Great man theoryAre some people born to lead? If we look at the great leaders of the past such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, and Abraham Lincoln, we will find that they do seem to differ from ordinary human beings in several aspects. The same applies to the contemporary leaders like George W. Bush and Mahatma Gandhi. They definitely possess high levels of ambition coupled with clear visions of precisely where they want to go. These leaders are cited as naturally great leaders, born with a set of personal qualities that made them effective leaders. Even today, the belief that truly great leaders are born is common.Top executives, sports personalities, and even politicians often seem to possess an aura that sets them apart from others. According to the contemporary theorists, leaders are not like other people. They do not need to be intellectually genius or omniscient prophets to succeed, but they definitely should have the right stuff which is not equally present in all people. This orientation expresses an approach to the study of leadership known as the great man theory.Assumptions

The leaders are born and not made and posses certain traits which were inherited

Great leaders can arise when there is a great need.

TheoryMuch of the work on this theory was done in the 19th century and is often linked to the work of the historian Thomas Carlyle who commented on the great men or heroes of the history saying that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men”. According to him, a leader is the one gifted with unique qualities that capture the imagination of the masses.Earlier leadership was considered as a quality associated mostly with the males, and therefore the theory was named as the great man theory. But later with the emergence of many great women leaders as well, the theory was recognized as the great person theory.The great man theory of leadership states that some people are born with the necessary attributes that set them apart from others and that these traits are responsible for their assuming positions of power and authority. A leader is a hero who accomplishes goals against all odds for his followers. The theory implies that those in power deserve to be there because of their special endowment. Furthermore, the theory contends that these traits remain stable over time and

across different groups. Thus, it suggests that all great leaders share these characteristic regardless of when and where they lived or the precise role in the history they fulfilled.

CriticismMany of the traits cited as being important to be an effective leader are typical masculine traits. In contemporary research, there is a significant shift in such a mentality.

ConclusionPrompted by the great man theory of leadership, and the emerging interest in understanding what leadership is, researchers focused on the leader - Who is a leader? What are the distinguishing characteristics of great and effective leaders? This gave rise to the early research efforts to the trait approach to leadership.

Trait Theory of LeadershipThe trait model of leadership is based on the characteristics of many leaders - both successful and unsuccessful - and is used to predict leadership effectiveness. The resulting lists of traits are then compared to those of potential leaders to assess their likelihood of success or failure.Scholars taking the trait approach attempted to identify physiological (appearance, height, and weight), demographic (age, education and socioeconomic background), personality, self-confidence, and aggressiveness), intellective (intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, and knowledge), task-related (achievement drive, initiative, and persistence), and social characteristics (sociability and cooperativeness) with leader emergence and leader effectiveness.Successful leaders definitely have interests, abilities, and personality traits that are different from those of the less effective leaders. Through many researches conducted in the last three decades of the 20th century, a set of core traits of successful leaders have been identified. These traits are not responsible solely to identify whether a person will be a successful leader or not, but they are essentially seen as preconditions that endow people with leadership potential.Among the core traits identified are:

Achievement drive: High level of effort, high levels of ambition, energy and initiative

Leadership motivation: an intense desire to lead others to reach shared goals

Honesty and integrity: trustworthy, reliable, and open

Self-confidence: Belief in one’s self, ideas, and ability

Cognitive ability: Capable of exercising good judgment, strong analytical abilities, and conceptually skilled

Knowledge of business: Knowledge of industry and other technical matters

Emotional Maturity: well adjusted, does not suffer from severe psychological disorders.

Others: charisma, creativity and flexibility

Strengths/Advantages of Trait Theory It is naturally pleasing theory. It is valid as lot of research has validated the

foundation and basis of the theory. It serves as a yardstick against which the

leadership traits of an individual can be assessed.

It gives a detailed knowledge and understanding of the leader element in the leadership process.

Limitations of The Trait Theory There is bound to be some subjective judgment

in determining who is regarded as a ‘good’ or ‘successful’ leader

The list of possible traits tends to be very long. More than 100 different traits of successful leaders in various leadership positions have been identified. These descriptions are simply generalities.

There is also a disagreement over which traits are the most important for an effective leader

The model attempts to relate physical traits such as, height and weight, to effective leadership. Most of these factors relate to situational factors. For example, a minimum weight and height might be necessary to perform the tasks efficiently in a military leadership position. In business organizations, these are not the requirements to be an effective leader.

The theory is very complex

Implications of Trait TheoryThe trait theory gives constructive information about leadership. It can be applied by people at all levels in all types of organizations. Managers can utilize the information from the theory to evaluate their position in the organization and to assess how their position can be made stronger in the organization. They can get an in-depth understanding of their identity and the way

they will affect others in the organization. This theory makes the manager aware of their strengths and weaknesses and thus they get an understanding of how they can develop their leadership qualities.

ConclusionThe traits approach gives rise to questions: whether leaders are born or made; and whether leadership is an art or science. However, these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Leadership may be something of an art; it still requires the application of special skills and techniques. Even if there are certain inborn qualities that make one a good leader, these natural talents need encouragement and development. A person is not born with self-confidence. Self-confidence is developed, honesty and integrity are a matter of personal choice, motivation to lead comes from within the individual, and the knowledge of business can be acquired. While cognitive ability has its origin partly in genes, it still needs to be developed. None of these ingredients are acquired overnight.

Gordon Allport was an early pioneer in the study of traits, which he sometimes referred to as dispositions. In his approach, central traits are basic to an individual's personality, whereas secondary traits are more peripheral. Common traits are those recognized within a culture and may vary between cultures. Cardinal traits are those by which an individual may be strongly recognized. Since Allport's time, trait theorists have focused more on group statistics than on single individuals. Allport called these two emphases "nomothetic" and "idiographic," respectively.

Leadership-Member Exchange (LMX) TheoryInformal observation of leadership behavior suggests that leader’s action is not the same towards all subordinates. The importance of potential differences in this respect is brought into sharp focus by Graen’s leader-member exchange model, also known as the vertical dyad linkage theory. The theory views leadership as consisting of a number of dyadic relationships linking the leader with a follower. The quality of the relationship is reflected by the degree of mutual trust, loyalty, support, respect, and obligation.

According to the theory, leaders form different kinds of relationships with various groups of subordinates. One group, referred to as the in-group, is favored by the leader. Members of in-group receive considerably more attention from the leader and have more access to the

organizational resources. By contrast, other subordinates fall into the out-group. These individuals are disfavored by the leader. As such, they receive fewer valued resources from their leaders.

Leaders distinguish between the in-group and out-group members on the basis of the perceived similarity with respect to personal characteristics, such as age, gender, or personality. A follower may also be granted an in-group status if the leader believes that person to be especially competent at performing his or her job. The relationship between leaders and followers follows three stages:

Role taking: When a new member joins the organization, the leader assesses the talent and abilities of the member and offers them opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities.

Role making: An informal and unstructured negotiation on work-related factors takes place between the leader and the member. A member who is similar to the leader is more likely to succeed. A betrayal by the member at this stage may result in him being relegated to the out-group

The LMX 7 scale assesses the degree to which leaders and followers have mutual respect for each other’s capabilities, feel a deepening sense of mutual trust, and have a sense of strong obligation to one another. Taken together, these dimensions determine the extent to which followers will be part of the leader’s in-group or out-group.

In-group followers tend to function as assistants or advisers and to have higher quality personalized exchanges with the leader than do out-group followers. These exchanges typically involve a leader’s emphasis on assignments to interesting tasks, delegation of important responsibilities, information sharing, and participation in the leader’s decisions, as well as special benefits, such as personal support and support and favorable work schedules.

Strengths of LMX Theory

LMX theory is an exceptional theory of leadership as unlike the other theories, it concentrates and talks about specific relationships between the leader and each subordinate.

LMX Theory is a robust explanatory theory.

LMX Theory focuses our attention to the significance of communication in leadership. Communication is a medium through which leaders and subordinates develop, grow and maintain beneficial exchanges. When this communication is accompanied by features such as mutual trust, respect and devotion, it leads to effective leadership.

LMX Theory is very much valid and practical in it’s approach.

Criticisms of LMX Theory

LMX Theory fails to explain the particulars of how high-quality exchanges are created.

LMX Theory is objected on grounds of fairness and justice as some followers receive special attention of leaders at workplace and other followers do not.

Implications

According to many studies conducted in this area, it has been found that leaders definitely do support the members of the in-group and may go to the extent of inflating their ratings on poor performance as well. This kind of a treatment is not given to the members of the out-group. Due to the favoritism that the in-group members receive from their leaders, they are found to perform their jobs better and develop positive attitude towards their jobs in comparison to the members of the out-group. The job satisfaction of in-group members is high and they perform effectively on their jobs. They tend to receive more mentoring from their superiors which helps them in their careers. For these reasons, low attrition rate, increased salaries, and promotion rates are associated with the in-group members in comparison to that of the out-group members.

How to use the theory: When joining a team, it is

important to join the inner circle, take on more than

your share of administrative and other tasks in

order to gain trust from your leaders.

The quality of the LMX relationship varies. It is most

efficient on one of the two ends of the spectrum in

terms of extremities: either extremely low or

extremely high. The size of the group, financial

resource availability and the overall workload are

also important. The theory can also work upwards

as well. The leader can gain power by being a

member of his or her manager's inner circle, which

the leader can then share with subordinates.

The Leader-Member Exchange Theory can be utilized outside of the workplace. It can be applied to group projects for school, clubs, etc. By using LMX in such circumstances, you can learn more about how you see your team members. First, you must determine who your out-group consists of. When you do this you have to make sure you know how they ended up under this title. Compare facts with your perception of the events. The next step you must take requires you to re-establish the relationship with those in the out-group. In doing so, you will gain respect as a leader. It may also boost morale for those members of the out-group. However, make a mental note that those members will have their guards up at first when you try to give your support to them. Make it sincere by approaching each member one-on-one. Take time to get to know a little more about them. This can also help you learn more about what drives them. From that point on, try to keep the reconnection going by keeping in touch with those members. Make an effort to offer your guidance on any of their tasks if they need assistance. Your third and final step to apply the Leader-Member Exchange Theory is to offer some form of mentoring or coaching. This allows a type of opportunity for the member to advance in the group. Start first with low risk assignments

Transformational Leadership TheoryCreating high-performance workforce has become increasingly important and to do so business leaders must be able to inspire organizational members to

go beyond their task requirements. As a result, new concepts of leadership have emerged - transformational leadership being one of them.

Transformational leadership may be found at all levels of the organization: teams, departments, divisions, and organization as a whole. Such leaders are visionary, inspiring, daring, risk-takers, and thoughtful thinkers. They have a charismatic appeal. But charisma alone is insufficient for changing the way an organization operates. For bringing major changes, transformational leaders must exhibit the following four factors:

Inspirational Motivation: The foundation of transformational leadership is the promotion of consistent vision, mission, and a set of values to the members. Their vision is so compelling that they know what they want from every interaction. Transformational leaders guide followers by providing them with a sense of meaning and challenge. They work enthusiastically and optimistically to foster the spirit of teamwork and commitment.

Intellectual Stimulation: Such leaders encourage their followers to be innovative and creative. They encourage new ideas from their followers and never criticize them publicly for the mistakes committed by them. The leaders focus on the “what” in problems and do not focus on the blaming part of it. They have no hesitation in discarding an old practice set by them if it is found ineffective.

Idealized Influence: They believe in the philosophy that a leader can influence followers only when he practices what he preaches. The leaders act as role models that followers seek to emulate. Such leaders always win the trust and respect of their followers through their action. They typically place their followers needs over their own, sacrifice their personal gains for them, ad demonstrate high standards of ethical conduct. The use of power by such leaders is aimed at influencing them to strive for the common goals of the organization.

Individualized Consideration: Leaders act as mentors to their followers and reward them for creativity and innovation. The followers are treated differently according to their talents and knowledge.

They are empowered to make decisions and are always provided with the needed support to implement their decisions.

The common examples of transformational leaders are Mahatma Gandhi and Obama.

Criticisms of Transformational Leadership Theory

Transformational leadership makes use of impression management and therefore lends itself to amoral self promotion by leaders

The theory is very difficult to e trained or taught because it is a combination of many leadership theories.

Followers might be manipulated by leaders and there are chances that they lose more than they gain.

Implications of Transformational Leadership

Theory

The current environment characterized by uncertainty, global turbulence, and organizational instability calls for transformational leadership to prevail at all levels of the organization. The followers of such leaders demonstrate high levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and engage in organizational citizenship behaviors. With such a devoted workforce, it will definitely be useful to consider making efforts towards developing ways of transforming organization through leadership.

The concept of transformational leadership was

initially introduced by leadership expert and

presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns.

According to Burns, transformational leadership can

be seen when "leaders and followers make each

other to advance to a higher level of morality and

motivation." Through the strength of their vision

and personality, transformational leaders are able

to inspire followers to change expectations,

perceptions, and motivations to work towards

common goals.Unlike in the transactional approach,

it is not based on a "give and take" relationship, but

on the leader's personality, traits and ability to

make a change through example, articulation of an

energizing vision and challenging goals.

Transforming leaders are idealized in the sense that

they are a moral exemplar of working towards the

benefit of the team, organization and/or

community. Burns theorized that transforming and

transactional leadership were mutually exclusive

styles.Later, researcher Bernard M. Bass expanded

upon Burns' original ideas to develop what is today

referred to as Bass’ Transformational Leadership

Theory. According to Bass, transformational

leadership can be defined based on the impact that

it has on followers. Transformational leaders, Bass

suggested, garner trust, respect, and admiration

from their followers

Bernard M. Bass (1985), extended the work of Burns

(1978) by explaining the psychological mechanisms

that underlie transforming and transactional

leadership. Bass introduced the term

"transformational" in place of "transforming." Bass

added to the initial concepts of Burns (1978) to help

explain how transformational leadership could be

measured, as well as how it impacts follower

motivation and performance.[1] The extent to which

a leader is transformational, is measured first, in

terms of his influence on the followers. The

followers of such a leader feel trust, admiration,

loyalty and respect for the leader and because of

the qualities of the transformational leader are

willing to work harder than originally expected.

