Leadership

What type of process is leadership?

where an indv infl a grp of indvs to achieve a common goal

Define leadership

•The ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute towards the effectiveness and success of the organisation of which they are members’ (House, 2004)

What do trait theories of leadership argue?

argue that leaders possess inherent characteristic that make them effecitve, rooted in early Great Man theories (early 1900s) which assumed leadership is innate rather than developed

key traits identified inc intelligence, self confidence, determination, integrity, sociability

later work links this to personality, esp the big 5 model (Goldberg, 1990)

What is supporting evidence for trait theories of leadership?

judge et al did a meta-analysis which found extraversion is the strongest predictor of leadership , followed by conscientiousness and openness

low neuroticism linked to effective leadership

provides strong empirical support that personality traits do matter

What are some critiques of trait theories of leadership?

lack of situational consideration - assumes leadership is stable across contexts but leadership effectiveness varies dep on task, env and followers - ignores situational factors - later addressed by contingency theories

descriptive not explanatory - identifies traits but doesnt explain how traits lead to effective leadership and why they matter- Stogdill argued that no consistent set of traits guarantees leadership across all situations

methodological issues - endless trait lists means a lack of consistency - reliance on correlational research - cant establish causality

limited practical application - if leadership is innate, it cannot be easily taught or developed - weak for training and leadership dv

Why are trait theories still valuable?

bc they provide baseline characteristics for leadership selection and offers insight into indv dfrs but they are insufficient alone to expl leadership effectiveness

What does the five factor model (Goldberg , 1990) provde?

a structured way to understand per traits linked to leadership

What are the 5 factors mentioned in the FFM?

extraversion - tendency to be sociable and assertive and have ois energy

neuroticism - depressed, anx, insecure etc

openness - informed, creating and curious

agreeableness - be accepting, comforting trusting

conscientiousness - thorough, organised, decisve

What did Judge et al find about the trait theory (2002)

meta-analysis found -

Extraversion = strongest predictor of leadership

Conscientiousness = strong predictor of performance

Openness = relevant for leadership emergence

Low neuroticism = more effective leadership

Agreeableness = weakest link

How does Judge et al’s work strengthen trait theory?

empirically supported and based on clear framework, not random trait lists

What is a strength of the FFM and trait theory?

meta analytic evidence and more reliable than early great man ideas - judge et al demonstrated consistent links bt traits and leadership - stronger credibility through empirical work

intuitively appealing - bc they align with everyday beliefs that leaders possess certain qualities sa confidence and intelligence - enhances face validity of trait approaches, as followers often expect leaders to embody specific personal characteristics - can also be a weakness bc common sense does not mean scientific accuracy

provides benchmarks for leader selection - trait theory offers clear criteria for identifying leadership potential - useful in recruitment and selection - helps organisations identify high potential indvs -

What is critiqued about FFM and trait theories?

ignores context and situational factors - even with FFM, traits don’t guarantee effectiveness in all situations sa high extraversion may work in sales but not necessarily in crisis roles - unrealistic by assuming leadership is stable across contexts - overlooks how effectiveness is contingent upon cxtual factors sa task demands and follower characteristics

predicts emergence over effectiveness - good at explaining who becomes a leader but less good expl who is a good leader

reductionist - reduces leadership to personality and ignores skills and experience

early trait theorists produced inconsistent and overly broad lists of traits - lacks conceptual clarity - hard to determine which traits are essential for effective leadership - stogdill found no universal set

limited usefulness for training and dv - if leadership is based on innate traits - cannot be easily taught - offers limited practical value bc it conceptualises leadership as inherent quality

What does high conscientious have the highest correlation with?

overall job performance (Sacket and Walmsley, 2014)

What does the trait theory provide direction to?

which traits are good to have if one aspires to a leadership position

What can indvs determine through personality tests and questionnaires?

whether they have the select leadership traits and can pinpoint their strengths and weaknesses

What can the trait theory be used by?

by managers to assess where they stand within their organization and what is needed to strengthen their position

What are some leadership traits?

Intelligence , Self-confidence, Determination, Integrity, Sociability

What do behavioural theories of leadership do>

shift focus from who leaders are to what leaders do - argues that leadership is defined by observable bvs rather than innate traits

What do bv theories identify?

