Approaches to leadership

THERE ARETHREE TYPES of approaches by which leadership could be examined – One-Dimensional: Approaches that focus on traits and characteristics that make up a leader according to Clark & Clark, 1990.The Two-Dimensional: Approaches that moved away from traits and examined the behaviours that make great leaders according to Halpin and Windder, 1957; and finally, the Multi- Dimensional Approaches. The theories in the Multi-Dimensional Approaches argue that context plays a critical role in how a leader performs and is perceived. Over the next few weeks we will revisit one of my favourite subjects – leadership. We explore the transformational vs transactional leader as well as the leader- member exchange theory.

There are several academic researches on the topic of leadership traits and skills. For example, Lord, Devader, & Alliger, 1986; Stogdill 1974 conducted studies that seek to identify traits and skills that foretell if a person will pursue a career in leadership or if he/she will emerge as an informal leader of a group.

Other studies by Bass, 1990; Boyatzis, 1982, seek to determine how existing traits and skills of managers are used to measure their effectiveness as leaders in their current position. Baray, Campbell & Grant, 1974; Howard & Bray, 1988; McClelland Boyatzis, 1982; Miner, 1978; also conducted research to determine traits and skills that predict advancement to higher levels of management.

There are also studies by McCall & Lombardo, 1933; McCartney & Campbell, 2006, that compare those who successfully advanced to top management to those who initially advanced and then derailed because they were separated, plateaued or took early retirement.

In times past we have discussed whether leaders were born or made. Scholars such as Stogdill, 1974; Bass 1990, 2008; Judge et al 2009, argue that some traits and skills increase a person’s chances of being effective as a leader but they do not guarantee effectiveness. Scholars claim that a certain trait or skill may facilitate effectiveness in certain situations, but deem ineffective in other situations. It is argued that managers who derail are likely those who project their weaknesses on their followers. They are likely to be managers who, instead of taking ownership of weaknesses and failures, behave defensive, try to cover them up or blame someone else for them. On the other hand, managers who are successful are likely to be those who take ownership of failures, admit to mistakes, take responsibility for unfavourable outcomes and prioritise actions to rectify problems. Additionally, when the problems have been fixed, they move on, instead of dwelling on them.

Studies also revealed that managers who derail are likely those who are weaker in interpersonal skills.

Insensitivity that is acted on in the form of intimidation or abrasive behaviour towards others result in their derailment. On the other hand, managers who succeed are more likely to be those who are people focused and task oriented.

They are considerate to the needs of their employees and motivate them to get the job done. They do not get caught up in competing with rivals or impressing their superiors.

McCall and Lambardo, 1983, argue that over-ambition sometimes contributes to managers’ derailment.

When managers become too ambitious, they take the focus off people and put it on advancing their career, often, at the expense of others. This level of ambition often leads to betrayal, broken promises and distrust.

Several scholars have argued that there are specific traits that are related to leadership effectiveness.

For example, high energy and stress tolerance. Bass, 1990, Howard & Bray, 1988, argue that there is an association between physical strength, energy level, and stress tolerance with managerial effectiveness.

They claim that managers are better able to cope with the demanding schedule, long hours, relenting and hectic jobs associated with management if they have high energy level and stress tolerance. Other traits include self-confidence, internal locus of control and orientation, emotional maturity, personal integrity and socialised power motivation.

In closing, we look at the relationship between self-confidence and leadership. Bass, 1990, concluded that there is a relationship between a leader’s self-confidence, self-efficacy and effectiveness and advancement of the leader. By examining how self-confidence impacts the behaviour of a leader, it was determined that a leader without self-confidence is less likely to be influential. Self-confidence fuels a leader’s influence attempts. It was determined that leaders with high self-confidence are more likely to attempt difficult tasks and set challenging objectives for their followers. Confident leaders are problem solvers. Paglis & Green, 2002, argue that leaders with self-confidence take more initiatives to solve problems and make clear desirable changes. Finally, Kouzes & Posner, 1987, claim that those who have high expectations for themselves will also have high expectations for others. On the other hand, Kipnis & Lane, 1962, argue that leaders with low self-confidence, shift responsibilities and delay dealing with difficult issues.

Join us again next week as we explore more of the specific traits related to effective leadership.

Source: Leadership in Organization by GaryYukl 8th edition.