These outcomes occur because the transformational

leader offers followers something more than just

working for self gain; they provide followers with an

inspiring mission and vision and give them an

identity. The leader transforms and motivates

followers through his or her idealized influence

(earlier referred to as charisma), intellectual

stimulation and individual consideration. In

addition, this leader encourages followers to come

up with new and unique ways to challenge the

status quo and to alter the environment to support

being successful. Finally, in contrast to Burns, Bass

suggested that leadership can simultaneously

display both transformational and transactional

leadership.

Transactional Leadership TheoryThe transactional style of leadership was first described by Max Weber in 1947 and then by Bernard Bass in 1981. This style is most often used by the managers. It focuses on the basic management process of controlling, organizing, and short-term planning. The famous examples of leaders who have used transactional technique include McCarthy and de Gaulle.

Transactional leadership involves motivating and directing followers primarily through appealing to their own self-interest. The power of transactional leaders comes from their formal authority and responsibility in the organization. The main goal of the follower is to obey the instructions of the leader. The style can also be mentioned as a ‘telling style’.

The leader believes in motivating through a system of rewards and punishment. If a subordinate does what is desired, a reward will follow, and if he does not go as per the wishes of the leader, a punishment will follow. Here, the exchange between leader and follower takes place to achieve routine performance goals.These exchanges involve four dimensions:Contingent Rewards: Transactional leaders link the goal to rewards, clarify expectations, provide necessary resources, set mutually agreed upon goals, and provide various kinds of rewards for successful performance. They set SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely) goals for their subordinates.

Active Management by Exception: Transactional leaders actively monitor the work of their subordinates, watch for deviations from rules and standards and taking corrective action to prevent mistakes.

Passive Management by Exception: Transactional leaders intervene only when standards are not met or when the performance is not as per the expectations. They may even use punishment as a response to unacceptable performance.

Laissez-faire: The leader provides an environment where the subordinates get many opportunities to make decisions. The leader himself abdicates responsibilities and avoids making decisions and therefore the group often lacks direction.

Assumptions of Transactional Theory

Employees are motivated by reward and punishment.

The subordinates have to obey the orders of the superior.

The subordinates are not self-motivated. They have to be closely monitored and controlled to get the work done from them.

Implications of Transactional Theory

The transactional leaders overemphasize detailed and short-term goals, and standard rules and procedures. They do not make an effort to enhance followers’ creativity and generation of new ideas. This kind of a leadership style may work well where the organizational problems are simple and clearly defined. Such leaders tend to not reward or ignore ideas that do not fit with existing plans and goals.

The transactional leaders are found to be quite effective in guiding efficiency decisions which are aimed at cutting costs and improving productivity. The transactional leaders tend to be highly directive and action oriented and their relationship with the followers tends to be transitory and not based on emotional bonds.

The theory assumes that subordinates can be motivated by simple rewards. The only ‘transaction’ between the leader and the followers is the money

which the followers receive for their compliance and effort.

Conclusion

The transactional style of leadership is viewed as insufficient, but not bad, in developing the maximum leadership potential. It forms as the basis for more mature interactions but care should be taken by leaders not to practice it exclusively, otherwise it will lead to the creation of an environment permeated by position, power, perks, and politics.

In an experimental study conducted on the relationship between leaders' moral reasoning and subordinates' perceptions of leadership behaviors in three organizational samples drawn from two countries. Kohlberg (1969, 1976) initially proposed a stage theory of cognitive moral development to explain how people think (or reason) about interacting with their social environment. He argued that people's present moral capacity incorporates problem-solving strategies learned at earlier stages. The data used in this study were collected by questionnaire from one organization in Canada Data collection for sample 1. two organizations in the United Kingdom Sample was drawn from a mid-sized Canadian university and consisted of middle-level managers ( n = 64) and subordinates ( n = 185) in clerical and administrative posts who rated these managers. Data collection for (Samples 2 and 3). He found that, 132 leaders and 407 subordinates participated in this study. Data for Sample 2 were collected at a large telecommunications company in the United Kingdom. Raters in this sample were subordinates working in technical support and customer service ( n = 136) who described their middle-level managers ( n = 43). Sample 3 consisted of hospital ward managers ( n = 25) and their subordinate nurses ( n = 86) working in a mid-sized hospital in the United Kingdom.

Contingency Theories (1960's)The Contingency Leadership theory argues that there is no single way of leading and that every leadership style should be based on certain situations, which signifies that there are certain people who perform at the maximum level in certain places; but at minimal performance when taken out of their element.To a certain extent contingency leadership theories are an extension of the trait theory, in the sense that human traits are related to the situation in

which the leaders exercise their leadership. It is generally accepted within the contingency theories that leader are more likely to express their leadership when they feel that their followers will be responsive.