Leadership Theories

When a person succeeds in influencing the minds of several people to behave a certain way to the realization of a specific or a general goal, then that person is said to have shown leadership qualities, and is regarded as a leader.

Theories of Leadership
Many writers have presented their own views and made their own theories about leaders and leadership. Some of the theories are briefly discussed below to give an idea of the literature on the topic of leadership.

Great Man Theory – This theory assumes that leaders are born and not made. Usually the leaders are members of the aristocracy, as it only had the opportunity to lead, it was considered that good husbandry contributed in making of great leaders. The concept of a great woman was not explored and androcentric bias was never done. Moreover, theory also indicates that when there is a great need, then there is a great leader, like Buddha, Jesus, Churchill and Eisenhower.

Trait Theory – This theory assumes that human beings are born with inherited traits and the right combination of features makes a leader. Therefore, leadership is a question of whether the traits inherited or otherwise acquired. Stogdill (1974) identifies some traits such as adaptability, social awareness, achievement-oriented, decisive, dominant, energetic, cooperation, assertiveness, self-confident, persistent, responsible, and the ability to tolerate stress. McCall and Lombardo (1983) identified four basic features, namely, the composure and emotional stability, intellectual breadth, highly developed interpersonal skills and the ability to admit mistakes.

Participative Leadership Theory – This theory assumes that the conclusion of many minds make a better decision in the ruling of a single mind. Therefore, the leader invites the participation of persons responsible for carrying out the work because it makes them less competitive and more collaborative, which increases their level of commitment. Participants may be subordinates, peers, superiors, or stakeholders. The degree of participation may vary. The leader can explain the objectives or goals and the team can decide how you can achieve or the leader may allow a joint decision to be taken with respect to the objectives and methods of implementation or the team may propose, but the final decision is always the leader. There are many varieties, such as consultation, democratic leadership, management by objectives (MBO), power sharing, empowerment and joint decision making. The downside of this theory is that when a leader asks for the views and are not adequate, then leads to cynicism, feelings of betrayal, reduced motivation and decreased level of commitment.

Theories of Lewin – Kurt Lewin, along with other experiments conducted in 1939 and came up with three styles of leadership that is participatory, ie autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. In the autocratic style, the leader made the decision without consulting others. In the democratic style, the leader took the decision after consulting the other or let the majority decide what is to be done. In the laissez-faire style, the leader allows others to decide on the decisions to be taken. Lewin et al. discovered that the autocratic style led to the revolution, the laissez-faire style is devoid of excitement and coordination, while the democratic style proved most effective. Because these experiments were performed in children, which still requires further study and research.

Likert Theories – Rensis Likert (1967) theory of the four styles, namely the exploitation authorized authority benevolent, consultative and participatory. In the style of operation is authorized, the leader uses methods such as threats, coercion and other methods based on fear to enforce compliance. It is always a top-down approach and the views, feelings and the other is worthless. Benevolent authoritarian in style, the leader becomes a “benevolent dictator” and uses rewards to motivate performance. The leader listens to “pink” the opinions of subordinates, as they say only what he likes to listen to the leader, hoping to get rewards. Trivial delegation decision is made, but major decisions are always the center. In the style of consultation, the leading search queries, however, most upward flow of information remains pink and the decision is almost centrally. In the participative style, the leader invites participation at all levels, including plant workers, and attempts to make employees become psychologically closer. Dissension, arguments, feelings of betrayal are all in this style. The leader becomes a “father figure” and a “cult of the head, saying that ultimately becomes the final decision.

The charismatic leader Theory – This theory assumes that leaders meet supporters simply for his charm, grace and personality. If a leader is not a natural charismatic leader after a person has many problems in maintaining the image and the development of skills. They are usually very persuasive and use their body language very effectively. In a theatrical sense, charisma is seen as exhibited by politicians, religious leaders and worship. Kanunga and Conger (1998) have clarified the five characteristics of charismatic leaders, a clear and lucid articulation of the sensitivity to the environment, sensitivity to the needs of members, ability to take personal risks to support their views, behavior and ability to perform unconventional. Mussa (1987) noted that charismatic leaders want their followers to commit to an absolute devotion to themselves. The charismatic leader may not want anything to change or transformation unlike anything transformational leader. If the charismatic leader is well intentioned, they can contribute significantly to the growth of the whole group, however, if they are selfish and Machiavellian, followed by the establishment of religion, which can effectively rape of the mind and the body of his followers. Their belief can lead to psychosis and narcissism of self-absorption is so high that their irreplaceability, intentional or not, can not guarantee successor and thus made a permanent mark in history.

The transformational leader Theory – This theory assumes that a leader with vision and passion can achieve great things, to inspire, the injection of enthusiasm and energy and thus transform the individual or group towards the achievement of individual or group. Transformational leaders have a vision and sell their vision and in the process of building trust. To lead by example and always in the thick of the action. In order to motivate their people, using ceremonies, rituals, symbolism and other cultural activities. They believe that success comes from the deep and sustained commitment are very people-oriented. However, transformational leaders seek to transform, and if the company has no need to transform, and then become frustrated.

The quiet leader Theory – This theory states that actions speak louder than words. The leader leads quietly by their actions and gives credit to others rather than having all to itself. The quiet leader does not always meet with success and are often extroverted individuals who simply can not handle.

Transactional Leadership Theory – This theory states that people work for the reward and punishment. A clear chain of command in loyalty as the main center that works best in social systems. Subordinates should do only what the leader tells you to do without trying to find out the reasons for it. The leader creates clear structures and subordinates are obliged to follow. For the successful completion of the work, they are rewarded, while for the termination without success, they are punished. The leader uses management by exception, ie, once the operation has set performance expectations, then you do not need much attention. Exceeded expectations receives accolades that do not meet the expectations that corrective actions. The limitation of this approach is that it assumes that the individual is a rational man “(a person who is largely motivated by money and hence whose behavior is predictable), which can not be due to emotional and social factors. In such a situation, other approaches may be more effective.

Situational Leadership Theory – This theory assumes that the action of a leader depends on a number of situational factors, such as motivation and ability of the followers, the relationship between leader and followers, stress, mood, etc Yukl (1989) has identified six factors of situation, namely, subordinate effort, ability and subordinate role clarity, organization of work, cooperation and cohesion, resources, support and external coordination.

Conclusion
Leaders generally do not follow a single approach and mix and match to suit your needs and requirements. In critical situations, they are more dictatorial in nature as they face the prospect of failure. Leaders in general have the integrity (the alignment of words and actions with their values), dedication (time and any expenditure of energy that is required for the job, instead of giving the time), magnanimity (giving credit where it is because, graciously accepting defeat, defeated and allowing people to maintain their dignity), humility (no decline or the exaltation of itself), openness (the ability to understand new thoughts and ideas), and creativity (ability to think differently).