Joana Marie N. Hitachi The ways in which leaders behave, the specific acts by which they play their leadership roles, are based on certain assumptions about human nature. Consciously or unconsciously, leaders function on the basis of some theory on human behavior, a view of what their subordinates are like as people. Managers who closely watch subordinates to make sure they are performing the job exactly as told hold a different view of human nature than managers who allow subordinates to accomplish their work in whatever way they think best. These are the leadership theories: I.Great Man Theory This theory is based on the assumptions that leaders are born and not add and the great leaders will arise when there is a great need.
Early research on leadership was based on the study of people who were already great leaders. These people were often from the aristocracy, as few from lower classes had the opportunity to lead. This contributed to the notion that leadership had something to do with breeding. This was easy to verify, by pointing to people such as Eisenhower and Churchill, let alone those further back along the timeline, even to Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and the Buddha. II.Trait Theory This theory is based on the assumptions that people are born with inherited traits. There are some traits particularly suited to leadership and people who make good leaders have the right (or sufficient) combination of traits.
Creakily research on leadership was based on the psychological focus of the day, which was of people having inherited characteristics or traits. Attention was thus put on discovering these traits, often by studying successful leaders, but with the underlying assumption that if other people could also be found with these traits, then they, too, could also become great leaders.II. Behavioral Theory Leaders can be made, rather than are born and successful leadership is eased in definable, learnable behavior. These are the assumptions of behavioral theory. Behavioral theories of leadership do not seek inborn traits or capabilities. Rather, they look at what leaders actually do.
If success can be defined in terms of describable actions, then it should be relatively easy for other people to act in the same way. This is easier to teach and learn then to adopt the more ephemeral ‘traits’ or ‘capabilities’.IV. Participative Leadership People are more committed to actions where they have involved in the relevant decision-making. People are less competitive and more collaborative hen they are working on joint goals. When people make decisions together, the social commitment to one another is greater and thus increases their commitment to the decision. V.
Situational Leadership This theory is based on assumption that the best action of the leader depends on a range Of situational factors.When a decision is needed, an effective leader does not just fall into a single preferred style, such as using transactional or transformational methods. In practice, as they say, things are not that simple. Factors that affect situational decisions include motivation and capability of followers. This, in turn, is affected by factors within the particular situation. The relationship between followers and the leader may be another factor that affects leader behavior as much as it does follower behavior. The leaders’ perception of the follower and the situation will affect what they do rather than the truth of the situation.
The leader’s perception of themselves and other factors such as stress and mood will also modify the leaders’ behavior. VI. Contingency Theory The leader’s ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors, including the leader’s preferred style, the capabilities and behaviors of lowers and also various other situational factors are the assumption of this theory. Contingency theories are a class of behavioral theory that contends that there is no one best way of leading and that a leadership style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others.An effect of this is that leaders who are very effective at one place and time may become unsuccessful either when transplanted to another situation or when the factors around them change. This helps to explain how some leaders who seem for a while to have the ‘Midas touch’ suddenly appear to go off the boil and make very unsuccessful decisions. VII.
Transactional Leadership The basic assumption behind this theory is people are motivated by reward and punishment; Social systems work best with a clear chain of command. When people have agreed to do a job, a part of the deal is that they cede all authority to their manager.The prime purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to do. The transactional leader works through creating clear structures whereby it is clear what is required Of their subordinates, and the rewards that they get for following orders. Punishments are not always mentioned, but they are also well-understood ND formal systems of discipline are usually in place. The early stage of Transactional Leadership is in negotiating the contract whereby the subordinate is given a salary and other benefits, and the company (and by implication the subordinates manager) gets authority over the subordinate.When the Transactional Leader allocates work to a subordinate, they are considered to be fully responsible for it, whether or not they have the resources or capability to carry it out.
When things go wrong, then the subordinate is considered to be personally at fault, and is punished for their failure (just as they are rewarded for succeeding). The transactional leader often uses management by exception, working on the principle that if something is operating to defined (and hence expected) performance then it does not need attention.Exceptions to expectation require praise and reward for exceeding expectation, whilst some kind of corrective action is applied for performance below expectation. Whereas Transformational Leadership has more of a ‘selling’ style, Transactional Leadership, once the contract is in place, takes a ‘telling style. VIII. Transformational Leadership The basic assumptions are people will follow a person who inspires them. A person with vision and passion can achieve great things.
The way to get things done is by injecting enthusiasm and energy.Working for a Transformational Leader can be a wonderful and uplifting experience. They put passion and energy into everything. They care about and want you to succeed. LEADERSHIP STYLES: Paola Bianca F. Limnology l. LINEN’S LEADERSHIP STYLES Kurt Lenin and colleagues did leadership decision experiments in 1 939 and identified three different styles of leadership, in particular around decision-making.
1. Autocratic-?in the autocratic style, the leader takes decisions without consulting with others. The decision is made without any form of consultation.In Linen’s experiments, he found that this caused the most level of discontent. An autocratic style works when there is no need for input on the decision, where the decision would not change as a result of input, and where the motivation of people to carry out subsequent actions would not be affected whether they were or were not involved in the decision-making. 2. Democratic-?in the democratic style, the leader involves the people in the decision-making, although the process for the final decision may vary from the leader having the final say to them facilitating consensus in the group.
Laissez-Fairer-?this style is to minimize the leader’s involvement in decision-making, and hence allowing people to make their own decisions, although they may still be responsible for the outcome. Laissez-fairer works best when people are capable and motivated in making their own decisions, and where there is no requirement for a central coordination, for example in sharing resources across a range of different people and groups.LAISSEZ-FAIRER decided by the to make I I I own decision I AUTHORITARIAN I I policy Making I DEMOCRATIC Everything is I Is decided by the group with the I Group or individual free Leader alp of the leader Techniques, methods and activities I Is dictated by the leader on at a It determined by group discussion Material is supplied by I time loft goals and techniques, helped bal leader-advice given only, when I I I technical advice from leader asked for I Praise, criticism and participation in I Leader does not participate.He Leader occasionally participates No attempt by leader to appraise I group activity praises or criticisms members at alcoholically. Lord regulate activities of group, I I He praises or personal level I criticisms member at personal I no deliberation level I Allotment of tasks and colleagues I Is dictated by the leader Primarily they are left to members Complete non-participation by Ethel I I leader A good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved between the followers, the leader, and the situation.Some examples include: o using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the job. The leader is competent and a good coach.
The employee is motivated to learn a new skill. The situation is a new environment for the employee. 0 using a participative (democratic) style with a team of workers who know their job. The leader knows the problem, but does not have all the information. The employees know their jobs and want to become part of the team. Using a delegating(laissez-fairer) style with a worker who knows more about the job than you. You cannot do everything and the employee needs to take ownership of her job! In addition, this allows you to be at other places, doing other things.
o Using all three: Telling your employees that a procedure is not working correctly and a new one must be established (authoritarian). Asking for their ideas and input on creating a new procedure (participative). Delegating tasks in order to implement the new procedure (delegating). II.LIKELIER LEADERSHIP STYLES Reins Liker identified four main styles of leadership, in particular around decision-making and the degree to which people are involved in the decision. 1 . Exploitive authoritative-?in this style, the leader has a low concern for people and uses such methods as threats and other fear-based methods to achieve conformance.
Communication is almost entirely downwards and the psychologically distant concerns of people are ignored. 2. Benevolent authoritative-?when the leader adds concern for people to an authoritative position, a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ is formed.The leader now uses rewards to encourage appropriate performance and listens more to concerns lower down the organization, although what they hear is often rose- tinted, being limited to what their subordinates think that the boss wants to hear. Although there may be some delegation of decisions, almost all major decisions are still made centrally. 3. Consultative-?the upward flow of information here is still cautious and rose-tinted to some degree, although the leader is making genuine efforts to listen carefully to ideas.
Nevertheless, major decisions are still largely centrally made. 4. Participative-?at this level, the leader makes maximum use of participative methods, engaging people lower down the organization in decision-making. People across the organization are psychologically closer together and work well together at all levels. REACTION There is a famous quotation, “Nobody is perfect”. There is no such person as a perfect leader, but believe, there is always an efficient one. In the same way, there is no perfect leadership style, which means there is more than one way to lead effectively.
Leadership styles are not something to be tried on like so many suits, to see which fits. Rather, they should be adapted to the particular demands of the situation, the particular requirements of the people involved and the particular challenges facing the organization. Whatever our past experience, whatever our relative success or failure as a leader, we can become a self-assured, highly-effective leader of others. And it doesn’t require that we become someone else or “play a role” to do it either, because there is no perfect leadership style.There is however, a leadership style that matches our strengths and weaknesses, values and beliefs, personality and tendencies. A big part of our arsenal leadership development process is determining this style and then developing in that direction. Notice the process doesn’t end with finding our style – it starts there.
Once we understand ourselves enough to determine our style, then we can begin building our skills, practicing and more. References: Ibsen, Victim et. Al. , Industrial Psychology, New Age International Ltd. Publishers http://win. V. Unlink.
Com/-?downward/leader/leads. HTML PRESSURE AND PROBLEMS OF LEADERSHIP: Eric Gem D. Estella ; First-Line Supervisors Supervisors have more difficult jobs than executives, yet they receive less armor training in how to manage other people, or no training at all. Often, the most competent workers are selected as supervisors, without any assessment of their leadership potential. Supervisors promoted from the ranks face conflicting demands and loyalties. Even if they try to remain part of the group, their former co-workers do not react to them in the same way because of the changed relationship.They are the point of contact between management and workers, trying to weigh the conflicting needs of both sides.
The trend toward greater worker participation in industry complicates the job Of first-line supervisors. Self-managing work groups: employee groups that allow the members of a work team to manage, control, and monitor all facets of their work, from recruiting, hiring, and training new employees to deciding when to take rest breaks. In these programs, supervisors must act as resource persons rather than leaders. Fifth work groups are less effective than expected, the supervisor will be blamed.If they are effective, top management usually attributes the favorable results to the workers, not to the supervisor. ; Managers and Executives A frequent complaint of middle-level managers is the lack of Influence in formulating company policy. They also complain about having insufficient authority and resources to carry out company policy.
Another source of dissatisfaction is the feeling of obsolescence that comes to characterize middle-level managers in their late ass and early ass. Most of them have reached a plateau and will receive no additional promotions.That realization often becomes part of a general midlife crisis. Their productivity, creativity and motivation may decline, and they may in effect retire on the job, making little further contribution to the organization. A survey of 3,000 managers in their ass found that most expressed eagerness o learn new skills and undertake new assignments but felt denied the chance to do so and believed they faced age barriers to future promotions (Lewis & McCarty, 1 991 The trend toward employee participation is a source of stress for middle managers.Shared leadership results in a loss of managerial authority, status and power. Because of the corporate mergers, acquisitions and buyouts, as well as the competitiveness of the world economy and the changes in the nature of work, several million middle-management jobs have been lost over the last decade.
These massive layoffs have created a motivational crisis among middle-level managers > less committed to the company, fewer opportunities for promotion and more competition for available positions. A source of stress more common among high-level managers is the intense commitment of time and energy to the organization.It is not uncommon for executives to work 60 hours per week and to bring work home for evenings and weekends. This results in an unbalance in their personal lives, leaving little time for their families. Surveys show that most upper-level executives would remain on the job even if they were financially independent. ; Women in Management The number of women currently in management jobs has risen from 24% to over 40% in the last decade. However, most of these jobs are at entry and middle-management levels.
Only 5% of women employed outside the home hold senior management jobs.And, at all levels of management, women tend to be paid less than men for the same work. Women managers are often stopped in their career progress by the so-called glass ceiling, an impenetrable barrier that allows them to view the rewards and responsibilities of upper management but prevents them from advancing to it. Many women managers are restricted to staff jobs in departments that are owe in status, such as human resources, public relations, and consumer affairs, instead of line jobs in more powerful departments such as engineering, manufacturing and marketing.