Behavioral Approach To Leadership Management Essay

behavioural Approach To loss drawing cardship Management EssayThe focal point of thuis chapter will be on theoretical developments made in leading literature with the way of clock time by the advocates. Hence, the existing chapter will be divided into quad major(ip) parts. In the offset part, trait get to leading will be described. In the second part, behavioural approach to drawing cards will be discussed. Third part will be devoted to eventuality approach to leaders. In last and fourth part, cutting-edge approach to lead will be presented.Trait Leadership TheoryLeadership consists of leaders, chase and situations, hardly trait approach only centeringes on leaders. Trait approach was one of the first systematic attempts to study leadership in which research started by counselling on leaders traits that differentiate between leaders and non-leaders. Trait theory assumes that people are born with inherited characteristics. In other words, leaders were born, non made and l eadership is rooted in characteristics of leaders. This assumption that leaders are born non made was taken from Great Man Theory. The underlying construct of this theory was that leaders are from upper class. Great Man theory was named so because in those days, leadership was thought of primarily as a masculine quality.Stogdill studied more than 124 studies conducted between 1904 and 1947. Stogdill (1948) stated that the aspect allied with leadership could be categorize under six broad directions capacity (intelligence, alertness, originality and judgment) achievement (scholarship, knowledge) office (reliability, inventiveness, determination assertiveness, self-assurance and the desire to excel) participation (activity, friendliness, team take a leak, flexibility and absurdity) status (socioeconomic position and popularity) and situation (status, ability, wants and wellbeing of followers, objectives to be accomplished).Bryman (1993) also talk about the principle that in that re spect are distinct attributes that distinguish a leader from a non-leader, these being physical features (height) personality factors (extroverted) and ability re posthumousd characteristics (speech fluency).Trait theory offers no news report for relationship between individual characteristics and leaderships. This theory did not consider the feign of situational multivariates that moderate the relationship between leader traits and measures of effectiveness. As a result of deprivation of consistent findings, linking individual traits to leadership effectiveness, empirical studies of leaders traits were mostly abandoned in 1950s.Behavioral approach to LeadershipIn beginning of 1950s, focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits to leaders miens. Purpose of this research was that the carriage exhibited by the leaders is more important than their physical, mental, emotional traits or internal state. Behavioral theories differentiate between effective leaders fro m ineffective leaders. Behavioral theories of leadership are based on the belief that great leaders are made, not born. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through training and observations, thus, anyone can become a leader if they want to. Leadership is imperturbable of two general kinds of bearings task carriage and relationship behavior. Task behavior focus on oddment accomplishment and help subordinates in achieving their behavior composition relationship behavior help subordinates to feel comfortable at workplace. Central focus of this approach is to examine how leaders combine these two types of behavior in order to make subordinates to put their efforts to mop up a goal.Many studies have been conducted to investigate the behavioral approach. Some of the first studies were conducted at Ohio State University in late 1940s. At the same time, another group of researchers at Michigan University were studying leadership functions. These studies spark ed hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely used.The Ohio StudiesGroup of researchers at Ohio studies analyzed how a group of individuals acted when they were leading a group or organization. For this purpose, complete questionnaire about leader was developed on that questionnaire, subordinates had to identify the no. of multiplication their leaders engaged in certain kind of behavior. Questionnaire was composed of 150 questions and was called the Leader Behavioral Description Questionnaire. (Hemphill and Coons, 1957). Questionnaire was distributed among military, manufacturing companies and educational institutes. The result showed that the certain clusters of behaviors were typically of leaders. Researchers raise that respondents responses on the questionnaire clustered around two general types of leaders behavior Initiating Structure and Consideration (Stogdill, 1974). Initiating Structure sometimes called task- orientated behavior, involves planning, organizing and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration involves present concern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates accomplishments, and providing for subordinates welfare.Many studies have been conducted to determine which style of leadership is most effective in a particular situation.In some contexts, gamyer(prenominal) consideration has been found to be most effective, but in other situations, high initiating structure has been found most effective. Some research has shown that being high on both behaviors is the best form of leadership.The University of Michigan (1961 1967)The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio Studies. The focus of the Michigan studies was to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations an employee orientation and production orientation (Likert). Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations, while those with a production orientation focused on the task or technical aspects of the job. The supporters proposed that the more the leader is employee oriented, the lesser hell be production oriented and vice versa. He suggested that employee oriented approach results in the most positive outcomes.The Managerial GridThe behavioral dimensions from early behavioral leadership studies provided the basis for the development of a two dimensional grid for appraising leadership style. One concept based largely on behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness was the Managerial (or Leadership Grid) development by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (1964). The Grid helps to explain how leaders help organizations to reach their purposes through two factors concern for production and concern for people. It closely parallels the idea and findings that emerged in the Ohio State and University of Michigan Studies. Concern for production refers to how a leader is pertain with achieving organizational tasks. Concern for people refers to how a leader attends to the people in the organization who are trying to achieve its goals. In grid, concern for production has been hardened on horizontal axis and leaders concern for people has been placed on vertical axis. Leaders behavior was ranked on a outdo of 1 (Low) to 9(high). The grid has 81 potential categories into which a leaders behavioral style might fall, emphasis was placed on five authority meekness (9,1), country club management(1,9), impoverished management (1,1), middle of the road management(5,5), and team management(9,9).Researchers concluded that managers performed best when using a team management(9,9) style. It promotes a high stagecoach of participation and team work in the organization a satisfied a basic need in employees to be involved and committed to their work. police squad management approach cannot be affective in all situations . So leaders have to adapt their style according to followers ability.The assumption of the leader behavior was that there were certain behaviors that would be universally affective for leaders. Unfortunately, empirical research has not demonstrated consistent relationship between leaders behavior and leader effectiveness. The failure to attain a consistent relationship led to a new focus on situational influences. Like trait research, leader behavior research did not consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader behavior and leaders effectiveness.Situational Leadership TheoryAs the name of approach implies, situational leadership focuses on leadership in different situations. The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kind of leadership. From this perspective, to be an effective leader requires that a person adapts his or her style to the demands of different situations.Contingencies theories gained prominence in 19 60s and 1970s. Few of the situational leadership theories are discussed in next section.The Fiedler Model (1967)Fred Fiedler was the one who gave the first comprehensive contingency model. It specifies how situational factors interact with leaders traits and behaviors to influence leadership effectiveness. This theory proposed that effective group performance depends on the proper match between a leaders style of interacting with his or her followers and the degree to which the situation allowed the leader to control and influence. The theory suggests that the constructivity of the situation determine the effectiveness of task and person oriented leader behavior. Constructivity is determined by three things leader follower relationship, task structures and the position power. Situation is constructive when followers respect and trust the leader, the task is exceedingly structured and leader has control over rewards and punishments.To measure leaders style, Fiedler developed Least P referred Coworker (LPC) Questionnaire. In questionnaire researcher used 16 pairs of contrasting adjectives resembling hardworking-not hardworking, friendly-unfriendly. Leaders were asked to venture of a coworker with whom they had tough time and rate them on bipolar scale ranging from 1 to 8(8 describes positive adjective while 1 describes prohibit adjective out of the pair). Fiedler believed that you could determine a persons basic leadership style on the basis of the responses to the LPC questionnaire. Fiedler concluded that high LPC score shows that leader is people/relationship oriented while low LPC score means that leader is task oriented. Fiedler research indicated that leaders were more effective either in highly fond situation or highly unfavorable situation while relationship oriented leaders perform better in moderate situations.Fiedler contingency has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological grounds. There was no discussion on the practicality of LPC and it is probably unrealistic to assume that a person cannot change his style in order to fit the situation. This theory does not take into consideration all situational factors. Despite its shortcomings, empirical research has supported many of precise propositions of the theory, the Fiedler model provided test that effective leadership style needed to job situational factors.Hersey and Blanchards Situational Leadership Theory (1969 1977)In contrast to Fiedlers contingency leadership model and its underlying assumption that leadership style is hard to change (trait theory). The Hersey Blanchard situational leadership model suggests that successful leaders do adjust their style (behavioral approach). Secondly, Fiedler go under situation covering three dimensions that is to say leader-follower relationship, task structure and position power while Hersey and Blanchard defined situation as a function of followers maturity date/task think maturity of subordinates. Followers maturi ty is indicated by followers readiness to perform in a given situation. Readiness