Leadership
Leadership, is defined as the ability of an individual, group, or organization to influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or organizations.
"Leadership" is a contested term. Specialist literature debates various viewpoints on the concept, sometimes contrasting Eastern and Western approaches to leadership, and also North American versus European approaches.
Some U.S. academic environments define leadership as "a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common and ethical task". In other words, leadership is an influential power-relationship in which the power of one party promotes movement/change in others. Some have challenged the more traditional managerial views of leadership, and instead advocate the complex nature of leadership which is found at all levels of institutions, both within formal and informal roles.
Studies of leadership have produced theories involving traits, complexity, collective intelligence, situational interaction,
function, behavior, power, vision, values, charisma, and intelligence,
among others.
Historical views
The Chinese doctrine of the Mandate of Heaven postulated the need for rulers to govern justly, and the right of subordinates to overthrow emperors who appeared to lack divine sanction.Pro-aristocracy thinkers
have postulated that leadership depends on one's "blue blood" or genes.
Monarchy takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction. On the other hand, more democratically inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.
In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them "emotionally attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated with matriarchies".
Machiavelli's The Prince, written in the early-16th century, provided a manual for rulers to acquire royal authority and found lasting regimes.
Prior to the 19th century, the concept of leadership had less relevance than today's society expected, and obtained traditional deference and obedience to lords, kings, master-craftsmen, and slave-masters. The Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as 1821, when the term referred to the position or office of a designated leader.
The abstract notion of "leadership" as embodying the qualities and behaviors associated with leaders and influencers developed only later during the 19th and 20th centuries – possibly traceable from 1870 onwards.
Historically, industrialization, opposition to the ancien regime, and the phasing out of chattel slavery meant that some newly developing organizations evolved a need for a new paradigm with which to characterize elected politicians and job-granting employers – thus the development and theorizing of the idea of "leadership".
The functional relationship between leaders and followers may remain,
but acceptable terminology has changed.
Starting in the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism – Lenin demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, which was to bring into existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources – human and material – and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare this with servant leadership.
Theories
Anecdotal and incidental observations aside, the serious discipline of theorising leadership began in the 19th century.Early Western history
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has continued for centuries. Philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have explored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of leadership".A number of works in the 19th century – when the traditional authority of monarchs, lords, and bishops had begun to wane – explored the trait theory at length: especially the writings of Thomas Carlyle and of Francis Galton. In Heroes and Hero Worship, Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. Galton's Hereditary Genius examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when his focus moved from first-degree to second-degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was inherited.
Cecil Rhodes believed that public-spirited leadership could be nurtured by identifying young people with "moral force of character and instincts to lead", and educating them in contexts that further developed such characteristics. International networks of such leaders could help to promote international understanding and help "render war impossible". This vision of leadership underlay the creation of the Rhodes Scholarships, which have helped to shape notions of leadership since their creation in 1903.
Rise of alternative theories
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a series of qualitative reviews prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that people who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait – situational approaches posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. The focus then shifted away from traits of leaders to an investigation of the leader behaviors that were effective. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.Reemergence of trait theory
New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round-robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:- Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.
- Significant relationships exist between leadership emergence and such individual traits as:
Specifically, Stephen Zaccaro noted that trait theories still:
- focus on a small set of individual attributes such as the "Big Five" personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills
- fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes
- do not distinguish between the leadership attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences
- do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership
Attribute pattern approach
Behavioral and style theories
In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors by evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland, for example, posited that leadership requires a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism, and the management of the group tasks according to three styles: [|authoritarian], [|democratic], and [|laissez-faire].
In 1945, Ohio State University conducted a study which investigated observable behaviors portrayed by effective leaders. They identified particular behaviors that were reflective of leadership effectiveness. They narrowed their findings to two dimensions. The first dimension, "initiating structure", described how a leader clearly and accurately communicates with the followers, defines goals, and determines how tasks are performed. These are considered "task oriented" behaviors. The second dimension, "consideration", indicates the leader's ability to build an interpersonal relationship with their followers, and to establish a form of mutual trust. These are considered "social oriented" behaviors.
The Michigan State Studies, which were conducted in the 1950s, made further investigations and findings that positively correlated behaviors and leadership effectiveness. Although they had similar findings as the Ohio State studies, they also contributed an additional behavior identified in leaders: participative behavior, or allowing the followers to participate in group decision making and encouraged subordinate input. This entails avoiding controlling types of leadership and allows more personal interactions between leaders and their subordinates.
The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964. It suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.