Evaluating Historical Views of Leadership, Essay Example

Abstract

Theories of leadership have developed significantly in the past eight decades. The below paper is attempting to review the major steps, changes and ideologies behind this development. The authors would like to analyze the different approaches within this study and test the usability of the theory based on current views. While the role of managers and leaders, as well as the structure of organizations have gone through substantial changes in the past decades and globalization influences decisions, some of the theories reviewed below are still valid and applicable when examining leadership behaviors that result in the best outcome for the organization and individuals within it. The authors are also searching for the foundation of contemporary leadership theories in early literature.

Leadership Theories and Approaches

While the area of leadership was not extensively studied until the 1930-s, the theories developed in the 20^th Century have their foundation in earlier philosophical works. The authors have selected three books that clearly define the main paths of leadership research in the 20^th Century.

Machiavelli wrote in “How Prince Should Keep Faith” that a prince (in this case, a leader) should use force, however, stand as an example for others, act as a role model and keep his promise. They need to be compassionate, trustworthy and virtuous. This relates to the idea of transformational leadership covered in detail later in this article.

Lao Tzu’s “Tao Te Ching” (17) states that

“The best leaders are those their people hardly know exist.
The next best is a leader who is loved and praised.
Next comes the one who is feared.
The worst one is the leader that is despise”.

This section of the book summarizes the different leadership approaches that were later covered in detail by scholars.

1. E. B. Du Bois’ work “The Talented Tenth” indicates that leaders need to be able to create engagement and teach others. Further, leaders are supposed to be leaders of thought and missionaries of culture.

The Changing Minds (n.d.) review states that In the late 1800-s, Frederick Taylor started studying productivity and time, while Weber (1922) wrote that a “leader is possessed by virtue of his position”. Forlett (1926) differentiated between “power with” and “power over”. While the above works did not fully cover the definition of leadership, they provided a foundation for future study. This differentiation rings familiar when the reader already has existing knowledge of  Lao Tzu’s differentiation of power implementation.

In 1938, Chester Barnard created a full definition of leadership, stating that it is “The ability of a superior to influence the behavior of subordinates and persuade them to follow a particular course of action.” (Barnard, 1938) While this theory was based on influence over others, presuming that the leader has a superior role and power, it was commonly accepted for decades. This theory is clearly based on Machiavelli’s views on power and leadership, already mentioned.

The first criticism of the theory of Barnard came from French and Raven (Changing Minds, n.d.)  The authors initiated differentiation between types of power, such as: legitimate, reward, expert, referent and coercive.

Later, authors started to approach the study from a psychological angle, developing the “Trait theory”. The theory was based on studying the behavior and personality traits of great leaders. The theory also assumed that traits make great leaders (not skills). The theory was later completed by Stodgill (1974), differentiating between traits and skills.

The next major step in leadership theory development was Lewin’s Three Participatory Leadership Styles concept. (1935) The author does not only study traits and skills, but sets up categories of different approaches to leadership. According to Lewin (1939), autocratic style does not use consultation, Laissez-Faire style is the opposite: it minimizes the leader’s decision making involvement, while the Democratic style is the approach of mediocrity: leaders involve others in the decision making process, but the final say is the leader’s. The author concluded that the most successful leadership style is democratic, as autocratic styles increase the risk of revolution and don’t help gaining commitment, while the Lassiez-faire approach undermines authority.

Fiedler (1967) was the first to state that there was no one single way of approaching leadership. His contingency model was the basis of several future studies and frameworks. Fiedler (1967) stated that the three situations that define the tasks of managers are member relations, task structure and position power. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) developed situational leadership theory, as a response to Fiedler’s contingency model. The theory was based on the assumption that there are three forces that influence the actions leaders take, namely: situational, forces in the follower and forces in the leader. Even though both approaches assume that there are more than one leadership methods, here is indeed a great difference between the contingency and the situational theories. While contingency theory focuses on the capabilities of the leader, the Situational Theory examines internal and external forces that influence leadership actions.

Continuing with focusing on leadership actions, Adair (1973) developed his action-centred leadership model. The model recognizes the leader’s various functions, such as: task, team and individual professional responsibilities. Without being able to define these categories, a leader is unable to manage an organization.

A great breakthrough in the study of leadership behavior, functions and skills was created by Covey (1992), who differentiated between two types of leadership: transformational and transactional, both signifying the approach of the leader towards the organization and the team. The author argues that while transformational leadership is based on ideas, visions and long term plans, transactional leadership does focus on the present processes, systems and does not look further than the current situation. It is not a visionary leadership style, therefore, it is not suitable for implementing sustainability in the organization.

Transformational leadership was also covered in detail by Chemers (1997). The author highlighted the importance of implementing this approach in the changing, globalizing world in order to successfully deal with challenges and changes related to organizations.

In the end of the 20^th Century, culture and vision became the focal points of leadership trait and behavior analysis. Schein (2004) states that leaders need to create a culture within the organization. This culture needs to help making communication flawless and consider diversity and value issues. This approach resembles the views of W. E. B. Du Bois, who also focused on the role of delivering culture and values while teaching people to become successful.

Other authors (Barker, 2006) went back to examining the competencies of successful entrepreneurs and leaders based on the particular business conditions of the 21^st Century. The competencies leaders need to possess, according to the author are: strategic thinking, networking and relationship building, entrepreneurial spirit and the ability to actively seek information. Building on the transformational leadership approach model, as one that is the most suitable for the organizational situations in the 21^st Century, Bass and Avolio (1994) created a list of five transformational styles leaders can implement in their behavior. These are: idealized behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual situation, individualized consideration and idealized attributes.

From the above review of leadership research theory development, it is evident that there is a linearity in approaches, and new ideas were formed from each concept of leadership. Starting with the power approach (Machiavelli and Chester Barnard) through focusing on leadership personality and behavior (Lao Tzu and Stodgill) towards the concept of transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1994) also covered by W. E. B. Du Bois (1903).

References

Adair, J. (1973) Action-centred leadership. New York,:McGraw-Hill

Barker, T. (2006) Leadership for results: removing barriers to success for people, projects, and processes. ASQ Quality Press

Barnard, C. (1938) The early sociology of management and organizations. Routeledge. 2003.

Chemer, M. M. (1997) An integrative theory of leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. London

Covey, S. (1992) Principle centered leadership. Fireside.

Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903) The talented tenth. Retrieved from <http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1148.htm>

Fiedler, F. (1967) A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1935) A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Machiavelli, N. (1515) The prince: The Original Classic. John Wiley & Sons.

Schein, Edgar H., (2004) Organizational culture and leadership. Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, 2004

Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press

Tannenbaum,  schmidt (1958, 2009) How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Press, 2009

Tzu. Lao (2007) (originally written: 6^th Century B.C.) Tao Te Ching. Shambhala Publications.

Weber, M. (1922) Bureaucracy.