seen from the following list:
i. Representation:
Speaking and acting as the representative of the group.
ii. Demand Reconciliation:
Reconciling conflicting demands and reducing disorder to the system.
iii. Tolerance of Uncertainty:
Ability to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or being upset.
iv. Persuasiveness:
Using persuasion and argument effectively; exhibiting strong convictions.
v. Initiation of Structure:
Clearly defining the leader’s own role, and letting followers know what is expected of them.
vi. Tolerance of Freedom:
Allowing followers scope for initiative, decision, and action.
vii. Role Assumption:
Actively exercising the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others.
viii. Consideration:
Regarding the comfort, well-being, status, and contributions of the leader’s followers.
ix. Production Emphasis:
Applying pressure for productive output.
x. Predictive Accuracy:
Exhibiting foresight and the ability to predict outcomes accurately.
xi. Integration:
Maintaining a closely-knit organization: resolving inter member conflicts.
xii. Influence with Superiors:
Maintaining cordial relations with superiors: having influence with superiors; the leader is seen as striving for higher status?
The factors most often regarded as differentiating between effective and ineffective leaders are two termed initiation of structure and consideration.
Consideration and Initiation of Structure:
More broadly, consideration is the showing of understanding, concern, and sympathy for the feelings and opinions of followers, being considerate of their needs and well-being, and showing willingness to explain what the leader does. Initiation of structure covers task-related behaviours, such as assigning roles and duties to group members, scheduling work assignments, defining goals and establishing task procedures, setting standards, and evaluating followers’ performance.
In reviewing the literature relating the two items of consideration and initiating structure to group performance, Stogdill reported a somewhat higher relationship between group productivity and initiating structure of the leader than the relationship between productivity and consideration. At the same time, job satisfaction was more highly related to consideration than it was to initiating structure, and consideration seemed to be related to both high productivity and job satisfaction.
Productivity and Attitudes:
What these findings indicate is that a group can become more productive when the leader exercises initiative, clarifies what the group is trying to accomplish, and clarifies what each member’s role is. Certainly a group in which the leader does not have a clear idea of what to do or how to do it (initiation of structure) would have many disputes and conflicts.
Yet the leader who displays “considerate” behaviour shows that his or her followers are important, simply by being concerned with their feelings, attitudes, and relationships. A considerate leader would be expected to develop and maintain warm and personal relationships between herself or himself and the followers, and to make sure that the followers themselves get along well.
Such a rationale can explain their relationship between having a considerate leader and followers reporting higher job satisfaction a friendlier and more comfortable place to work can reduce one’s dissatisfaction with those phases of the job.
Conflicts between Behaviours:
The two sets of leadership behaviours, consideration and initiation of structure, may create difficulties for the leader, however. In initiating structure (clarifying task, roles and procedures), the leader may have to give task accomplishment a higher priority than the feelings of subordinates or followers. Even though a follower might wish to put off doing a distasteful task, the leader may often have to insist that it should be done so that the overall task can be accomplished.
If consideration occupies a higher priority than initiating structure, on the other hand, the leader might well decide not to hurt the feelings of followers; performance feedback of a negative nature might not be given, although this creates a situation in which performance and improvement suffer.
The Considerate Leader, Productivity and Satisfaction:
If recognize that both productivity and satisfactions are important and that one need not be realized at the expense of the other, the considerate leader tends more nearly to accomplish acceptable levels of productivity as well as job satisfactions.
Although this statement may appear contradictory to what we have found out about how the considerate leader compares with the initiating leader, we should remember that a considerate leader attempts to fulfill the needs and expectations important to his or her followers; in many task situations, this means that followers want and need to know what comprises their work roles, and that they desire feedback and instruction on performance and ways to achieve higher levels of accomplishment. Being considerate, in such a case, can then include the role and expectations clarifications include in initiation of structure.
What do Leaders do?
The trait approach to leadership, we just reviewed focuses on the idea that various traits distinguish effective leaders from others. In short it focuses on who leaders are. This approach make sense to consider the idea that leaders may be distinctive with respect to the way, they behave. Leadership behaviour examines what leaders do. The general question underline the behaviour approach is quite simple—what do Leaders Do that make them effective as leaders. There are several good answers to the questions.
Participative vs. Autocratic Leadership Behaviour:
When the behaviours of leaders involves much influence over the subordinates and the decision that are made by him is the autocratic style of leadership behaviour. Someone who makes all the decision, who makes all the decisions, tell people precisely what to do and wants to run the entire show is an autocrat leader. Such a person is said to have an autocratic leadership style.
In contrast, if the boss or supervisor allow employees to make their own decisions and allow them in decision making process is said to be participative leadership style. They may be consultant with the leader and have a joined decision of some sort.
The two-dimensional model of subordinate participation, if describes subordinate’s participation in decision in terms of two dimension. The first dimension characterizes the extent to which leaders permit subordinates to take part in decision. The 2nd dimension involves the extent to which leaders direct the activities of subordinates and tell them how to carry out their jobs.
This is the permissive—directive dimension.
Many leaders adopt a style that fits at least within one of these following categories:
1. Directive autocrat,
2. Permissive autocrat,
3. Directive democrat,
4. Permissive democrat.
Directive autocrat, is a person who makes decision without consulting subordinates and thus close supervision. Permissive autocrat is a leader who combines permissive supervision with an autocratic style of making decisions.
The other directive democrat and permissive democrat are also most suited to specific organisational condition. This leaders are to match their own styles the needs of their organisation and to change the needs accordingly.
Each of these styles of management mentioned above has very definite advantages and disadvantages associated with it.
While appraising these styles we must keep 4 major points in mind:
(i) Value—Laden Style shows emotional responses to the idea associated with the terms.
(ii) We talk in terms of pure style which must be idealistic in forms.
(iii) The leadership style must be universal approach to all situation.
(iv) This pattern of style which seek to attain organisational objectives must be treated first and is of primary concern.
These elements offers insights—need for participation, the result of commitment and the closeness of supervision required.
All managerial styles invites the participation by subordinates. To make the leadership more pragmatic and relevant the involvement of subordinates is a must.
Commitment to organisational goal is an important element that can more nearly integrate the behaviour of the individual with the activities required by the formal organisation.
The rational is that the individual who identifies with an endproduct or endpurpose and is committed to attaining it will be more motivated and take initiative towards the end. Closeness and supervision—requires by the nature of the task and the organisational purpose. The term closeness of the supervision is synonymous with control.
One of the advantages of general supervision is that some initiative an originality are important. A bureaucratic phenomenon called goal displacement is typical happening under close supervision. Under goal displacement the way in which something is done, the procedure is more important than what is to be accomplished. The rules and regulations cannot be bent before the subordinates.
Ohio State University studies and the University of Michigan studies are the two important behavioral theories.
Ohio State University Studies:
These well publicized studies were started shortly after World War II. The main objective of the studies was to identify the major dimensions of leadership and to investigate the effect of leader behaviour on employee performance and satisfaction.
From a list of leader behaviours in a wide variety of situations, two leadership dimensions were identified:
i. The initiating structure which refers to leader behaviour that defines and organizes the group tasks, assigns the tasks to employees, and supervises their activities.
ii. Consideration refers to leader behaviour that can be characterized by friendliness, respect, supportiveness, openness, trust, and concern for the welfare of the employees.
The main point in the study is that both’ consideration and initiating structure are not seen as being placed on a continuum. That is rather than a leader necessarily being low on one dimension when high on the after, the leader could be high on both, low on both, or high on one and low on the other as shown in the quadrants shown in Fig.
The findings of the Ohio State studies can be summarized as follows:
i. Consideration was positively related to low absenteeism and grievance, but it was negatively or neutrally related to performance.
ii. Initiating structure was positively related to employee performance but was also associated with such negative consequences as absenteeism and grievance.
iii. When both consideration and structure were high, performance and satisfaction tended to be high. But in some cases, high productivity was accompanied by absenteeism and grievances.
The University of Michigan Studies:
The studies were conducted during the same period as those at Ohio State and resulted in identical conclusions. As in the Ohio State University studies, researchers at the University of Michigan distinguished between two dimensions of leadership: production-centered and employees-centered.
Production-centered leaders set rigid work standards, organized tasks down to the last detail, prescribed the work methods to be followed and closely supervised subordinates performance. Employee-centered leaders, on the other hand, encouraged employee participation in goal setting and in other work related decisions, and helped ensure high performance by inspiring respect and trust.
At first the findings of Michigan studies seem to refute the Ohio state research because they place leadership on a continuum such as the one shown in Fig. and concede that the further to right the leaders go, the better off they are. But a deeper analysis reveals that employee and work orientation are two separate dimensions and that a leader can be either high or low on one or both.
Thus, the two styles discovered by the Michigan researchers were similar to those of the Ohio State people. The production-centered leadership factor and the initiating-leadership structure factor both measured work orientation, while the employee oriented factor and the consideration factor both measured people orientation.
Evaluation:
In Leader behaviour theories, unlike in the trait theories, the focus was on what leaders did-how they delegated the tasks, how they communicated with and tried to motivate their subordinates, how they carried out their tasks, and so on. The theories underlined that the behaviours can be learnt and an individual trained in the appropriate leadership behaviours would be able to lead more effectively. This is the main contribution of the leader behaviour theory.
Behavioural theorists, however, could not successfully identify a consistent relationship between leadership behaviour and group performance. General statements could not be made because results would vary over different range of circumstances. What was missing was consideration of the situational factors that influence success or failure.
4. Term Paper on the Contingency Theories of Leader Effectiveness:
This leadership is a complex process, involves intricate social relationship and is affected by a wide range of factors. Thus effective leadership is an essential ingredient in organisational success with effective leadership organisation can grow prosper and compete. Recognition of this basic point lies behind several modern theories of leadership collectively referred to as contingency theories of leader effectiveness.
There is no best style of leadership and also no suitable styles appropriate to specific conditions. So the contingency approach to leadership is concerned with effectiveness. Several theories fall into this category. For that we will describe here are LPC contingency theory, situational leadership theory, path goal Theory, and three- dimension theory.
(i) Contingency Theory:
Fred Fredler has investigated the ways in which group productivity is affected by the behaviours of group leaders.
Fredler recognizes that the critical element in effective leadership is the nature of the situation in which the leader is acting. The appropriateness of the leaders’ behaviour to the dictate of the situation affects the effectiveness of the leader. In other words goal accomplishment is contingent (dependent) on matching leader behaviour and situation. The theory develop the two-dimension—task oriented (comparable to directive or initiating structure). Leaders and relationship oriented comparable to (considerate) leaders.
The task oriented leaders basic purpose is accomplishing the task. The relationship oriented leader is more concern with creating and maintaining warm and personal ties with others. In Fiedler’s work the basic leadership style was identified through questionnaire called the List Preferred Co-Worker questionnaire in which the leader was asked to describe on a number of scale the characteristic of the person with whom here the most trouble working.
The leader who describe his or her least preferred worker in negative terms (e.g., unpleasant, cold, hostile) was considered task oriented. The task oriented leader has his/her basic goals for the accomplishment of the task.
The co-worker who create difficulties in achieving the goals are rejected by the leader. By contrast the leader who reported the characteristics of his/her list preferred co-worker in positive terms (e.g., pleasant ,warm, supportive) has apparently separated the goals of task accomplishment and of having the relationship oriented approach, leader gives first priority on close personal relationship.
We would expect the task oriented leader to be directly, to initiate task structure for subordinates because task accomplishment is so important. The relationship oriented leader would tend to be much more considerate because a leader can achieve the personal motives of creating a warm personal relationship between leader and subordinates.
Hersey, Balanchard and Johnson describes Fredlers contingency model in the following: In this model there are 8 possible combination of these three situational variables. Leadership situation varies from good to poor on leadership—membership relations, high to low on task structure, and strong too weak on position power. Eight combination can be formed out of this.
The most favourable situation for leaders to influence the followers is one in which they are well liked by the members (good leader member relation, have a powerful position (strong position power) and are directing a well-defined job (high task structure) on the other hand the most unfavourable situation for leaders is one in which they are disliked, have little position power, and face an unstructured task.
Having develop this model for classifying situations Feedler attempted to determine what the most effective leadership style—task oriented or relationship oriented is for each of the eight situation.
Let us now describe in the following situational variables in detail.
Leader-Member Relations:
In a small group, especially, the interpersonal relationship between the leader and the group members is the most important single factor in determining the influence of the leader. The wholeheartedly endorsed leader has a favourable situation because of the followers’ willingness to follow him or her. If relationships are strained or poor, the leader is in a rather unfavourable situation. Group members must be urged and influenced in the performance of task activities, hardly satisfactory for promoting enthusiasm and involvement.
Task Structure:
The second most important determinant of leadership effectiveness is the extent to which the nature and requirements of the task are specified. The highly structured task influences member behaviour through the impersonal requirements of job instructions, policy statements, and workplace arrangement.
The leader need not rely on interpersonal (and hence tenuous) relationships, for the situation itself influences behaviour in task-related directions. The leader can rather quickly ascertain performance, and sanctions may be applied as necessary. The leader in a highly structured task situation faces a rather favorable (for her or him) situation.
A task with low structure is an ambiguous, poorly defined task. Little direct support is given the leader through technological requirements, and he or she enjoys no such favorable situation as in a highly structured task. No formal specifications are viable, nor are readily observable performance measures.
The leader has no more appropriate knowledge than the members, and she or he operates under rather difficult conditions. Influence and ability to specify behaviours are inappropriate, and motivation is more important than authority. A committee chairperson might be in such a position, as would a research-and-development supervisor.
Task structure depends on:
1. Goal Clarity:
The extent to which task requirements are specified or known by members.
2. Goal-path Multiplicity:
The extent to which there are alternative ways to accomplish the task.
3. Decision Verifiability:
The extent to which task accomplishment can be evaluated by objective, logical, or feedback means.
4. Decision Specificity:
The extent to which the task has but one correct outcome (an arithmetic problem) or several equally good results (establishing several alternative budgets from which the president will choose).
The right of the leader to “direct, evaluate, and reward and punish” group members is related to the power he has by virtue of being the leader. High position power, characteristic of most management positions in industry, goes with the positive and negative incentives and sanctions available to the leader. Low position power, associated with committee chair people, implies that the leader has very few means of influencing members to comply.
Situation and its Favourableness:
Because each of these elements is divided into high arid low categories, Fiedler suggested that various combinations of these three factors would describe all possible situations; by grouping studies according to the characteristics of the situation investigated, as well as by the leader’s task effectiveness, one would be able to determine which leadership style was more effective for that particular type of situation.
Eight possible situations were then identified. When they were ranked by the extent to which each particular situation was favorable for the leader’s influencing the accomplishment of the assigned task, a continuum was created.
Fiedler has pointed out that the task situation is very favourable for the leader that is, he or she exerts more influence and has more control over task performance when support and acceptance are given by members, when the leader knows what is to be done and how to go about it, and when the organization has granted the leader the authority to reward and punish the subordinates.
Conversely, the situation becomes very unfavourable for the leader’s ability to control and influence task performance when the leader is not accepted, when the task and its duties are ill defined and ambiguous, and when the leader cannot reward or punish the followers.
Fig. shows the continuum so developed, as well as the effective leadership style that was derived from intensive research efforts; “T” identifies the situations in which a task orientation is most effective, and R those in which a relationship orientation is most effective.
Leader Effectiveness in Situation:
Very Favourable:
Situation I is defined as being highly favourable, because the leader has the respect and loyalty of his or her subordinates ( good leader-member relations), the task is well-structured so that the leader does not have to impose controls and performance-related sanctions (because these are provided by the task itself), and his or her power is strong.
In this particular situation, the relationship-oriented leaders’ considerate behaviour is redundant with the already existing factor of good leader-member relations; the task-oriented leader, on the other hand, is able to focus attention on accomplishing the task goals. Such a situation would be commonly found on any assembly line when the workers and the supervisor had good relations.
Very Unfavourable:
In Situation VIII, we see that the leader and the group members do not get along well, the task is ill structured, and the leader has very weak position power all of which go to make up a situation highly unfavourable to the leader’s ability to accomplish the task.
If the leader were to be relationship-oriented, interpersonal relations would probably improve somewhat, but the ambiguities and frustrations created by the lack of structure would create a condition in which the group’s task objectives could still not be met. Because the leader has low position power, in this situation it becomes crucial that the leader adopt the strategy of initiating structure, so that the barriers to task accomplishment may be eliminated.
Leadership Perception:
Fiedler’s leadership-effectiveness model allows one to analyze any particular situation and derive a prescription of which leadership approach is likely to be more effective; the prescription is based on extensive studies of similar situations, so the analysis can prove to be of significant help.
What is especially important about Fiedler’s and House’s theories are the findings and implications that no one leadership style is appropriate under all conditions. When promoted, the effective assembly-line supervisor, for example, leaves the situation in which her or his behaviour patterns have proved to be effective and finds herself or himself in another and perhaps completely different situation.
Promotion:
As most people tend to repeat those patterns of behaviour that have proved successful in the past, any supervisor or administrator who is promoted or transferred to another type of situation can find himself or herself employing leadership behaviours that were effective in the past, under different conditions, but that are completely inappropriate in the new situation.
Human Relations Training:
The advocates of the “human relations” school of thought, especially popular in the 1950s and 1960s, asserted that the administrator who was consistently considerate would be universally effective. If we look at either Fielder’s or House’s models, we can see that the “considerate” (human relations) approach is, in fact, effective—under certain conditions.
With the help of Fiedler’s model and we note that relationship orientation is effective in only half of the total number of situations specified. Three fourths of the situations in which the relationship approach is effective are those in which leader-member relations are poor, which might typify a large number of bureaucratic industrial, business, or has good leader—member relations and VII (which calls for a task orientation, even though leader—member relations are poor).
(ii) Path Goal Theory of Leadership:
One of the most respected approaches to the study of leadership currently discussed is the path goal theory developed by Robbert House.
The essence of the theory is that the leader’s job is to use structure, support, and rewards to create a work environment that helps employees reach the organization’s goals. According to the theory, the leader must clarify goals for the subordinates and clear the path for realizing the goals.
The theory is called path goal because its major concern is how the leader influences the subordinates perceptions of their work goals, personal goals, and paths to goal attainment. The theory suggests that a leader’s behaviour is motivating or satisfying to the degree that the behaviour increases subordinate goal attainment and clarifies the paths to these goals.
The path goal theory is closely to the expectancy theory of motivation. The expectancy theory holds that motivation is the product of a desire for an outcome (valence) and the belief that effort will lead to performance (instrumentality), and the hope that performance will result in desired outcome (expectancy).
The path goal theory focuses on how leaders might influence motivation by increasing the availability and attractiveness of rewards and by strengthening the expectancies that effort can result informance and performance in rewards.
The path goal theory is one of the contingency models. The leader’s effectiveness, according to the path goal theory, in influencing rewards and expectancies depends on the characteristics of the environment and the characteristics of the subordinates. The ultimate effect of leadership behaviour on motivation and satisfaction is contingent upon the characteristics of environment and of the subordinates
Evaluation of the Theory:
On the plus side, it may be stated that the path goal theory is an improvement over Fiedler’s model in as much as the former takes into account the personality characteristics of subordinates, as well as situational variables. On the minus side, it can be mentioned that it is a post-hoc theory and is yet to be extensively tested.
(iii) Situational Leadership Theory:
Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard have developed a situational model of leadership that adds “maturity” of followers as a contingency variables which deserves due consideration. The two authors feel that situational leadership requires adjusting the leader’s emphasis on task behaviours (i.e., giving guidance and direction) and relationship behaviour (i.e., offering socio-emotional support) according to the maturity of followers in performing their tasks.
Maturity in this context is understood not as age or emotional stability but as desire for achievement, willingness to accept responsibility and task-related ability and experience. The goals and knowledge of followers are important variables in determining effective leadership style.
Hersey and Blanchard believe that the relationship between leader and subordinates moves through four phases-a kind of life cycle-as subordinates develop and mature and that managers need to vary their lead directing, selling, delegation, supporting styles subordinate first enter the organization a high task orientation by the manager is most appropriate.
Subordinates must be instructed in their tasks and familiarized with the organization’s rules and procedures. At this stage a non-directive manager causes anxiety and confusion among new employees, however, a participatory employee relationship approach would also be inappropriate at this stage because subordinates cannot yet be regarded colleagues. This style is called the “directing” or “telling” approach of leadership.
As subordinates begin to learn their tasks, task-oriented management remains essential as subordinates are not yet willing or able to accept full responsibility. However, the managers’ trust in and support of subordinates can increase as the manager becomes familiar with subordinates and desires to encourage further efforts on their part. Thus, the manager may choose to initiate employee-oriented behaviours. This style is called “selling” or “coaching” approach to leadership.
In the third phase (here it is the “participating” style), the subordinates’ ability and achievement motivation are increased, and subordinates actively begin to seek greater responsibility. The manager will no longer need to be directive (indeed, close direction might be resented). However, the manager will continue to be supportive and considerate in order to strengthen the subordinate’s resolve for greater responsibility.
“Delegating” is the style which the manager follows in the final stage. Here, the manager can reduce the amount of support and encouragement as subordinates gradually become more confident, self-directing, and experienced. Subordinates are “on their own” and no longer need or expect a directive relationship with their manager.
5. Term Paper on the Managerial Grid:
A graphic depiction of a two-dimensional view of leadership style has been developed by Blake and Mounton. They proposed a Managerial Grid based on the styles of ‘concern for people’ and ‘concern for production’ which corresponded to the Ohio State dimensions of consideration and initiating structure or the Michigan dimensions of employee centered and production centered. Fig. shows a diagram of the Managerial Grid.
The grid identified five basic styles of leadership. The 9, 1 (task management) leader is primarily concerned with production and has little concern for people. This person believes in getting work done at all costs. The 1, 9 (country club management) leader is primarily concerned with people.
The 5, 5 (middle of the road management) leader represents a moderate concern for both. The 9, 9 (team management) style demonstrates high concern for both production and people and is, therefore, has minimum concern for people and production. The model is useful to managers in as much as it helps them identify their current styles and develop the most desirable style.
The most fundamental criticism of the grid is Blake and Mounton’s argument that the 9, 9style is superior to all other styles of management. The critics say, for example that managerial styles based on 9,1 direction with compliance, or 5, 5 conformity with compromise, or on 1,9 security and comfort through convenience, or on 1,1 acquiescence and compliancy, or the “clever” but corrupt relationships produced by facades or by debilitating paternalism, are, at best, second best. Actually they are quite unacceptable, in long term. In comparison with performance contributed under9, 9 other bases for work relationships seem to fall short.
But the belief that one leadership style is inherently superior to others is clearly contrary to the contingency idea of leadership. It seems unlikely that the 9, 9 management style is appropriate for organizations experiencing different growth rates, labour relations, competitions, and a host of other different problems.
6. Term Paper on Leaders and Followers:
So far we have focused on leaders—theirs traits and their behaviour. Followers by and large have ignored. But followers are the essence of leadership. Without them there is no such things as leadership.
The importance of followers and the complex reciprocal relationship between leaders and followers are widely recognised by organisational researcher. Now let us consider three such approaches: The leader member exchange model. The practice of team leadership, and the Attribution approach to leadership.
The Leader-the Member Exchange (LMX Model):
This theory suggest that for various reasons leaders from different kinds of relationship with various groups of subordinates. One group referred to as the in-group, is favoured by the leader. Members of in-groups receive considerably more attention from the leader and larger shares of the resources they have to offer (such as time and recognition) by contrast other subordinates fall into the out group.
This individuals are disfavoured by leaders. Because of these importance of potential differences in this respect the focus of the model regarded as leader member exchange (LMX). Such findings suggest that attention to the relation between leaders and their followers can be very useful. The nature of such relationships strongly affects the morale commitment and performance of employees.
Leaders Relationship with Teams:
Traditionally leaders make decision on behalf of followers who are responsible for carrying them out. But in today’s organisation where teams predominant leaders are called on to provide special resources to team members. These teams are empowered to implement their own mission in their own ways. Team leaders help subordinates take responsibility for their own work as such they are very different from the traditional command and control leadership role.
The role of leaders in self-managed work team tend to think of individual and responsible for their decision, help fulfill their reasons we shall view the following guidelines that should be followed to achieve success as a leader:
From the above description of leadership corresponding to subordinates/followership we can draw the conclusion in the following:
1. Instead of directing people, team leaders work at building trust and inspiring team work.
2. Rather focusing simply on training individual effective team leaders concentrate on expanding team capabilities.
3. Instead of managing one-on-one team leaders attempt to create a team identity. In other words leadership helps in building followers missions and recognize their capability to establish objectives and goals.
4. Leaders always prevents conflicts between individual and encouraged the followers to resolve the differences.
5. Leaders should foresee and influence change to the extent that the leader recognize that change is inevitable. They may be prepared to make the adaptation required in the situation.
The Attribution Approach—Leaders Explanation of Followers –Behaviour:
The leaders relationship within individual subordinate playing an important role in determining the performance and satisfaction of this individuals. The attribution approach to leadership that focuses on leaders attributions of followers performance—i.e., their perception of its underlined causes.
Leaders observed the performance of their followers and then attempt to understand why these behaviour met, exceeded of failed to meet their expectation. Poor performance often possess greater difficulties than effective performance. Leaders are very much alert against why the poor performance and analyze immediately.
At this stage leaders examine these three kinds of information (Consensus, Consistency and Distinctiveness and on the basis of such information formed an initial judgment as to whether followers performs stemmed from internal causes (e.g., low effort, commitment, or ability) or external causes (factors beyond their control such as faulty equipment, unrealistic, deadliness or illness). Then on the basis of such attribution they formulate specific plans to change the present situation and improve followers’ performance.
This attribution theory suggest that such actions are determined by leaders explanation of followers behaviour.
The attributions leaders make above followers behaviour. However’ followers also make attribution about their leaders behaviour. Followers tend to rally around their leaders in times of crises what is known as the RALLY ROUND THE FLAG EFFECT. In other words they make positive attributions about their leaders during a crises situation.
Recently a dramatic boost in popularity of US President Bush following the victory in Iraq and drastic action following the terrorist attack on Sept’ 11, 2001. The American public put aside its political difference and supported the president during this crises.
In summary the attribution approach suggest that the attitude of the behaviours, leaders and the followers often reflect the attribution they make about one another behaviour. From this prospective leadership lies as much in the prescription of the people, who exercise such influence as in the prescription of those who confer the light to wield it over them.
7. Term Paper on How to be an Effective Leader?
Determining Effectiveness:
One of the most important issues facing the apply behavioural science that are human productivity—the quality and quantity of work. Productivity concerns both effectiveness (the attainment of goals) and efficiency (resource cost including those human resource cost affecting the quality of life).
Peter Drucker wrote “Effectiveness is the foundation and of success—efficiency is a minimum condition after success has been achieved. Efficiency is concerned with doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right things”.
Leadership Effectiveness:
Leadership can be successful or unsuccessful in producing the desired response. A basic responsibility of a leader in any type of organization is to get work done with and through people, show their success is measured by the output and productivity of the group they lead. Bernard M. Bass suggested a clear distinction between successful and effective leadership.
Successful or unsuccessful depending on the extent to which one accomplishes the job. Let us assume that A’s leadership is successful when the response on B’s to A’s leadership is immediate and stimulant. If A’s leadership style is not compatible with the expectation of B’, B will not be willing to do the job sincerely and effectively. But because of A’s position power he does the job. In this case A has been successful but not effective.
On the other hand if ‘A’ attempts to lead to a successful response B will do the job and be motivated to bring about success in the job. In fact B sees this personal goals (either promotion or reward as being accomplished by this activity). This is what is mean by effective leadership. Effectiveness describes the internal state or predisposition of an individual or a group and thus it is attitudinal in nature. The following figure will clear this concept.
Fred Luthans a professor of management of the university of Nebraska conducted a 4 year observation study to determine the seniority and differences between successful manager and the effective manager.
The study reported that successful managers spend more of that time and effort inside and outside the organization and effective manager did less than the successful manager. Planning, decision and controlling activities of management are performed by effective managers to achieve the goal.
The following are the activities of the real managers recognised as effective:
a) Communication—exchanging information with the subordinates,
b) Planning decision and controlling ( managerial process) and determine the effectiveness of the manager.
c) Networking—interacting with the outsiders, socializing/politicking,
d) Human Resource Management—(motivating—reinforcing, discipline/punishing, managing conflict, staffing, training/developing).
In summary managers could be successful but ineffective having only a short lived influence behaviour of others. On the other hands if managers are both successful and effective there influence tends to lead to long ran productivity and organizational development. This really is what leader effectiveness is all about.
Charismatic Leadership: that “Something Special”:
Charismatic Leaders:
Leaders who exert especially powerful effects on followers by virtue of their commanding confidence and clearly articulated visions.
Qualities of Charismatic Leaders:
Researchers have found that charismatic leaders tend to be special in a number of important ways. Specifically, several factors differentiate charismatic leaders from non-charismatic leaders.
