Домашняя кошка

Reemergence of trait theory[edit]

New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round-robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.[29] Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:

• Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.[29]
• Significant relationships exist between leadership emergence and such individual traits as:
• Intelligence[30]
• Adjustment[30]
• Extraversion[30]
• Conscientiousness[31][32]
• Openness to experience[32][33]
• General self-efficacy[34][35]

While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks.[36]

Specifically, Stephen Zaccaro noted that trait theories still:[36]

• focus on a small set of individual attributes such as the "Big Five" personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills
• fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes
• do not distinguish between the leadership attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences
• do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership

Attribute pattern approach[edit]

Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers adopted a different perspective of leader individual differences—the leader-attribute-pattern approach.[35][37][38] In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader-attribute-pattern approach is based on theorists' arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of individual variables.[38][39] In other words, the leader-attribute-pattern approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.

Behavioral and style theories[edit]

Main article: Managerial grid model

In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors by evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles.[40] David McClelland, for example, posited that leadership requires a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.[41]

A graphical representation of the managerial grid model

Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.[42]

In 1945, Ohio State University conducted a study which investigated observable behaviors portrayed by effective leaders. They identified particular behaviors that were reflective of leadership effectiveness. They narrowed their findings to two dimensions.[43][full citation needed] The first dimension, "initiating structure", described how a leader clearly and accurately communicates with the followers, defines goals, and determines how tasks are performed. These are considered "task oriented" behaviors. The second dimension, "consideration", indicates the leader's ability to build an interpersonal relationship with their followers, and to establish a form of mutual trust. These are considered "social oriented" behaviors.[44][full citation needed]

The Michigan State Studies, which were conducted in the 1950s, made further investigations and findings that positively correlated behaviors and leadership effectiveness. Although they had similar findings as the Ohio State studies, they also contributed an additional behavior identified in leaders: participative behavior (also called "servant leadership"), or allowing the followers to participate in group decision making and encouraged subordinate input. This entails avoiding controlling types of leadership and allows more personal interactions between leaders and their subordinates.[45][full citation needed]

The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964. It suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.[46]

Positive reinforcement[edit]

B. F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior, which increases the likelihood of that behavior in the future.[47] The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time.[48]

Positive reinforcement is a successful technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase productivity.[49] Empirical research covering the last 20 years[needs update] suggests that applying reinforcement theory leads to a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher performance for lower costs.

Situational and contingency theories[edit]

Main articles: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom–Yetton decision model, path–goal theory, and Substitutes for Leadership Theory

Situational theory is another reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around.[50] This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics: no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions."[51]

Some theorists synthesized the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al.,[52] academics normalized the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style works better in. The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.[53] Theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation; this is sometimes called contingency theory. Three contingency leadership theories are the Fiedler contingency model, the Vroom-Yetton decision model, and the path-goal theory.

The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorability (later called situational control). The theory defines two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented).[54] According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability.

Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton[55] and later with Arthur Jago,[56] developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations. They used this in a normative decision model in which leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation.[57] This approach supported the idea that a manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.[58]

The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom.[59] According to House, "leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance".[60] The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that are contingent to environment factors and follower characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.

Functional theory[edit]

Main article: Functional leadership model

General Petraeus talks with U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

Functional leadership theory[61][full citation needed] addresses specific leader behaviors that contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leader's main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion.[62][full citation needed] While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership,[63][full citation needed] it has also been effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as well.[64][full citation needed] In summarizing literature on functional leadership, researchers[65][full citation needed] observed five broad functions a leader performs when promoting organization's effectiveness. These functions include environmental monitoring, organizing subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates, motivating others, and intervening actively in the group's work.

Various leadership behaviors facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman observed that subordinates perceived their supervisors' behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure.[66][full citation needed] Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those standards.

Integrated psychological theory[edit]

Main article: Three Levels of Leadership model

The Integrated Psychological Theory of leadership attempts to integrate the strengths of the older theories (i.e. traits, behavioral/styles, situational and functional) while addressing their limitations, introducing a new element – the need for leaders to develop their leadership presence, attitude toward others, and behavioral flexibility by practicing psychological mastery. It also offers a foundation for leaders wanting to apply the philosophies of servant leadership and authentic leadership.

Integrated psychological theory began to attract attention after the publication of James Scouller's Three Levels of Leadership model (2011).[67] Scouller argued that older theories offered only limited assistance in developing a person's ability to lead effectively.[67]: 34–35 He pointed out, for example, that:

• Traits theories, which tend to reinforce the idea that leaders are born not made, might help us select leaders, but they are less useful for developing leaders.
• An ideal style (e.g. Blake & Mouton's team style) would not suit all circumstances.
• Most of the situational/contingency and functional theories assume that leaders can change their behavior to meet differing circumstances or widen their behavioral range at will, when in practice many find it hard to do so because of unconscious beliefs, fears, or ingrained habits. Thus, he argued, leaders need to work on their inner psychology.
• None of the older theories successfully addressed the challenge of developing "leadership presence"—that certain "something" in leaders that commands attention, inspires people, wins their trust, and makes followers want to work with them.

Scouller's model aims to summarize what leaders have to do, not only to bring leadership to their group or organization, but also to develop themselves technically and psychologically as leaders. The three levels in his model are public, private, and personal leadership:

• The first two—public and private leadership—are "outer" or behavioral levels. These behaviors address what Scouller called "the four dimensions of leadership". These dimensions are: (1) a shared, motivating group purpose; (2) action, progress and results; (3) collective unity or team spirit; and (4) individual selection and motivation. Public leadership focuses on the 34 behaviors involved in influencing two or more people simultaneously. Private leadership covers the 14 behaviors needed to influence individuals one-to-one.
• The third—personal leadership—is an "inner" level and concerns a person's growth toward greater leadership presence, know-how, and skill. Working on one's personal leadership has three aspects: (1) Technical know-how and skill, (2) Developing the right attitude toward other people, which is the basis of servant leadership, and (3) Psychological self-mastery, the foundation for authentic leadership.

Scouller argued that self-mastery is the key to growing one's leadership presence, building trusting relationships with followers, and dissolving one's limiting beliefs and habits. This enables behavioral flexibility as circumstances change, while staying connected to one's core values (that is, while remaining authentic). To support leaders' development, he introduced a new model of the human psyche and outlined the principles and techniques of self-mastery, which include the practice of mindfulness meditation.[67]: 137–237

Transactional and transformational theories[edit]

Main articles: Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership

Bernard Bass and colleagues developed the idea of two different types of leadership: transactional which involves exchange of labor for rewards, and transformational which is based on concern for employees, intellectual stimulation, and providing a group vision.[68]

The transactional leader[69] is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team's performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached.