Effects of Situations on Leadership Styles (Term Paper Sample)

Effects of Situations on Leadership Styles
Name:
Institution:
Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc443052836 \h 31.0. The Heroic Definition of Leadership PAGEREF _Toc443052837 \h 42.0. A Pure Situational Theory PAGEREF _Toc443052838 \h 53.0. Fred Fiedler’s Contingency Model PAGEREF _Toc443052839 \h 74.0. The Path-Goal Theory PAGEREF _Toc443052840 \h 85.0. The Hersey-Blanchard Model PAGEREF _Toc443052841 \h 96.0. Tannenbaum & Schmidt’s Leadership Continuum PAGEREF _Toc443052842 \h 117.0. John Adair’s Action-Centered Leadership Model PAGEREF _Toc443052843 \h 128.0. A Compendium of Situational Effects on Leadership PAGEREF _Toc443052844 \h 13Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc443052845 \h 16References PAGEREF _Toc443052846 \h 18
Introduction
Society is inundated with terminologies. One such term is "leadership." The term is common in almost every aspect of organized society. Politicians, business executives, religious personalities, and the media all proclaim the term. However, our understanding of the term appears to be relative, and the plethora of research on the subject remains insufficient to render a complete understanding of the term. One of the major challenges with defining the term "leadership" lies in the fact that the lacks a scientific and formal explanation (Vecchio, 1987). The lack of standardization in definition has created a taxonomical confusion with regards to the definition of the term. The common thread that cuts through all the definitions supplied for the term is that all the definitions evince a situation where there is the common thread that cuts through all the definitions supplied for the term is that all the definitions evince a situation where there is the exercise of influence over a group of individuals.
The common factor in leadership is that there can be no leader without a follower (s). In this way, it is possible to conceive of leadership as encompassing the influential source, the interaction that makes the exercise of influence possible as well as the thinking process that that source participates in to bring about leadership qualities. Influence can occur in a myriad ways. It can occur through the use of threats, punishments, rewards, and even through the application of logic and reason. Additionally, influence can also be exercised through acts of inspiration, where the leader manages to appeal to some emotional or aesthetic quality in the follower (de. In business and political organizations, leadership is associated with efficiency and efficacy. Thus, a good leader is one who can get results. In other words, the exercise of leadership involves not only the ability to influence others but also the ability to use that influence to achieve the objectives of the organization, group or entity. Some scholars reject associating leadership with the objectives of the organization or entity (Graeff, 1997). Thus, one can be an effective leader without first evidencing the efficacy of such leadership in attaining the goals of the entity.
Consequently, leadership, broadly understood, encompasses the following qualities:
* It is more of a process than a quality or property that can be owned.
* Leadership entails motivation.
* The incentives for leadership whether innate or extrinsic, do not form part of the definition of leadership.
* The exercise of influence is in conjunction with the attainment of certain goals or objectives.
* Whatever great things that leadership achieves, they can only be appreciated by the influencer and the influenced. Parties not part of the relationship may not be able to appreciate the impact of leadership, since it can be relative.
Two theories define leadership in great detail. The great man theory proposes that it is those that possess certain desirable qualities that are able to influence others to follow them, irrespective of the circumstances or the times. In other words, when the history of the world is finally written, the reader or observer notices that it corresponds to the biographies of great men and women. The zeitgeist theory, on the other hand, proposes that it is the spirit of the times that make a leader. This situational theory is what forms the focus of this discussion.
1.0. The Heroic Definition of Leadership
The great man theory developed by thinkers such as Nietzsche and Galton conceptualized leadership as the manifestation of great character traits that existed independent of situational factors. According to this heroic conceptualization of leadership, personality traits made one a leader, and these leadership qualities will be performed irrespective of whatever circumstances one found himself or herself in. Psychologists such as William James propounded the theory that great men would lead men into directions that they (great men) thought were proper for humanity. Such a contention led researchers such as Bass and Stogdill (1990) to test the William James’ hypothesis. Stogdill reported that an analysis of leadership could not obscure the role played by situations in defining their leadership qualities (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Modern research into leadership must account for the role played by situational factors in creating effective leaders. Studying situational factors acts as a determinant for leadership expression or as a tool that moderates the variables that affect leadership.
The philosophies of Hegel and Spencer respond to the heroic definition of leadership by conceptualizing leadership or great men as merely reacting to the social forces of the day (situations). As a result, these "great men" would order their affairs to anticipate the social forces, a phenomenon that makes them visible as leaders (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Without anticipating certain situational factors and social forces and aligning one’s life to respond effectively to the challenges that present themselves, it is impossible to talk of leaders. Leadership does not exist in a vacuum: it is as a result of structural interactions in an ecosystem.
2.0. A Pure Situational Theory
The situational theory posits that leaders are merely responding to social forces and that the traits that they evince are reflections of the means by which they are selected, and their behavior is only a response to the constraints they encounter in the process (Graeff, 1997). For added clarity, the situational theory, which recognizes the role played by environmental factors, treats leadership as a dependent variable. Leadership cannot be an independent variable because it its execution depends on the situations prevailing at a given moment. Salancik & Pfeffer (1977) conducted longitudinal studies to investigate this situational theory and concluded that the character traits and behavioral dispositions of the leader act to mediate between the structural and organizational outcomes. This point could be observed in companies or organizations that are undergoing change. According to Salancik & Pfeffer (1977), changes transitional processes rarely evidence the impact of leadership on organizational outcomes. Instead, they lend credence to the proposition that leaders are the bridge that acts to bring together outcomes and structural antecedents. The impact of leadership in the structural theory can be likened to a driver attempting to navigate a skidding car. The outcomes could be favorable or disastrous, but whatever happens, the factors that will determine the outcomes are largely beyond the control of the driver (Cohen & March, 1974, p.203).
The pure situational theory envisages that the personal attributes of a leader tend to be irrelevant in achieving organizational success, and it has three limbs (assumptions):
* Leaders tend to have less power than is attributed to them.
* Candidates seeking leadership positions usually go through similar tests and screening processes, meaning their individual differences are mostly eliminated.
* The remaining individual differences are largely overwhelmed by the leadership roles the leaders assume.
In such instances, and applying these assumptions, individual differences may be irrelevant in determining effective leadership. However, this position can be challenged on the basis that most of the assumptions are not valid at all material times. Sometimes, individuals selected to leadership positions may have little differences due to vetting, but this does not preclude the fact that individual differences may still exist. Further, most of the challenges of leadership are ambiguous and mutate according to situations (Vecchio, 1987). Therefore, room is left for the expression of individual differences, which may distinguish between an effective leadership and an ineffective one. How leaders respond to moments of uncertainty may depend on their peculiar traits, which end up making all the difference. These contentions make the pure situational theory inapplicable to leadership. Researchers and theorists opt for a theory that takes into account the individual differences as well as situational differences when defining effective leadership.
3.0. Fred Fiedler’s Contingency Model
Fiedler’s contingency model accounts for individuated traits and situational factors in its definition of leadership. Fiedler divided leadership roles into two: relationship and task- motivated. This distinction generates two leadership types. Fielder also created eight situational circumstances that are affected by the leadership types. Fred Fiedler concluded in his dichotomy of leadership that the various leadership styles had one thing in common (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). The common strain is that the leadership motivations of a leader will remain unchanged in the face of situations. It is immobile and enduring, thereby helping leaders approach a situation with var...