These are as follows:
1. Self-Confidence:
Charismatic leaders are highly confident in their ability and judgment. Others readily become aware of this. For example, John Bryan, CEO of Sara Lee, is both extremely knowledgeable and widely regarded as such by his employees.
2. Vision:
A leader is said to have vision to the extent that he or she proposes a state of affairs that improves on the status quo. He or she also must be able to articulate that vision clearly and show willingness to make sacrifices to make it come true. This is precisely what Lee lacocca did when he took the $1 salary during Chrysler’s troubled period. For some further examples of visions stated by some well-known charismatic leaders, see table.
3. Extraordinary Behaviour:
Charismatic leaders are frequently unconventional. Their quick ways, when successful, elicit admiration. For example, much of the success of Southwest Airlines is attributed to the zany antics of its CEO, Herb Kelleher, who has been known to dress in funny costumes abroad planes.
4. Recognized as Change Agents.
The status quo is the enemy of charismatic leaders. They make things happen. This can be said about the late Roberto Goizueta, who made Coca-Cola one of the most admired—and profitable—companies in America.
5. Environmental Sensitivity:
Charismatic leaders are highly realistic about the constraints imposed on them and the resources needed to change things. Consequently, they know what they can and cannot do.
In the 1970s, Chrysler Corporation was being written off as terminal by many analysts of the automobile industry. Lee lacocca, Chrysler’s CEO, however, refused to accept this economic verdict. Instead, he launched a campaign to win government loan guarantees for Chrysler, having the way for the company’s survival. By setting an example of personal sacrifice—taking only $1 as salary for the year during Chrysler’s crises—lacocca rallied Chrysler’s tens of thousands of employees to unheard of levels of effort and, thus saved the day. Chrysler not only paid back all its loans ahead of schedule, but also it is now thriving.
World history and the history of organizations are replete with similar examples. Through the ages, some leaders have had extraordinary success in generating profound changes in their followers. Indeed, it is not extreme to suggest that some such people (e.g., Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former New York City Mayor Rudolh Giuliani) have changed entire societies through their words and actions. Individuals who accomplish such feats have been referred to as charismatic leaders.
These are individuals who exert especially powerful effects on followers by virtue of their commanding confidence and clearly articulated visions.
The Effect of Charismatic Leadership: Both Good and Bad:
As you might imagine, charismatic leaders have dramatic effects on the behaviour of their followers. Because these leaders are perceived as being so heroic, followers are very pleased with them—satisfaction that generalizes to perceptions of the job itself. In short, people enjoy working for charismatic leaders and do well under their guidance.
On a larger scale, research has found that U.S. presidents believed to be highly charismatic (as suggested by biographical accounts of their personalities and their reactions to world crises) received higher ratings by historians of their effectiveness as president. In short, evidence suggests that charismatic leadership can have some very beneficial effects.
It is important to caution, however, that being charismatic does not necessarily imply being virtuous. In fact, throughout history, many of the most vicious dictators (Adolph Hitler and Osama Bin Laden, among them) were able to rise to power because of the considerable charisma they had. Indeed, it was their clear visions of different worlds, misguided through they may have been, that led them to have such profound effects on their followers.
Transformational Leadership: Beyond Charisma:
Although Charisma is important, the most successful leaders also do things that revitalize and transform their organizations. Accordingly, their orientation is referred to as transformational leadership—leadership in which leaders vise their charisma to transform and revitalize their organisations.
Characteristics of Transformational Leaders:
Transformational leaders may be described in terms of several characteristic. First they have charisma (provide strong vision and a sense of mission). For e.g., Dr. Martin Luther King had vision of world peace and also executed charisma all along his leadership. But charisma alone is insufficient for changing the way an organisation operates.
For this transformational leaders must provide the following:
(a) Intellectual Stimulation:
Transformation leaders help their followers recognised problems and ways of solving them.
(b) Individualized Consideration:
Transformational leaders give their followers the support, encouragement and attention they need to perform their jobs well.
(c) Inspirational Motivation:
Transformational leaders clearly communicate the importance of the company’s mission and rely on symbols to help focus their efforts.
In so doing transformational leaders seek to elevate followers to do their own things. Transformational leaders do a good job of inspiring change in the whole organisation.
The following guidelines:
