Leadership Theories Overview
•Descargar como PPT, PDF•
19 recomendaciones•25,311 vistas
This document discusses the history and evolution of leadership theories in the 20th century. It covers early theories like great man theories and trait theories. It then analyzes later contingency theories and excellence theories. Alternative theories emerged that incorporated perspectives from other fields like anthropology, history and political science. Breakthrough theories included Burns' transformational leadership and Greenleaf's servant leadership. The document also examines changing definitions of leadership over time and compares different models of leadership proposed by scholars.
![Leadership: An Overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],09/03/01 1](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/leadershiplecture-100309145938-phpapp01/85/whats-leadership-a-brief-history-of-theories-and-concepts-1-320.jpg)
![Leadership Theories: A 20th Century History ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],09/03/01 2]()
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Leadership Theories Overview
Similar a Leadership Theories Overview (20)
Más de Wendy Schultz
Más de Wendy Schultz (20)
Último
Último (20)
Leadership Theories Overview
Notas del editor
- An extensive literature on leadership exists: 1) historical writings, comprised of philosophies of leadership, e.g., Machiavelli’s The Prince , biographies of great leaders, and comparative works such as Plutarch’s Lives ; and 2) formal studies, written primarily after the development of the social sciences, of which Stogdill (1974) and later Bass (1981) have produced a masterly overview in The Handbook of Leadership. These studies have emerged from every discipline “that has had some interest in the subject of leadership: anthropology, business administration, educational administration, history, military science, nursing administration, organizational behavior, philosophy, political science, public administration, psychology, sociology, and theology.” (Rost, J. C. Leadership for the Twenty-first Century , p. 45) Joseph Rost -- and many others, including James MacGregor Burns, Warren Bennis, and Henry Mintzberg -- goes on to argue that the entire history of modern leadership studies has been seriously flawed. First, because while everyone talks about leadership, no-one has satisfactorily defined what it actually is . Like art, we seem to know it only when we see it. Second, and on a related note, social scientists have primarily studied leadership from the context of their own fields and subfields, letting the discipline color the subseqent definition. So political scientists define leadership politically, group psychologists define it as group facilitation, education researchers see it as educational administration, and business researchers see it as management. The essence of leadership is both more complex and deeper than those fields.
- Leadership studies historically went hand-in-hand with studies of elites: political, financial, military, aristocratic, or cultural elites. Leadership was considered an art, for which some fortunate people had an inbuilt genius; the rest of us could only engage in admiring post-game analyses. During the Great Depression, US social psychologists found in studying groups that democratic leadership was not only possible, it was more effective. Thus a more egalitarian view of leadership evolved from the elitest (and, in today’s view, sexist) “great man” view. Unfortunately, research indicated that patterns of leadership behavior in small groups was not transferable to large groups, or organizations. During WWII, people began to ask what traits leaders needed to win the war; however, research produced no consensus on key traits productive of effective leadership. In the 1950’s, Stogdill compared results of various traits studies, finding them contradictory and inconclusive. Consequently, in the 50’s and 60’s Stogdill and others tried to conceptualize leadership as behavior, but could not isolate key behavioral patterns that made a difference. (This slide/page and subsequent slide/pages are drawn directly from Rost’s excellent summary and critique of the history of leadership studies, theories, and definitions.)
- Unable to determine which particular behavior patterns consistently resulted in effective leadership, researchers then attempted to match behavior patterns that worked best in specific contexts or situations. That line of research collapsed for practical reasons when people realized leaders would need to refer to decision trees or wheel charts to determine how to behave. Additionally, an infinite array of situations existed which researchers would be unable to study, so producing a definitive compendium matching behaviors with situations is impossible. In the 1980s, having tried and discarded all of these fragmentary approaches, leadership researchers determined that “leadership is simply doing the right thing to achieve excellence. That meant the researchers had to find out what the right thing is, so they set about researching excellent companies and CEOs, and developed lists of traits, behavior patterns, group facilitation strategies, and culture-shaping practices for would-be leaders.” (Rost, pages 22-23) The problem with this historical timeline of leadership studies is that it implies that each theoretical era was separate and distinct from the others, and that theories, once superseded by a new perspective, were completely discarded. In fact, as Rost points out (pages 28-29), “The theories did not run riot in any one separate time period, nor did they disappear from the picture when the next so-called dominant theory appeared on the scene…there were periods of heightened popularity for certain theories, but when that popularity waned, the theories remained in the…minds of scholars,,, because they appealed to the structural-functional frame in which most researchers operated.”
- Hoskins and Morley (1988, page 91) note the inaccuracy os the psychological/managerial view of leadership: “We take the view that leadership processes represent a special kind of organizing activity, the organizing activity that is political decision making, construed in the widest possible sense…In sum, leadership is an inherently political process.” (Hoskins and Morley, quoted in Rost, page 25) “ Many anthropologists, historians, political scientists, and authors in the popular press conceptualize leadership as a a political process. The consistency with which management and psychological scientists have developed a worldview of leadership devoid of politics shows how narrow their unidisciplinary perspective is and how inaccurate their narrative of leadership theory is.” (Rost, page 25) The theories presented here have a common structural-functionalist frame of reference grounded in a hierarchical, linear, pragmatic, Newtonian worldview. These leadership theories are also alike in their almost total concentration on the leader, with very little interest in followers. They tend to be pragmatic, goal-achievement oriented; utilitarian and short-term in their ethics; reminiscent of mythic, fairy tale images of what males do as leaders; and rationalistic, technocratic, and quantitative in conceptualization. In short, the psychological/managerial perspective shares the limits and weaknesses of both the industrial paradigm and the rationalistic, Western, reductivist worldview.
- This is not to say that 20th century scholars in other disciplines were not also hobbled by the industrial paradism and the Western scientific worldview. But their very disciplines required analysis along different frames of reference, as noted on the slide. If taken in conjunction with the psychological/managerial theories, perspectives from other disciplines in the social sciences, humanities, and the arts can produce a more holistic understanding of leadership. “ Selznick (1957), a good example of a scholar who was ignored by the mainstream management and psychological scientists, was a political sociologist who wrote a landmark study of the TVA. In 1957 he produced a small book in which he distinguished leadership from holding an office/position and likened it to institutionalization, by which he meant infusing values and purpose into an organization (all of which is a very typical sociological point of view). ‘The institutional leader,’ he wrote, ‘is primarily an expert in the promotion and protection of values’ (p. 28).” (Rost, pages 29-30)
- In the 60s and 70s, a number of scholars attempted to define leadership in terms of influence, but it proved too political and slippery a concept: it is difficult to do an empirical study of influence. Some sociologists, viewing leadership systemically as both actions and results and their impacts, suggested that leadership is simply an attribute of a conjunction of events. “In other words, people attribute leadership to certain individuals who are called leaders because people want to believe that leaders cause things to happen rather than have to explain causality by understanding complex social forces or analyzing the dynamic interaction among people, events, and environment (Calder, 1977; S. Hunt, 1984; McElroy & Hunger, 1988; Pfeffer, 1977).” (Rost, page 30) Hollander (1964; 1978a) and Jacobs (1970) espoused an exchange, or transactional, theory of leadership, which brought followers into focus by highlighting power relations , and the negotiations necessary among people of unequal power and different agendas. Followers are significantly involved in negotiating any exchange or transaction that results in a decision or a course of action, and this theory acknowledges the fact that they have minds of their own, and that their opinions and ideas also influence the leader: that leadership is, in fact, a social system characterized by feedback between leaders and followers. (Rost, page 30)
- “ Burns became famous among alternative leadership scholars because his model of transformational leadership included an ethical/moral dimension that, prior to 1978, had not been infused into any leadership theory. Selznick (1957) had equated leadership with the infusion of values into organizations, but values are not necessarily ethical or moral. There was certainly no room in the saga of the structural-functionalists, who eschewed any kind of value orientation as a bias that made scholarship unscientific, for a leadership theory that inserted a required moral component. Even after the management and psychological scholars discovered Burns, they sanitized his concept of transformation to include any kind of significant change, not just changes that had a morally uplifting effect on people (see Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Bennis & Nanus, 1985).” (Rost, pages 30-31) Burns was one of the first scholars to assert that true leadership not only creates change and achieves goals within the environment, but changes the people involved in the necessary actions for the better as well: both followers and leaders are ennobled.
- Greenleaf, himself a retired executive with decades of experience in management, espoused his own distillation of the essence of leadership at about the same time Burns was writing Leadership . He too focussed on the dynamics of the relationships among leaders and their various followers; he too asserted that leaders enhance followers’ ability to reach their full potential as human beings. His model assumes that, in fact, in order to achieve anything , much less excellence, leaders must support the ideas and actions of their followers rather than dictate strategies to them in command-and-control mode. Greenleaf named this model “servant leadership” after having read Herman Hesse’s story, “Journey to the East,” whose primary character epitomizes the style. You have a good summary of Greenleaf’s core concepts in the essay by Larry Spears on Robert Greenleaf; you also have a handout on servant leadership showing some of the related ideas across the leadership models of Greenleaf, Senge, and Jaworski.
- The next several slides illustrate the expansion of the definitions of leadership over the last several decades. Here are some additional examples: 1930’s: “Popular notions of leadership tend to be expressed in terms of power to command or ability to dominate. The whole contention of this book is, however, that commanding of itself is wholly inadequate as a basis for getting results from people working in association. …Leadership is interested in how people can be brought to work together for a common end effectively and happily. (Tead, 1935, pages 11-12, quoted in Rost, page 48)” “ Leadership may be broadly defined as the relation between an individual and a group built around some common interest and behaving in a manner directed or determined by him.” (Schmidt, 1933, page 282, quoted in Rost, page 48)
- The 1940s saw the rise to popularity of the group approach to analyzing leadership, and other definitions of leadership from that era reflect this. Scholars were also attempting to separate, and distinguish, leadership from power. 1940’s: “Leadership is the result of an ability to persuade or direct men, apart from the prestige or power that comes from office or other external circumstances.” (Reuter, 1941, page 133, quoted in Rost, page 48) Some people were already attempting to define followers’ role: “ H.H. Jennings (1944) accepted the followers as the people who identified the leader in the group. In what she called a “dynamic redefinition” of the word leadership , she concluded: “Leadership thus appears as a manner of interaction involving behavior by and toward the individual ‘lifted’ to a leader role by other individuals” (page 432). (quoted in Rost, page 49) An organizational definition was offered by R.C. Davis: “Leadership is the principal dynamic force that stimulates, motivates, and coordinates the organization in the accomplishment of its objectives.” (1942, page 27, quoted in Rost, page 49) The classic group psychology definition of leadership emerged out of the Ohio State Leadership Studies program (founded 1949): “Leadership may be said to be the behavior of an individual while he is involved in directing group activities.” (Hemphill, 1949b, page 4, quoted in Rost, pages 49-50)
- Many of the researchers focussing on groups saw leadership as a set of facilitative behaviors: “More specifically, leadership consists of such actions by group members as those which aid in setting group goals, moving the group toward its goals, improving the quality of interactions among the members, building the cohesiveness of the group, or making resources available to the group. In principle, leadership may be performed by one or many members of the group.” (Cartwright & Zander, 1953, page 538, quoted in Rost, page 51) Other researchers at the time emphasized the realization of shared goals as a key element in leadership: Leadership is “…the process of arranging a situation so that various members of a group, including the leader, can achieve common goals with maximum economy and a minimum of time and work.” (Bellows, 1959, page 14, quoted in Rost, page 51) 1960’s: “Leadership is concerned with the transformation of doubts into psychological grounds of cooperative common action.” (N.E. Long, 1963, page 126, quoted in Rost, page 54) In 1967, writing from a political perspective, Edinger suggested the following: “Leadership is a position within society which is defined by the ability of the incumbent to guide and structure the collective behavior patterns of some or all of its members. …It is at all times relational, interpersonal, and is based upon inequality of influence…” (Edinger, 1967, page 15, in Rost, page 54) E.E. Jennings highlighted traits of risk-taking and initiative (cont’d next page)
- [Jennings, cont’d from previous page] in his definition: “The essential difference between a leader and an executive is the degree of personal initiative and personal risk that such initiative involves. [It is difficult to apply leadership ] to those people who reduce risk considerably by attempting to move the group in a direction it has already taken…” (Jennings, 1960, page 16, quoted in Rost, page 56) 1970’s: Moloney clarified leadership in relation to administration or management in stating, “It is important to understand that leadership is not a synonym for either administration or management. Leadership is a process whereby the leader can influence others to perform beyond those activities commanded by individuals in formal authority positions.” (Moloney, 1979, page 11, in Rost, page 59) Jacobs, a researcher whose work was not popularly accepted, developed an exchange theory of leadership that also was careful to distinguish among leadership, power, and authority. “Communication skills are more important in leadership as here defined, than in influence attempts based on either power or authority, because its essence it the development of a new state of knowledge, belief, or attitude in the target of the influence attempt…In the present system, the key distinction in the exercise of influence through leadership is the recognition that the influence recipient has the option of deciding for or against compliance with the leader’s wishes, without incurring coercive penalties.” (Jacobs, 1970, page 232, in Rost, page 60)
- In the 1980s and 1990s, management researchers, scholars, and consulting “gurus” published a plethora of books on leadership. A number of claimed both Burns and Greenleaf as intellectual antecedents. The models that follow are meant to be illustrative; more will emerge as class participants report on the books they are currently reading, and digest and discuss the examples offered by Rowitz.