is largely based on two major factors-follower ability and follower confidence. Situational leadership theory uses the same two leadership dimensions that Fiedler identified task and relationship behavior. However, Hersey and Blanchard go a step further by considering each as either high or low and then by combining them into four specific leadership styles. The two-by-two matrix shown below indicates the four possible leadership styles.HighParticipating trendsShare IdeasFollowers able, unwilling,not confidentSelling StyleExplain DecisionsFollowers unable, willing,confidentDelegating StyleTurnover decisionsFollowers able, willing,confidentTelling StyleGive instructionsFollowers unable, unwilling,not confidentLowHighHersy Blanchard model map each leadership style to each maturity level, as shown below.Maturity LevelAppropriate Leadership StyleM1 Low MaturityS1 Telling/DirectingM2 metier Maturity, limi ted skillsS2 Selling/ CoachingM3 Medium maturity, higher skills but lacking confidenceS3 Participating/SupportingM4 High MaturityS4 DelegatingTo use this model, reflect on the maturity of individuals within team. The table shows which leadership style Hersey and Blanchard consider the most effective for people with that level of maturity.Unlike many other leadership theories, this approach does not have empirical research findings to justify and support the underpinning on which it stands. As a result, there is ambiguity regarding how the approach conceptualizes certain aspects of leadership. It does not explain how subordinates move from low development levels to high development level nor is it clears in explaining how commitment changes over time for subordinates. Also, the model does not clearly define how to match leader behavior from one situation to another (Draft 1999). Vroom and Jago 2007investigated that overwhelming focus of this theory was on one situational variable (th e maturity of followers) and thus other important contextual characteristics within which interactions take place are ignored. According to assumption of model, followers maturity is taken as independent variable while task related leaders behavior is taken as dependent variable. However, it remains one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinates ability and leadership style.Path-Goal TheoryPath-goal theory first appeared in the leadership literature in early 1970s in work of Evan (1970) and set up (1971). Path-goal theory emphasized the relationship between leaders style and characteristics of the subordinates and work-setting. This theory was based on expectancy theory (Vroom 1964), which suggests that subordinates will be motivated if they think they are capable of performing their work (path instrumentality), if they believe their efforts will result in certain outcomes (expectancy) and if they believe that the reward for doing their work are worthwhile (valence). In this perspective, leaders behavior is dependent upon subordinates needs, desires and task characteristics.Therefore, path goal theory is designated to explain how leaders can help subordinates along the path to their goals by selecting specific behaviors that are best suited to subordinate needs and to situations in which subordinates are working. By choosing appropriate style, leaders can give rise specific motives related to task through rewards in order to achieve goals.House (1971) identifies four leaders behavior. These are achievement oriented, directive, participative and supportive. Leaders behaviors are contingent to the environment factors and followers characteristics. In contrast to Fiedlers view, a leader could not change his or her behavior, but House assumes that leaders are flexible. In other words, path goal theory assumes that same leader can display any or all of these leadership styles depe nding upon the situation. Path-goal theory proposes two classes of situational or contingency variables that moderate the leader -behavior outcome relationship environmental/task characteristics that are outside the control of followers (e.g. task design, formal system of authority)- these have a major invasion on the way a leaders behavior influence followers level of motivation. Second is subordinates/followers characteristics (e.g. locus of control, experience) these determine how a leaders behavior is interrupted by subordinates in a particular work context (Northouse, 2007).Environmental contingency factorsTask DesignPrimary WorkgroupFormal System of dictumLeaders Behavior OutcomesDirective PerformanceSupportive Job satisfactionParticipativeAchievement OrientedSubordinates Contingence FactorsPerceived level of task obtainedLocus of directNeed for affiliationAuthoritarianismExperienceThe theory proposes that leaders behavior will be ineffective when its redundant with source s of environmental structure or incongruent with follower characteristics. When followers needs are there, there is desire for leader intervention. Moreover, he described certain situations in which leaders interventions have positive impact and in which negative influence. It has been investigated that employee performance and satisfaction is likely to be positively influenced when the leader compensates for shortcomings in either the employee or in the work setting. However, if the leader spends time in explaining tasks that are routine tasks and are clear or when the employees has the ability and experience to handle them without leaders intervention, the employee is likely to see such directive behavior as redundant or even insulting.Based on these theoretical reasons, one can easily conclude that leaders intervention is dependent upon work settings. In some work settings leaders intervention is highly valued while in others have no value or even considered as negative. Later on , this notion became base for evolution of substitutes for leadership and followers need for leadership.