2 key bv types

task bvs - goal focused - structure, organisation, results

rs bvs - people focused - support, trust, wellbeing

What are strengths of the bv theory?

moves beyond trait theory - conceptualise leadership as something that can be learned and dvlped - makes it more practical and applicable to training

clear and measurable - focus on observable bvs - distinction bt task and rs bvs, supported by studies, provides simple and empirically grounded fw for understanding leadership - easier to study, teach and evaluate - stronger operationalisation than traits -

practical application - widely used in leadership training, performance evaluation - enables leaders to assess and modify their own bvs - actually useful in real orgs unlike trait theory

What are criticisms of the bv theory?

no single best style - assumes high task and high rs is best - research doesnt consistently support this - oversimplifies leadership effectiveness and is not always appropriate

ignores situational factors - like tt, it fails to fully account for context - effectiveness depends on followers, task complexity and env

weak link to performance outcomes - bv doesnt always predict performance or success - lack of consistent empirical evidence, demonstrating a clear rs bt leadership styles and POs - weakens predictive validity

no universal leadership style - fails to recognise leadership effectiveness is contingent upon situational factors sa follower characteristics and organisational context - highlights need for more flexible, contingency based approaches to leadership

What are the Ohio State Studies? (1940s-50s)

used the leadership bv description questionnaire and asked followers to rate leader bvs

found 2 idp dimensions - initiating structure which is task focused and consideration which is rs focused

leaders can be high or low on both - strong evidence that leadership is bv not traits

What are the University of Michigan Studies?

studied leaders in workplace settings and focused on grp performance

found 2 styles - employee oriented leaders which focus on rs and wellbeing and then production oriented leaders which focus on tasks and efficiency - initially seen as opposite ends - later understood as separate dimensions

employee oriented leadership linked to higher sats and performance

What is Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid? (1964)

combined both ideas into a grid model - concern for production (task) and concern for people (rs)

high-high = ideal - team leadership

practical tool for training and dv and used widely in organisations

What did the OS, Michigan and BM studies identify?

task and rs bvs as central to leadership but their assumption of a universally optimal style is limited

What are many leadership training and dv programs developed based on?

bv theory

What does the situational approach of leadership say?

effectiveness of leadership is determined not just by leader’s traits or bv but is dependent on situational factors sa nature of task, follower and other situational characteristics (Hersey & Blanchard; Blanchard et al., 2013)

there is no single best leadership style - effective leadership depends on the competence and commitment of followers

What must leaders do according to the situational approach?

adapt their style based on follower development

What are the dvlpment levels in the situational approach?

the degree to which followers have the competence and commitment necessary to accomplish a given actvity/task

What are the follower dvlpment levels?

D1 → low competence, high commitment → need directing

D2 → low competence, low commitment → need coaching

D3 → high competence, variable commitment → need supporting

D4 → high competence, high commitment → need delegating

What are strengths of the situational approach?

addresses prev theories - overcomes limitations of trait and bv theories by explicitly incorporating contextual and follower-related variables

practical and flexible - easy to apply in real organisations and emphasises leader adaptability - highly relevant for leadership training and management practice

follower centred - recognises that leadership is not just about the leader but the needs and dv of followers

What are criticisms of the situational approach?

weak empirical support - despite its popularity, there is limited robust empirical evidence supporting the model’s assumptions

overly simplistic - reduces leadership to 2 bvs and 4 follower types - real life is more complex

measurement issues - hard to accurately assess competence and commitment - leads to subjectivity

What are the 2 leadership styles acc to the situational approach?

directive bvs - help grp members in goal achievement via one way communication through giving directions, establishing goals and how to achieve them etc

supportive bvs - assist grp via 2 way comm in feeling comfortable with themselves, co-workers and situation sa problem solving and praising

What does the leader-member exchange theory view leadership as?

a process that is centered on the interactions between a leader and followers

What is the LMX theory?

leadership is not just abt the leader but the quality of rs bt leader and each follower (Dansereau et al 1975)

leaders dvlp diff rs with diff subordinates - lmx shifts leadership from what leaders do to rs and interactions

What are the diff rs leaders can build acc to LMX?

in group - high quality rs - more trust, opportunities and communication leading to better performance and more commitment

out grp - low qual rs, more formal distant interaction - less support, lower motivation and fewer opportunities

What are strengths of the LMX?

focus on rs - one of the few theories which places leader-foll rs at centre of lp - moves beyond leader only models and recognises leadership as relational and social

strong empirical support - high quality lmx linked to better performance and lower turnover (Graen and Uhl Bien 1995)

realistic - reflects real workplaces - leaders dont treat everyone equally

emphasises communication - highlights imp of high qual communication and trust in dvlping effective leadership rs - links to organisational comm and engagement

What are some criticisms of the LMX?

unfair, discriminatory - can legitimise unequal treatment of employees through ingrp/out grp distinctions - unethical and can lead to issues of organisational justice

lack of clarity in measurement - hard to define and measure quality of rs - raises concerns abt reliability of findings

doesnt expl how rs form - desc dfrs in rs but does not fully expl how/why these dfrs develop

What did early LMX research focus on?

dfrs bt igs and ogs - highlighting unequal rs (Dansereau et al 1975) (relational dfrs)

later research moved beyond just desc dfrs to examining how lmx impacts organisational effectiveness (organisational outcomes)

What did later work show?

high quality exchanges lead to leaders having better communication, followers higher sats, grps better cohesion and orgs improved effectiveness (Graen and Uhl-Bein, 1995)

however the benefits of high qual exchanges are not equally distb - raising concerns abt fairness and potential ig bias