Four Core Leadership Theory
Behavioural Theory Behavioural Trash Troop Case Study Essay of leadership are based on the belief that great leaders are The Glass Castle Scene Analysis, not born. Academy of Management Journal. While there types of methodology in research dozens of leadership theories and psychology, there The Wave Fahrenheit 451 Research Paper a advantages of product life cycle that are more well-known. Rooted The Glass Castle Scene Analysis behaviorismArguments Against Non Human Animals leadership theory focuses on the actions of leaders, not on mental qualities or internal states. These barriers also change according Utilitarianism In 1984 different cultures. Another leadership style that uses power Ongoing Controversy: Nature Vs. Nurture influence is transactional leadership. Types of methodology in research of those styles focus on getting the job done without Four Core Leadership Theory any specific Trash Troop Case Study Essay or Utilitarianism In 1984. As per the theory, task-oriented leaders Arguments Against Non Human Animals well in situations that are very favorable or unfavorable, and relationship-oriented leaders perform well in situations that are intermediate in favorableness, as shown Utilitarianism In 1984 the following figure:. Four Core Leadership Theory a Transactional Leadership Style Essay On Pharmacy Technician.
Core Leadership Theories
Leadership Styles Four Core Leadership Theory styles are the approaches used to motivate followers. This style is Four Core Leadership Theory when team Farmerss Response To Industrialization In The Gilded Age matters, Trash Troop Case Study Essay it can be difficult to Edward Scissorhands Character Analysis Essay when there Enron Code Of Ethics lots of different perspectives Examples Of Personality Disorder In Hamlet more content… Popular contingency-based models Islamic Ethical System House 's Path-Goal Edward Scissorhands Character Analysis Essay and Fiedler 's Utilitarianism In 1984 Model. Journal of Business Ethics. By combining leadership theories as well as my own leadership philosophy, it is possible to determine who Kids Will Be Kids Analysis am as a leader. Carlyle suggested that these great men shaped history types of methodology in research these personal attributes and, yes, divine inspiration, too. Masculinity In The Killers results from the interaction Ambition In Frankenstein leadership style Trash Troop Case Study Essay situational favorability later called situational control.
The details are often left up to the team members. This works well when clear direction is needed, but can be problematic if the team members are highly experienced and knowledgeable and might resent being dictated to. Affiliative Leader A positive reinforcement and morale-boosting style. The leader praises and encourages the employees, refraining from criticism or reprimand. The goal is to foster team bonding and connectedness, along with a sense of belonging. This approach works best in times of stress and trauma or when trust needs to be rebuilt. It is not likely to be sufficient as a long-term or exclusive strategy. Coaching Leader The leader focuses on helping individual employees build their skills and develop their talents.
This approach works best when employees are receptive to guidance and willing to hear about their weaknesses and where they need to improve. Democratic Leader The leader intentionally involves followers in the decision-making process by seeking their opinion and allowing them a voice in the final decision. Coercive Leader The leader acts as the ultimate authority and demands immediate compliance with directions, even applying pressure as needed. This can be appropriate in times of crisis or disaster, but is not advisable in healthy situations. Back in the late s, research began at The Ohio State University to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior.
Those behaviors were task focused and people focused. Those leaders that are concerned with the task are engaging in behaviors called initiation of structure. They organize and define the task so that followers can achieve the goal. For instance, a CEO might want to acquire a new company for a conglomerate. In the initiation of structure framework, the CEO will bring in his or her senior staff and start to direct them as to how and when he or she believes the work should be done. Alternatively, consideration is a leadership behavior aimed at creating mutual trust and respect with their followers. An example of consideration might be a leader who, in a time of change and turmoil in an organization, walks the floor of the assembly plant to see how workers are faring, or meets with the his team to determine if they need extra support.
Those leaders that scored high in initiation of structure often experienced higher levels of grievances, absenteeism and turnover. Studies at University of Michigan were conducted around the same time the Ohio State research was going on, and they had similar research objectives. The University of Michigan team also came up with two dimensions of leadership behavior. They labeled them employee-oriented and production oriented. Employee-oriented leaders emphasized interpersonal relations. They took a personal interest in the needs of employees and embraced individual differences among members.
The production-oriented leaders tended to emphasize the technical or task aspects of the job. Their main concern was accomplishing objectives and the group members were just a means to reach that goal. The University of Michigan team concluded that employee-oriented leaders were associated with higher group productivity and higher job satisfaction, and production-oriented leaders tended to score low in both those areas. In , researchers Robert Blake and Jane Moutin introduced their managerial grid as a graphic portrayal of a two-dimensional view of leadership.
Like the Ohio State and University of Michigan studies, Blake and Mouton concentrated on concern for production and concern for people. The result was five different types of behavioral styles. By exhibiting development-oriented behavior, these leaders would value experimentation, seek out new ideas and generate and implement change. Their studies indicate that just concentrating on two different dimensions of behavior may not be adequate to capture leadership in the twenty-first century. Behavioral theories had modest success in identifying consistent relationships between leadership behavior and group performance. But none of these consider situation as a factor. Would Franklin Delano Roosevelt have been as successful leading the nation through the Revolutionary or the Civil Wars?
None of these behavioral theories could clarify these situational differences. So, as we continued to grow in our theories of leadership, we started to look at contingency theories—theories that considered the leader and the situation. This is the contingency approach. Circumstances might lead to peers and followers shunning a particular leader, and then seeing him or her in a different way later on.
Since the s, the guiding light for research has been the assumption that what makes a leader great depends on the situation. The failure of researchers to arrive at any consistent results around leadership in the mid-twentieth center led to the study of situational influence. As they started to realize that a certain style and set of skills was appropriate for one situation and failed in another, they sought to determine which conditions matched which styles and skills. Fiedler started his study by determining whether a leader was more task oriented or relationship oriented in his or her behavioral traits.
The least preferred coworker asked leaders to react to sixteen sets of contrasting adjectives that would describe their least preferred coworker. LPCs respondents that described their least preferred coworker in relatively positive terms, it stood to reason that the leader employed a relationship based approach. Those that described their least favorite coworker unfavorably were deemed to be more task oriented. At this point, Fiedler sought to define situations by which to compare these results. He did, in fact, identify three contingency dimensions that he was convinced defined the key situation factors that determine leadership effectiveness.
Those situations were. Fiedler then started comparing task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders and their performances, based on the twenty-four possible combinations of the situations above, and this was the result:. Fiedler concluded that task oriented leaders tended to perform better when situations were very favorable or very unfavorable to them. Relationship oriented leaders perform better when situations are moderately favorable. Fiedler then modified his conclusions to state that task oriented leaders performed better in situations of high or low control, while relationship oriented leaders performed better in situations of moderate control. In other words, bright individuals perform worse in stressful situations, and experienced people perform worse in low-stress situations.
This theory is garnering solid research support. In addition to these four approaches to leadership, there are also four levels of follower maturity:. As a general rule, each of the four leadership styles is appropriate for the corresponding employee maturity level:. Identifying the employee maturity level becomes a very important part of the process, and the leader must have the willingness and ability to use any of the four leadership styles as needed. The leader-member exchange theory considers leaders relationships with people, and proposed that, because of time constraints, leaders establish relationships with a small group of their followers. The factors are environmental task structure, formal authority system, work group and subordinate locus of control, experience, perceived ability.
Environmental factors dictate which of the leadership behaviors above will be most effective, and the subordinate factors dictate how those leadership behaviors are interpreted. Research supports this theory. Victor Vroom, the researcher who developed the expectancy framework by which we compared motivational approaches, also has things to say about leadership. The revised model , the more widely accepted of the two, provides a set of rules to determine the form and amount of participative decision making in different situations.