Skip to main content

LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND STYLES


Leadership style is the combination of traits, skills, and behaviors leaders use as they interact with employees (Lussier & Achua, 2004).  In order for one to favor a leadership style, one must understand where the leadership styles originated.  Throughout the years, the topic of leadership has been debated. However, research indicates that certain characteristics or traits are inherent in leaders (Murphy, 2005). According to research, the 1940’s proffered leaders as maintaining certain traits.  These traits were based on physical and personality characteristics as well as intelligence and interpersonal skills (Steers, Porter, & Bigley, 1996).  Marquis & Huston (2000) associated the Great Man Trait Theory with that of the Aristotelian philosophy, which indicated that leaders were born and not made and depending on the need a leader would surface. 
The limitations of trait theory are that leaders can not be developed through their skills and education (as cited in Murphy, 2005).   
In contrast with trait theories, the behavioral methodology centered on the recognizable actions that made a person an effective leader (Wright, 1996).  Personal Behavior Theories discussed in the University of Michigan and Ohio State University studies identified two more Styles of Leadership:  job-centered (task) and employee-centered (people).  The job-centered (task-initiating structure) behavior focuses on the leader taking control in order to get the job done and the employee-centered (people-consideration) behavior focuses on the leader meeting the needs of employees and developing relationships (Lussier & Achua, 2004).  The findings in the Michigan study indicated that leaders who were highly employee oriented and allowed participation fostered more productive teams.  On the other hand, leaders who were more concerned about accomplishing tasks cultivated lower producing teams.  The findings from the Ohio State University study emphasized the consideration and initiating structure as the two underlying structures found in the University of Michigan study. 
The Ohio State University study concluded that both structures were separate components, but if a leader were dedicated in both they could achieve higher results (Murphy, 2005).   Research at the University of Iowa expounded on the studies above and identified two basic leadership styles:  Autocratic and Democratic. These and other research studies asserted four (4) main leadership styles: concern for task, concern for people, Directive Leadership and Participative Leadership (Wright, 1996). Fiedler (1967) explored the idea that there was not just one ultimate style of leadership for a given circumstance, but leaders would be more effective by varying their leadership style depending on the situations that faced them.  Fiedler’s Model based leadership styles on either being task or relationship oriented and the style use depended on whether the situation was one of leader-member relations, task structure or position power (as cited in Murphy, 2005). 
Hersey and Blanchard theorized that the style of leadership was determined by the employee’s perceptions. Hersey and Blanchard’s theory expounded on Fiedler’s model by creating four (4) leadership styles:   Directing, Coaching, Supporting and Delegating (Murphy, 2005). Building on the same principles of the contingency theories above, House (1971) suggested that the path- goal theory influences and motivates employee’s views and opportunities.  Employee contentment, accomplishment of goals and improved functioning would be derived from the leader’s direction, training, guidance and support.  Despite the findings of this research, Marquis & Huston (2000) disagreed and noted that situational theory focused on the situation rather than the interpersonal and intrapersonal factors. The following leadership styles are derivatives of the ones discussed above. 
This research paper will examine Autocratic, Laissez-Faire, Participative (democratic), Transactional and Transformational leadership.    

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FUNCTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Function of the Holy Spirit. This list of the 70 Functions of the Holy Spirit come from her research. He leads and directs. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 8:29; Romans 8:14) The Holy Spirit speaks – in, to and through. (Matthew 10:20; Acts 1:16; 2:4; 13:2; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7) He gives power to cast out devils. (Matthew 12:28) He releases power. (Luke 4:14) The Holy Spirit anoints. (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) The Holy Spirit “comes upon” or “falls on”. (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 2:25; 3:22; 4:18; John 1:32,33; Acts 10:44; 11:15) He baptizes and fills. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:15,41,67; 3:16, 4:1; John 1:33; Acts 1:4-5; 2:4; 4:8,31; 6:3,5; 7:55; 10:47; 11:24; 13:9,52; 1 Corinthians 12:12) He gives new birth. (John 3:5,8) He leads into worship. (John 4:23) He flows like a river from the spirit man. (John 7:38-39) He ministers truth. (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) He dwells in people. (John 14:

SETTING A DIRECTION VS PLANNING AND BUDGETING

Since the function of leadership is to produce change, setting the direction of that change is fundamental to leadership. Setting direction is never the same as planning or even long-term planning, although people often confuse the two. Planning is a management process, deductive in nature and designed to produce orderly results, not change. Setting a direction is more inductive. Leaders gather a broad range of data and look for patterns, relationships, and linkages that help explain things. What’s more, the direction-setting aspect of leadership does not produce plans; it creates vision and strategies. These describe a business, technology, or corporate culture in terms of what it should become over the long term and articulate a feasible way of achieving this goal. Most discussions of vision have a tendency to degenerate into the mystical. The implication is that a vision is something mysterious that mere mortals, even talented ones, could never hope to have. But developing

ON BUHARI, NEW YORK TMES WROTE

Four months after seizing power, Nigeria’s military leaders appear to be suffering an erosion of popular support. Last Dec. 31, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Buhari led a group of young officers in a coup against the civilian Government of President Shehu Shagari, saying the takeover was necessary to save Nigeria, Africa’s richest and most populous nation, from economic collapse. The military intervention appeared at the time to enjoy enthusiastic support from a broad range of Nigeria’s population. Many intellectuals argued that the corruption and incompetence of the Shagari administration had made drastic action both necessary and inevitable. Traders, merchants and people in the streets welcomed the soldiers and looked forward to a quick improvement in their standard of living. Growing Disappointment Recently, however, there seems to be growing disappointment with both the military Government’s approach and pace. Since coming to power, this Government has not found a sing