Behavioral Approach To Leadership Management Essay

airal Approach To lead Management EssayThe focal point of thuis chapter go away be on theoretical developments make in leadinghip literature with the way of magazine by the advocates. Hence, the existing chapter impart be divided into four study parts. In the first part, character attempt to leadinghip forget be depict. In the second part, behavioral approach to leadinghip will be discussed. Third part will be devoted to misfortune approach to leadinghip. In last and 4th part, cutting-edge approach to drawing cardship will be presented.Trait leading TheoryLeadership consists of drawing cards, pursual and situations, but trait approach however revolve aroundes on attractors. Trait approach was nonp atomic number 18il of the first systematic attempts to larn lead in which investigate started by focusing on leaders traits that divergentiate amidst leaders and non-leaders. Trait scheme assumes that hatful argon innate(p) with inherited characteristics. In anformer(a)(prenominal) words, leaders were born, not made and leading is rooted in characteristics of leaders. This assumption that leaders ar born not made was taken from Great Man Theory. The underlying ideal of this hypothesis was that leaders are from upper class. Great Man theory was named so because in those days, leadership was thought of primarily as a male quality.Stogdill studied more than 124 studies conducted amidst 1904 and 1947. Stogdill (1948) stated that the aspect associate with leadership could be categorize under six broad directions substance (intelligence, alertness, originality and judgment) transaction (scholarship, knowledge) responsibility (reli force, inventiveness, determination assertiveness, self-assurance and the desire to excel) participation (activity, friendliness, team up toy, tractableness and absurdity) status (socioeconomic position and popularity) and situation (status, ability, emergencys and wellbeing of pursuit, objectives to be accomplished).Bryman (1993) also mouth just about the principle that there are distinct attributes that distinguish a leader from a non-leader, these being physical features (height) psycheality factors (extroverted) and ability link up characteristics (speech fluency).Trait theory offers no explanation for blood between singular characteristics and leaderships. This theory did not come across the impact of situational variables that middle of the roader the descent between leader traits and measures of speciality. As a result of lack of tenacious findings, linking man-to-man traits to leadership force, empirical studies of leaders traits were largely aband geniusd in 1950s.behavioural approach to LeadershipIn beginning of 1950s, focus of leadership research shifted away from leader traits to leaders behaviors. Purpose of this research was that the behavior exhibited by the leaders is more important than their physical, mental, emotional traits or internal state. Beh avioral theories differentiate between effective leaders from ineffectual leaders. Behavioral theories of leadership are based on the belief that great leaders are made, not born. According to this theory, people support learn to become leaders through training and observations, thus, anyone can become a leader if they want to. Leadership is composed of devil normal kinds of behaviors job behavior and relationship behavior. Task behavior focus on goal accomplishment and friend low-levels in achieving their behavior charm relationship behavior help subordinates to looking at comfortable at workplace. Central focus of this approach is to examine how leaders combine these deuce types of behavior in order to make subordinates to drop their efforts to reach a goal.Many studies have been conducted to investigate the behavioral approach. several(prenominal) of the first studies were conducted at Ohio State University in late 1940s. At the kindred time, another group of research ers at Michigan University were studying leadership functions. These studies sparked hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely used.The Ohio StudiesGroup of researchers at Ohio studies examine how a group of individuals acted when they were leading a group or organization. For this purpose, stop questionnaire about leader was developed on that questionnaire, subordinates had to identify the no. of measure their leaders engaged in certain kind of behavior. Questionnaire was composed of one hundred fifty questions and was c whollyed 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 found that respondents responses on the questionnaire clustered around two general types of leaders behavior Initiating Structure and Consideration (Stogdill, 1974). Ini tiating Structure sometimes called labor-oriented behavior, involves planning, organizing and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration involves showing concern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates accomplishments, and providing for subordinates welfare.Many studies have been conducted to take care which ardour of leadership is close effective in a peculiar(a) situation.In some contexts, in utmost spirits consideration has been found to be to the highest tier 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 out gimmick 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 govern the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job satisfaction. The studies resulted in two gen eral leadership behaviors or preferences an employee penchant and action orientation (Likert). Leaders with an employee orientation showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations, while those with a production orientation focused on the labour 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 power systemThe behavioral dimensions from early behavioral leadership studies provided the basis for the development of a two dimensional grid for appraising leadership demeanor. One ideal 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 apologise how leaders help organizations to reach their purposes through two factors concern for production and concer n for people. It closely parallels the idea and findings that emerged in the Ohio State and University of Michigan Studies. furbish up for production refers to how a leader is concerned 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 placed on swimming axis and leaders concern for people has been placed on upright piano axis. Leaders behavior was ranked on a casing of 1 (Low) to 9(high). The grid has 81 potential categories into which a leaders behavioral bolt might fall, emphasis was placed on five authority compliancy (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 degree of participation and team work in the organization a satisfied a b asic need in employees to be baffling and committed to their work. Team management approach cannot be affective in all situations. So leaders have to adapt their style concord 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 observe a consistent relationship led to a new focus on situational make up ones minds. 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 mid-sixties 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 visit 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 lead things leader follower relationship, task structures and the position power. Situation is constructive when followers respect and trust the lea der, the task is passing structured and leader has learn over rewards and punishments.To measure leaders style, Fiedler developed Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Questionnaire. In questionnaire researcher used 16 pairs of telephone lineing procedurals like delicateworking-not hardworking, friendly-unfriendly. Leaders were asked to bring forward 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 negative 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 favorable situation or highly unfavorable situation while relationship oriented leaders perform better in moderat e 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 support many of specific propositions of the theory, the Fiedler model provided evidence that effective leadership style needed to consider 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 line up their style (behavioral approach). Secondly, Fiedler define situation covering three dimensions namely leader-follower relationship, task structure and positio n power while Hersey and Blanchard defined situation as a function of followers matureness/task related maturity of subordinates. Followers maturity is indicated by followers readiness to perform in a given situation. Readiness is largely based on two major factors-follower ability and follower combine. Situational leadership theory uses the same two leadership dimensions that Fiedler identified task and relationship behavior. However, Hersey and Blanchard go a grade 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.High active StylesShare IdeasFollowers able, unwilling,not self-assuredSelling Style explicate 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 Medium Maturity, especial(a) 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 unloose 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 behavio r from one situation to another (Draft 1999). Vroom and Jago 2007investigated that overwhelming focus of this theory was on one situational variable (the 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 form 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 mansion house (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 motivate if they thin k they are capable of performing their work ( passageway 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. hearth (1971) identifies four leaders behavior. These are achievement oriented, guiding, 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 behav ior, 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 depending 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 impact 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 grouchy work context (Northouse, 2007).Environmental contingency factorsTask Design uncomplicated WorkgroupFormal System of AuthorityLeaders Behavior OutcomesDirective featSupportive Job satisfactionParticipativeAchievement OrientedSubordinates Contingence Factors comprehend level of task obtainedLocus of ControlNeed for affiliation dictatorshipExperienceThe theory proposes that leaders behavior will be ineffective when its redundant with sources of environmental structure or incongruent with follower characteristics. When followers needs are there, there is desire for leader discourse. Moreover, he described certain situations in which leaders encumbrances 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 dep endent upon work settings. In some work settings leaders intervention is highly economic valued while in others have no value or even considered as negative. Later on, this notion became base for growth of substitutes for leadership and followers need for leadership.