- In further refining his definition of “moral leadership,” Burns explains, “The essence of leadership in any polity is the recognition of real need, the uncovering and exploiting of contradictions among values and between values and practice, the realigning of values, the reorganization of institutions where necessary, and the governance of change. Essentially the leader’s task is consciousness-raising on a wide plane. …The leader’s fundamental act is to induce people to be aware or conscious of what they feel -- to feel their true needs so strongly, to define their values so meaningfully, that they can be moved to purposeful action.” (pages 43-44)
- Political arenas in which transactional leadership occurs include : the mobilization of community or social opinion; the organization of political action groups; political parties; legislative organizations; and executive agencies. Transformational leadership includes intellectual leadership (ideas as moral power); reform leadership; revolutionary leadership; and heroic and ideological leadership. Burns is a bit dense to summarize. The key ideas here to highlight are the concepts of the moral betterment of followers, and the power of leadership to create true transformation and change -- the latter concept in particular has been integrated into most of today’s management and futures related leadership literature.
- Self-explanatory.
- Re: strategy one -- “Leaders are the most results-oriented individuals in the world, and results get attention. Their visions or intentions are compelling and pull people toward them. Intensity coupled with commitment is magnetic. And these intense personalities do not have to coerce people to pay attention; they are so intent on what they are doing that, …they draw others in.” (page 28) Re: strategy two -- “The actions and symbols of leadership frame and mobilize meaning. Leaders articulate and define what has previously remained implicit or unsaid; then they invent images, metaphors, and models that provide a focus for new attention. …an essential factor in leadership is the capacity to influence and organize meaning for the members of the organization.” (page 39) Re: strategy three -- “Leaders acquire and wear their visions like clothes. Accordingly, they seem to enroll themselves…in the belief of their ideals as attainable, and their behavior exemplifies the ideas in action.” (page 46) Re: strategy four -- Positive self regard “consists of three components: knowledge of one’s strengths, the capacity to nurture and develop those strengths, and the ability to discern the fit between one’s strengths and weaknesses and the organization’s needs.” (pages 61-62) Positive regard for self creates positive regard for others. The Wallenda factor: successful leaders focus on trying and learning , not on failing or avoiding failure.
- Self-explanatory.
- Self-explanatory.
- Self explanatory. However,… “ The leaders primary contribution is in the recognition of good ideas, the support of those ideas, and the willingness to challenge the system in order to get new products, processes, and services adopted. In this sense, it might be more accurate to call them early adopters of innovation. …Leaders are learners. They learn from their mistakes as well as their successes.” (Kouzes & Posner, pages 8-9)
- Self explanatory.
- Self-explanatory.
- Self-explanatory.
- Self-explanatory.
- This comparison is basically self-explanatory….
- …as is this one.
- This slide is primarily a discussion starter; the slide which follows, providing some comments from Burns on exactly these questions, may be used to prod the discussion along.
- On Dahl’s dimensions: distribution -- the concentration and dispersion of power among persons of diverse influence in various political, social, and economic locations; scope -- the extent to which power is generalized over a wide range or is specialized [persons may be powerful relative to one kind of activity, and not to others]; and domain -- the number and nature of power respondents influenced by power wielders compared to those who are not. “Power…is exercised when potential power wielders, motivated to achieve certain goals of their own, marshal in their power base resources (economic, military, institutional, or skill) that enable them to influence the behavior of respondents by activating motives of respondents relevant to those resources and to those goals. This is done in order to realize the purposes of the power wielders, whether or not these are also the goals of the respondents . …Leaders are a particular kind of power holder. Like power, leadership is relational, collective, and purposeful. Leadership shares with power the central function of achieving purpose. …All leaders are actual or potential power holders, but not all power holders are leaders.” Burns, page18 “Authority was…legitimated power. But it was legitimated by tradition, religious sanction, rights of succession, and procedures (page 24)…. Ultimately, the moral legitimacy of transformational leadership , and to a lesser degree transactional leadership, is grounded in conscious choice among real alternatives . (page 36)”