According to Nahavandi (2006), leaders serve as channels guiding others down a desired course. Determining weather a leader is effective depends on many variables. Some judge effectiveness on group performance while others judge it upon follower satisfaction while others who focus on transformational and visionary leadership judge effectiveness on successful implementation of large-scale change in an organization.
Leaders also need to be aware of the culture in which they operate. In cultures, such as what exists in the United States, stressing individualism, leaders are most effective when they work with individuals to remove obstacles, empower their followers, and focuses on individual growth. While this style may work well in the United States, it fails in cultures that value hierarchy and task orientation, such as Japan (Nahavandi, 2006). In this lesson, we will look at the history of leadership theory.
Research on leadership became more rigorous during the industrial revolution. Prior to this organizations relied on intuition and descriptions of common practices. During the industrial revolution, organizations realized the need for leadership in their organizations. The needed to find a way of determining which individuals were best suited to leadership positions within the organizations (Nahavandi, 2006).
From the late 1800’s through mid-1940, we had the trait era. The belief during this time was that leaders were born and not made. Researchers studied great leaders in history and their heredity in an effort to find common traits. They believed that this would enable them to find future leaders based upon whether these prospective leaders’ heredity exibited these traits (Nahavandi, 2006).
It was during this era that personality and individual characteristics testing (i.e. IQ testing) began. Researchers believed that the results of these tests would help them identify individuals who had traits they had observed in great leaders of the past. However, after more than 40 years of research, researchers were unable to identify specific traits that were common in great leaders of the past. This failure to identify common traits failed to prove the validity of the prevailing theory that leaders are born and not made. This lead to the next phase in leadership science, the behavior-era (Nahavandi, 2006).
During the behavior era (mid-1940’s to early 1970’s), researchers changed their focus from inborn traits of individuals to their behaviors. The driving force for this new approach was the need to identify leaders for World War II. The advantages of this new approach were three-fold. First, it is easier to observe behaviors than it is to observe traits. Second, measurement of behaviors is more accurate and precise than the measurement of traits. Finally, as opposed to traits, which are either innate or develop early in life, behaviors can be taught (Nahavandi, 2006).
The focus of researchers was to determine which style of leadership was most effective. The three styles studied were the democratic style, the autocratic style, and the laissez-faire style. The behavioral traits of democratic leaders are to consult their followers and use their input in making decisions. The behaviors of autocratic leaders are to act alone in the decision making process while the behavior of laissez-faire leaders is to provide no direction and to not become involved with their followers (Nahavandi, 2006). The goal of researchers was to determine which set of behaviors was most effective and select individuals for leadership who either already exhibited the ideal behavior or who could learn it.
The work of researchers did identify several central leadership behaviors, leading to the development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) test, which is still in use today. However, researchers were unable to clearly establish a link between these behaviors and leader effectiveness (Nahavandi, 2006).
The contingency era (early 1960’s to present) began even before the failure of the behavior era to determine a link between behavioral traits and leader effectiveness. Researchers in this era began recommending that situational factors such as the task and type of work group receive consideration in any leadership situation (Nahavandi, 2006). The theory here is that even though one leadership behavior may be effective in one situation, it may be ineffective in an entirely different situation.
Contingency era researchers conducted their research with the following basic assumptions.
• There is no one best way to lead. Different leadership traits, styles, or behaviors
can be effective.
• The situation and the various relevant contextual factors determine which style or
behavior is most effective.
• People can learn to become good leaders. Few of us will become a Joan of Arc,
Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr., but we can improve and become
better leaders in many areas.
• Leadership makes a difference in the effectiveness of groups and organizations.
A number of factors affect the course an organization takes and the decisions
that are made. Many such factors are as important, if not more important, than a
leader. However, the leader of an organization can have a positive or negative
impact on the process or outcome in the organization.
• Personal and situational characteristics affect leadership effectiveness. Neither
the leader’s traits nor the demands of the situation in and of themselves determine
leadership effectiveness.Therefore, we need to understand the leader as
well as the leadership situation.
(Nahavandi, 2006)
The research continues in the contingency leadership theory and even though researchers agree about the basic assumptions, there is still disagreement on what constitutes effectiveness (Nahavandi, 2006). Perhaps the best approach in leadership theory is to borrow from research done during all three eras. Certain individuals may be predisposed to leadership not due to their birth but due to the atmosphere in which they were raised. During their raising these individuals may have developed certain behaviors that are valuable in a leadership situation. When selecting the ideal leader for any given situation, it is the job of the individual or individuals selecting the leader to determine if these particular behaviors would be beneficial in their organization.
In our next lesson, we will begin looking at the role of the emotional quotient (EQ) and emotional intelligence (EI) in leadership.
Reference
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment