¶ … Leadership Theories The step scholarly reading writing critical evaluation, apply a specific lens, context, criteria reach reasoned judgments articulate clear claims-based credible evidence. Evaluation shaped topic, audience, and lens.

Critically evaluating leadership theories

Defining what makes great leadership often seems like trying to capture lightning on camera: everyone agrees it is spectacular, but it is very difficult to encapsulate and define what it clearly is in a manner that is truly representative of its power. That is why so many people say that great leaders are born, not made. However, throughout the ages, various theorists have attempted to define what makes a great leader in a reasoned and analytical fashion.

One of the most common views of leadership can be summed up as the 'great man' concept of leadership -- the idea that leaders must be charismatic and motivate with their personalities as well as give directives. This concept still has common currency today in the idea of 'transformational' leadership, whereby the leader develops a vision designed to excite followers. Followers are 'sold' this vision based upon the personal integrity of the leader, not simply the quality of the idea. Transformational leaders have clear ideas and workers are motivated to fulfill the vision at least in part because they hope to emulate the remarkable qualities of the leader (Transformational leadership, 2013, Changing Minds).

Transformational leadership is often contrasted with transactional modes of leadership, which are based upon the concept that workers mainly work to 'get something out of' the relationship in the form of financial remuneration. "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 and formal systems of discipline are usually in place" (Transactional leadership, 2013, Changing Minds). It is based upon the concept of behaviorism, or rewards and benefits derived from particular actions. "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 subordinate's manager) gets authority over the subordinate" (Transactional leadership, 2013, Changing Minds).

Although transformational leadership sounds significantly more exciting than transactional leadership, it is important to note that one of the weaknesses of transformational assumptions is that there is not always a 'great man' to motivate workers, and thus the 'carrots and sticks' approach might be necessary. A more nuanced approach to the distinction between transformational and transactional leaders can be seen in the Theory X/Theory Y leadership schema developed by Douglas McGregor. According to McGregor, almost all leadership styles fell into two categories: that of Theory X or Theory Y Theory X leaders were 'old school' leaders of the transactional school who mistrusted workers. Basing their concept of employees upon the principles of scientific management, they believed that workers had to be micro-managed to do work 'correctly' and that workers were mainly cogs in the machinery of production, rather than individuals with the potential to make a contribution to the organization. "Theory X is an authoritarian style where the emphasis is on productivity, on the concept of a fair day's work, on the evils of feather-bedding and restriction of output, on rewards for performance & #8230; [it] reflects an underlying belief that management must counteract an inherent human tendency to avoid work" (Theories X and Y, 2008, The Economist). Workers must be prodded on with sanctions from the leadership and rewarded when 'good' with raises and promotions.

However, McGregor believed that this attitude could only go so far in terms of promoting positive behaviors. Instead, he advocated a different approach: the Theory Y style of leadership, which contained some of the elements of charismatic and transformational leadership but with a greater emphasis on taking in input from workers and generating excitement about the future by giving workers responsibilities. Theory Y is a participative style of management which "assumes that people will exercise self-direction and self-control in the achievement of organisational objectives to the degree that they are committed to those objectives" and that "it is management's main task in such a system to maximise that commitment" (Theories X and Y, 2008, The Economist). In short 'carrots and sticks' only go so far: once workers' basic needs are satisfied, they crave other forms of fulfillment.

As can be seen in the popularity of Theory X / Theory Y, participatory strategies of leadership, in which followers are viewed as having the ability to make a significant contribution to the organization in terms of their ideas as well as their output, have grown considerably...

"The participatory leadership paradigm is based on respect and engagement. It constructively focuses energy in every human to human encounter. A more advanced, more democratic and more effective model of leadership, it harnesses diversity, builds community, and creates shared responsibility for action. It deepens individual and collective learning yielding real development and growth" (A definition of participatory leadership, 2013, ProMeet. Participatory leadership can be seen in action at organizations like Google, where engineers are encouraged to pursue independent projects and there is little regard for the organizational hierarchy in terms of who is 'allowed' to come forth with new ideas. Instead of merely 'leading the way,' a good leader is conceptualized as listening to followers and acknowledging that workers can offer constructive input.
This questioning of the dominant paradigm of leadership theory has also resulted in the rise of theories which question that there is a single 'correct' theory of leadership at all. Situational theories of leadership postulate that the reason that so many different ways of managing people seem to 'work' on different occasions is the fact that certain leadership styles may be 'correct' in some instances and not in others. According to Hersey and Blanchard, there are four main leadership styles: that of telling, selling, participating, and delegating. 'Telling' is the traditional transactional style which is highly directive. 'Selling' styles provide direction but seek to inspire followers in the transformational modality. Participating styles work with employees and solicit opinions in a democratic fashion. And delegating is passing most of the responsibility onto workers, rather than giving hands-on direction (Hersey Blanchard situational leadership theory, 2013, Mind Tools).

No style is superior according to this model, but rather depends upon the maturity of the workers. Hersey and Blanchard 'ranked' workers according to the status of M1-M4. M1-level workers lack motivation or direction and it is entirely appropriate to 'tell' them what to do. M2-level workers lack skills but do have motivation and thus the 'selling' style is appropriate with these employees. M3 workers have more skills and motivation but lack confidence and direction and thus participatory strategies are appropriate while only M4-level workers can effective work with a delegating style (Hersey Blanchard situational leadership theory, 2013, Mind Tools).

As can be seen over time, theories of leadership have become more nuanced and take into consideration different aspects of the environment beyond that of the control of the leader: it is no longer assumed that the leader has the ultimate ability to bend the will of employees to do his or her bidding. In earlier models, including the charismatic model of leadership and also the concept of scientific management, the leader was conceptualized as the individual who knew where the organization should go and it was his or 'job' to ensure that they met these objectives. Even transformational leadership theories assume that it is the leader doing the transforming -- that leadership is something that is done 'to' someone.

However, later leadership theories such as Theory X/Theory Y and participatory leadership stress that leadership is something that is a dialogue. The actions of the followers affect the behavior of the leader as well as vice versa. Followers can give valuable input to the organization. Situational leadership theories seem to suggest that leadership is not 'about' the leader at all, but rather the necessary specifics of the situation he or she is attempting to address, including the character of the follower. This theory of leadership is seen as increasingly useful in the complex environment of today: the type of leadership that might be required to manage entry level workers might not necessarily be viable for 'creative types' at a small Internet start-up. Specifically within industries such as IT where younger workers may have valuable information about how their generation uses technology or have cutting-edge ideas based upon their own saturation in technology from birth, a participatory approach can be highly beneficial.

References

A definition of participatory leadership. (2013). ProMeet. Retrieved:

http://www.participatory-leadership.com/Site/A_definition_of_Participatory_Leadership_.html

Hersey Blanchard situational leadership theory. (2013). Mind Tools. Retrieved from:

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_44.htm

Theories X and Y. (2008). The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/12370445

Transactional leadership. (2013). Changing Minds. Retrieved from:

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/transactional_leadership.htm

Transformational leadership. (2013). Changing Minds. Retrieved from:

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/transformational_leadership.htm