Leadership Theories in Organisations

Leadership Theories in Organisations

Introduction

The examination of leadership as a group and organizational phenomenon has been the focus of both theoretical and empirical analysis for more than half a century (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). Literally thousands of articles, papers, and books on the topic have examined and probed leadership from every conceivable angle. Social scientists of many persuasions such as organizational theorists, political scientists (e.g., Burns, 1978), psychoanalysts (e.g., Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975), psychologists (e.g., Hollander and Offermann, 1990), and sociologists (e.g., Bradley, 1987) have explored the enigmatic nature of leadership. They have proposed various analytical frameworks and focused on different content and process aspects of leadership across a broad range of contexts. As a result, there is a wide range of theories of leadership with supporting empirical studies within each advocacy group. These multidisciplinary approaches have also spoken different languages specific to their own disciplines. Their levels of analyses are equally diverse: behavioural and organizational, individual and interactional, process and structural. That said, there are certain basic assumptions that are widely shared across this diverse range of leadership scholars.

Before 1980, social and organizational behaviour research on leadership focused on observable, short-term, leader-follower relations: relations on the micro level.

Evolution of Leadership Theories

Traditional transactional paradigms and exchange theories of leadership failed to account for the effects on leader-follower relations of vision, symbolism, and imaging. The transactional leader adapts to the organizational culture; the transformational leader changes it. As conceived by Burns (1978), transformational leaders motivate followers to do more than they originally expected to do as they strive for higher order outcomes.

In an early study, 70 South African senior executives were asked if any had experienced a transformational leader in their career: everyone was able to describe such a leader. Their leaders motivated them to extend themselves, to develop, and become more innovative. They were led to higher levels of commitment to the organization as a consequence of belief in the leader and in themselves.

The executives' statements and those from the literature on charisma (see charismatic leadership) and managerial leadership, after refinement and validation studies, formed the basis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). This measures four interrelated factors (the 4 I's):

Idealized Influence: Leaders become a source of admiration, often functioning as role models for their followers. They enhance follower pride, loyalty, and confidence and align followers through identification with the leaders around a common purpose or vision.

Inspirational Motivation: Leaders articulate in simple ways an appealing vision and provide meaning and a sense of purpose in what needs to be done.

Intellectual Stimulation: Leaders stimulate their followers to view the world from new perspectives; that is, to question old assumptions, values, and beliefs, and move toward new perspectives.

Individualized Consideration: Leaders diagnose and elevate the needs of each of their followers. They promote the development of their followers, emphasize equity, and treat each follower as an individual.

Transactional leadership, which involves a reinforcing exchange of reward or punishment by the leader for follower compliance, yields the factors of:

Contingent Reward ...