Introduction
Many faces of leadership have been talked about in the management literature for a long time like difference between leadership and other forms of management; the empirical essence of leadership and the situational leadership; and the systemic characteristics which shape the leadership into legal, practical and ethical considerations (Prestera, 2002, Para 2).
Earlier thoughts of leadership were influenced by trait theory which says that leadership qualities are not by birth. This thought entailed that leadership could not be trained, taught or developed. The World War II brought changes in this concept of trait theory where behavioral researchers established such a model of leadership in which leadership behavior could be developed.
After that contingency theory said that leadership depends upon situation. There are some other leadership models which have come recently into existence, counting visionary leadership, charismatic leadership and transformal leadership (Prestera, 2002, Para 3).
As the time is changing we are relating many things with leadership. During 1980s the leadership was associated with spiritual beliefs. In the late 1990s the events of Bill Clinton and Monica and the O.J. Simpson trial changed the dimensions of leadership and made it as ethical (Ollhoff, Para 6).
The term ethics mean that position of conduct which carries a particular role in society. It is not necessary what is ethical behavior in one profession will be ethical in other too. Prestera (2002, Para 18) gives an example if a journalist reports a congressman’s secret health problem will not be unethical on his part but if the doctor of that congressman reveals that it will be unethical on his part (Prestera, 2002, Para 18).
Moral ambiguity faces difficulty to accumulate socio cultural pressure on individuals to be conventional with moral obligations. It accepts unethical behavior which is good for normalizing this behavior. The leaders like Richard Nixon (Watergate), Ronald Reagon (Iran-Contra) and Bill Clinton (perjury), who have been very prominent leaders of their times, have been involved not only in unethical behaviors but also in criminal acts still they were able to get full justice.
Bill Clinton is supposed to be the highest paid speakers (Prestera, 2002, Para 20).The behaviors and intentions of such kinds of leaders were not given much heed as the American mantra says, ‘let’s just put it behind us’. It was said that ‘ If heads of state and political leaders can not maintain then there is no hope from a CEO of a disturbed company, a middle manager or a grocery store clerk” (Prestera, 2002, Para 20).
Bass & Avolio (1994) discover that the organizational leaders who are transformational and have strong passion for morals and ideals are avoided in the organizational hierarchy (Prestera, 2002, Para 21).
Druker says that the society is becoming very pluralistic and the slow destruction of community has dimmed the fate of previous pluralistic societies. We need to analyze this situation and see that same fate should not be repeated. We have to observe building communities towards building community. Leaders require checking the immediate system where they work and operate for the common good of society (Prestera, 2002, Para 26).
Contingency Theories
Fred Fiedler developed contingency theory in 1960s in parallel to situational leadership. He observed the styles of many leaders which were both effective and ineffective.
He divided the leaders’ behavior in two parts: task motivation and relationship motivation. The task motivated leaders focus on achieving a goal; the relationship motivated leaders focus on interpersonal relations. To comprehend the task or relationship orientation, Fred made an inventory where the leaders describe their experiences with the persons with whom they had difficult time (Ollhoff, Para 31).
The strongest point of contingency theory is that it is based on broad research. This theory does not say that there is only one way of leadership instead it focuses on different styles of leadership, which are effective in different situations (Ollhoff, Para 32).
Still contingency theory has some drawbacks in its framework: how some individuals are effective in some situations not others. This model has complicated process. This model does not say about organizational changes (Ollhoff, Para 33).
Trait Theory
Trait theory is the very first model of the entire organizational models, which came into existence in 20th century. This model analyzed those qualities and actions which the leaders already had. It was supposed to be ‘the great man theory’ of leadership. It was first assumed that the great leaders are great by birth. If they were born with certain characteristics they could be the great leaders. Then the authors suggested that the leaders could be taught also. Many studies were done to understand the universal characteristics of leadership. Though this is the oldest model still it is popular as many leadership definitions are based on characteristics only (Ollhoff, Para 8-9).
DuBrin states some traits as the synonymous of leadership: sense of humor, warmth, trustworthiness, enthusiasm, assertiveness, passion, courage, intelligence, empathy, self-awareness, creativity, strong work ethic, charisma, insight, emotional stability and conceptual thinking (Ollhoff, Para 10).
As this theory is easiest to understand it is still in existence. The drawback of this model is the lack of operational definitions, lack of focus on context and vague studies. These drawbacks deteriorate this model (Ollhoff, Para 12).
Behavioral Theories
Behavioral leaders have developed the list of leader behaviors since 1940s. The list is very beneficial not only for selecting leaders but also to train future leaders. Robbins (1998) has given four major perspectives that can be associated with behavioral theories (Prestera, 2002 Para 4):
- Initiating structure and consideration: initiating structure focuses on that degree where leaders try to achieve a goal. The leader assigns tasks, sets exceptions and follows up on deadlines. Consideration focuses on such kind of behavior where mutual trust can be established. This leader is concerned of the well being, status and the satisfaction of his followers (Prestera, 2002 Para 5.)
- Employee oriented and production oriented: Employee oriented leaders are concerned with their subordinates’ personal needs, whereas production leaders on the technical related jobs (Prestera, 2002 Para 6).
- Concern for people and production: Blake and Mouton (1964) adopted this perspective that shows two critical dimensions of leadership (Prestera, 2002 Para 7).
- Development orientation: The behavioral research which has been done for almost 60 years, says that involving in behaviors like where leaders show care for the work of their subordinates is dangerous for the success of leaders (Prestera, 2002 Para 8).
Thomas (1998, Para 1) says that the Clinton-Gore model focuses on changing the federal bureaucracy which says that organizational culture is the chief determining element of organizational performance. Gore (1993, 1) states that this model was executed in 1993 when President Clinton announced, “Our goal is to make the entire federal government both less expensive and more efficient, and to change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency and entitlement toward initiative and empowerment” (Thomas, 1998, Para 1).
References
Ollhoff, J. Leadership Models and Theories: Classic and Traditional Perspectives. Web.
Prestera, G (2002). Organizational Leadership. Knowledge Base. Web.
Thomas, J. (1998). Reinventing Government: Does Leadership Make the Difference? Public Administration Review. Vol. 58. Web.