Great Man Theory

Are 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.

Theory

Much 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.

Criticism

Many 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.

Conclusion

Prompted 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

The 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 Theory

The 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

Transformational Leadership Theory

Creating 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 be 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.

Behavioural Theories Of Leadership

Researchers tried to study the behavioral aspects of effective leaders when it became evident that effective leaders did not seem to have a particular set of distinguishing traits. In other words, rather than try to figure out who effective leaders are, researchers tried to determine what effective leaders do - how they delegate tasks, how they communicate with and try to motivate their followers or employees, how they carry out their tasks, and so on.

Here, we review major efforts to identify important leadership behaviors. This research grew largely out of work at the University of Iowa, the University of Michigan, and the Ohio State University. We also discuss about Likert's four systems of management and the Managerial Grid.

A. Iowa Studies

Kurt Lewin, a researcher at the University of Iowa, and his colleagues, made some of the earliest attempts to scientifically determine effective leader behaviors. They concentrated on three leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. 

a. Autocratic Style

The autocratic leader tends to make decisions without involving subordinates, spells out work methods, provides workers with very limited knowledge of goals, and sometimes gives negative feedback. 

b. Democratic Style

The democratic or participative leader includes the group in decision-making; he consults the subordinates on proposed actions and encourages participation from them. Democratic leaders let the group determine work methods, make overall goals known, and use feedback to help subordinates. 

c. Laissez - faire Style

Laissez- faire leaders use their power very rarely. They give the group complete freedom. Such leaders depend largely on subordinates to set their own goals and the means of achieving them. They see their role as one of aiding the operations of followers by furnishing them with information and acting primarily as a contact with the group's external environment. They too avoid giving feedback.

To determine which leadership style is most effective, Lewin and his colleagues trained some persons to exhibit each of the styles. They were then placed in charge of various groups in a preadolescent boys' club. They found that on every criterion in the study, groups with laissez-faire leaders underperformed in comparison with both the autocratic and democratic groups. While the amount of work done was equal in the groups with autocratic and democratic leaders; work quality and group satisfaction was higher in the democratic groups. Thus, democratic leadership appeared to result in both good quantity and quality of work, as well as satisfied workers.

Later research, however, showed that democratic leadership sometimes produced higher performance than did autocratic leadership, but at other times produced performance that was lower than or merely equal to that under the autocratic style. While a democratic leadership style seemed to make subordinates more satisfied, it did not always lead to higher, or even equal, performance.

 B. Continuum of leader behaviors

The findings from Iowa studies put managers in a dilemma over which style to choose. Moreover, many managers are not used to operating in a democratic mode. To help managers decide which style to choose, particularly when decisions had to be made, management scholars Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt devised a continuum of leader behaviors. 

The continuum depicts various gradations of leadership behavior, ranging from the boss-centered approach at the extreme left to the subordinate-centered approach at the extreme right. A move away from the autocratic end of the continuum represents a move towards the democratic end and vice versa. According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt, while deciding which leader behavior pattern to adopt, a manager should consider forces within themselves (such as their comfort level with the various alternatives), within the situation (such as time pressures), and within subordinates (such as readiness to assume responsibility). The researchers suggested that in the short run, depending on the situation, the managers should exercise some flexibility in their leader behavior. However, in the long run, the managers should attempt to move towards the subordinate-centered end of the continuum; as such leader behavior has the potential to improve decision quality, teamwork, employee motivation, morale, and employee development.

C. Michigan Studies

Further work on leadership at the University of Michigan seemed to confirm that the employee-centered approach was much more useful as compared to a job-centered/ production-centered approach. In the employee-centered approach, the focus of the leaders was on building effective work groups which were committed to delivering high performance. In the job-centered approach, the work was divided into routine tasks and leaders monitored workers closely to ensure that the prescribed methods were followed and productivity standards were met. There were still variations in the level of the output produced. Sometimes the job-centered approach resulted in the production of a higher output as compared to the employee-centered approach. Therefore, no definite conclusions could be drawn and further studies appeared necessary.

D. Ohio State Studies

In 1945, a group of researchers at Ohio University began extensive investigations on leadership. They initiated the process by identifying a number of important leader behaviors. The researchers then designed a questionnaire to measure the behaviors of different leaders and track factors such as group performance and satisfaction to see which behaviors were most effective. The most publicized aspect of the studies was the identification of two dimensions of leadership behavior: 'initiating structure' and 'consideration.' Initiating structure is the extent to which a leader defines his or her own role and those of subordinates so as to achieve organizational goals. It is similar to the job-centered leader behavior of the Michigan studies, but includes a broader range of managerial functions such as planning, organizing, and directing. It focuses primarily on task-related issues. Consideration is the degree of mutual trust between leader and his subordinates; how much the leader respects subordinates' ideas and shows concerns for their feelings. Consideration is similar to the employee-centered leader behavior of the Michigan studies. It emphasizes people-related issues. A consideration-oriented leader is more likely to be friendly towards subordinates, encourages participation in decision-making, and maintains good two-way communication.

As opposed to the Iowa and Michigan studies, which considered leadership dimensions, i.e. employee-centered approach and job-centered approach, as the two opposite ends of the same continuum, the Ohio State studies considered initiating structure and consideration as two independent behaviors. Therefore, the leadership behaviors operated on separate continuums. A leader could thus be high on both the dimensions, or high on one dimension and low on the other, or could display gradations in between. This two-dimensional mode of leader's behavior made sense as many leaders display both initiating structure and consideration dimensions. The Ohio State two-dimensional approach is shown in figure below

The two-dimensional approach led to the interesting probability that a leader might be able to place emphasis on both task- and people-related issues. They may be able to produce high levels of subordinate satisfaction by being considerate, and at the same time can be specific about the results expected, thereby focusing on task issues too. However, this theory was too simplistic. It later became apparent that situational factors like the nature of the task and the expectations of subordinates affected the success of leadership behavior.

E. The Managerial Grid

The managerial grid, developed by Robert Blake and Jane Srygley Mouton, is a popular approach for defining leadership styles. Blake and Mouton argue that managerial behavior is a function of two variables: concern for people and concern for production. They use the managerial grid as a framework to help managers identify their leadership style and to track their movement toward the ideal management style. This grid shown in figure below is used all over the world for training managers and for identifying various combinations of leadership styles.

The level of concern for people (employees) is shown on the vertical axis and the level of concern for production on the horizontal axis of the grid. Each axis has a scale ranging from 1 to 9, with the higher numbers indicating greater concern for the specified variable. Depending on the degree of the managerial concern for people and production, a manager can fall anywhere on the grid. The management grid reflects five leadership styles:

Leadership style 1,1

It is called 'impoverished management.' In this context, there is a low concern for people and low concern for tasks or production. In other words, neither people nor production is emphasized, and little leadership is exhibited. This management style does not provide leadership in a positive sense but believes in a "laissez-faire" approach, relying on previous practice to keep the organization going.

Leadership style 1,9

It is called 'country club management.' There is high concern for people but low concern for production. Here managers try to create a work atmosphere in which everyone is relaxed, friendly, and happy. However, no one is bothered about putting in the effort required to accomplish enterprise goals. This management style may be based on a belief that the most important leadership activity is to secure the voluntary cooperation of group members in order to obtain high levels of productivity. Subordinates of such managers generally report high levels of satisfaction, but the managers may be considered too easy-going and unable to make decisions.

Leadership style 9,1

It reverses the emphasis of style 1,9 and is called 'authority- compliance management.' There is high concern for production but low concern for people in this management style. This management style is task-oriented and stresses the quality of production over the wishes of subordinates. Such managers may be loyal, conscientious, and personally capable, but may become alienated from their subordinates, who may do only enough work to keep themselves out of trouble.

Leadership style 5,5 

It is called 'organization-man management or 'middle-of-the- road management.' Here there is an intermediate (or moderate) amount of concern for both production and people. Managers with this management style believe in compromise, so that decisions are taken but only if endorsed by subordinates. Such managers may be dependable and may support the status quo, but are not likely to be dynamic leaders. Moreover, they may have difficulty in bringing about innovation and change.

Leadership style 9,9

It is called 'team management.' Here there is a high concern for both production as well as employee morale and satisfaction. Team managers believe that concern for people and for tasks are compatible. They believe that tasks need to be carefully explained and decisions endorsed by subordinates to achieve a high level of commitment.

According to Blake and Mouton, the 9, 9 orientation is the most desirable one. The Blake and Mouton managerial grid is widely used as a training device for managers. It is a useful device for identifying and classifying managerial styles, but it does not tell us why a manager falls into one part or another of the grid. In order to determine the reason, one has to look at underlying causes, such as the personality characteristics of the leader or the followers, the ability of managers, the enterprise environment, and other situational factors that influence how leaders and followers act.

Situational Models

According to the situational theory, no leadership style is the best for all times and in all situations. Leader effectiveness is the result of the situation in which the leader operates. Therefore, the situational variables should be analysed before an optimum style is selected. The leader should adjust his style according to the nature of the task, the type of followers and the environment to improve his leadership effectiveness.

A. Fiedler's Contingency Model

Fred Fiedler and his associates at the University of Illinois have suggested a contingency theory of leadership. According to this theory, a leader's effectiveness depends upon the situational variables. These variables are (a) Leader's position power, (b) Leader-member relations, and (c) Task structure.

a. Leader's Position Power

This means the power arising from the organisation position. A leader with considerable position power can more easily obtain a better following. Thus, leader position power refers to the degree to which the leader has at his disposal various rewards and sanctions and the degree to which his authority over the group is supported by the organisation.

b. Leader-member Relations 

It implies the degree of respect, trust and confidence which followers have in the leader. A leader can be more effective if he is trusted and liked by the followers and if they are willing to accept his influence.

c. Task Structure

It measures the extent to which the task performed by the subordinates can be spelt out clearly. If the task is clear and routine, group members can be more easily held responsible for performance. The quality of performance can be controlled and the leader can be more effective than where the task is vaguely defined or non-routine.

Depending upon the 'high' and 'low' degrees of these situational variables, Fiedler developed eight possible combinations ranging from most favourable to most unfavourable.

The most favourable situation (cell I) is the one where the leader-member relations are good, the task is highly structured and the leader has enormous position power to exert influence on the subordinates. On the other hand, the most unfavourable situation (cell VII) is one where the leader-member relations are poor, the task is unstructured and the leader's position power is weak. Between these extremes lie situations of intermediate difficulty. Fiedler suggests that a task-oriented style is best when the situation is most favourable and most unfavourable. In moderately favourable or moderately unfavourable situations, relationship-oriented style is the best. According to Fiedler, "The group performance will be contingent upon the appropriate matching of leadership style and the degree of favourableness of the situation." Favourableness of the situation means the degree to which a given situation enables the leader to exert influence over the group members.

In order to determine the appropriate style of leadership, Fiedler suggested a scale called LPC (least preferred co-worker). It is an index of motivational hierarchy or behavioural preferences. A high LPC score implies that the leader has relations- orientation while a low LPC score means a task-orientation.

Fiedler maintains that the most appropriate leadership style depends upon the situation faced by the leader. Fiedler's contingency model has had major impact on knowledge about leader effectiveness. It indicates that leadership effectiveness depends upon the situation or work environment. It is also helpful in designing selection and training programmes for managers.

On the basis of his contingency model, Fiedler developed the 'leader match' training programme to improve leadership effectiveness. The programme is based on the assumption that it is much easier to change the situation than the fundamental style. Therefore, the job should be fitted to the manager. The leaders should be trained to modify their environments and their jobs to fit their style of leadership.

Level 5 Leadership

We have always associated leadership with a very visible and popular role which gives us recognition and a larger-than-life status as a leader however the level 5 leadership proposes quite opposing characteristics of a successful leader.

Jim Collins and his research team were exploring the factors that made good companies great way back in the 1960s. It was then that they stumbled upon the Level 5 leaders who were invariably at the helm of affairs of all the companies which went on to become great in their respective fields.

Who exactly is a Level 5 leader?

Collins describes Level 5 leader as Humility + Will = Level 5. They are the nurturing leaders who do not want credit but want success to sustain over a longer period of time, long after they are gone.

Level 5 leaders are modest, shy and fearless and possess the capability to transform an organization from good to great without portraying themselves as wizards with magic wands. They prefer talking about the company and the contribution of other people but rarely about their role or achievements. Let us have a look at the hierarchical level of leadership identified:

The Level 5 leadership clearly reestablishes the facts about a simply living and high thinking with an emphasis on personal humility taught by the older generations. The financial breakthroughs achieved by level 5 leaders prove that these characteristics can achieve tangible results as well.

The most important example in this context can be cited of great world leaders like M.K. Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, who always put their vision ahead of their egos. They came across as shy and defenseless people in their mannerism and speech but were hardly so when it came to actions.

The other example from the business leaders who fitted perfectly into this category was Darwin E Smith who was the CEO of the paper company Kimberly-Clark and turned it around to become the biggest consumer paper product company. He was a unique mix of personal humility and will; combined with risk taking ability which made him a role model for the business leaders of today.

There are certain actions performed by Level 5 leaders which separate them from the rest of the leaders and senior executives.

• The first step if their ability to identify and include right people with them towards achieving goals. Unlike the traditional method of building strategies and then looking for the right people to carry them out, they take a different route. It’s about getting the right people on board and then deciding on the destination.

• They also do not shy away from facing and accepting brutal truths and realities of data, numbers and situations but at the same time they do not lose hope of a better future.

• They also strive towards aligning consistent efforts towards a goal, rather than giving one massive push they believe in small but firm pushes to bring in the momentum.

• They also exercise their judgment to understand an aspect, in depth and thoroughly, rather than burdening themselves with myriad information.

• They practice and encourage a disciplined approach towards their work life and as visionaries use carefully identified technologies to give their businesses strategic advantage.

Can Level 5 leadership be learnt?

According to Collins it is farfetched to suitably see whether it can be learnt or not but he surely identifies two categories of people, one who have the Level 5 Leadership in them, dormant, latent or unexpressed and others who do not have it.

So leaders who cannot look beyond their personal role, fame, achievements etc can hardly become Level 5 leaders. Only when they can put the larger good ahead of them, they transcend to the next level. This transition is not general but can be brought by some tragic accident, near death experiences or a life changing incident, as came across by Collins in his research.

It would be appropriate to mention the name of M.K. Gandhi to understand it better. For Gandhi who had lived a comfortable life with a law degree from England had no experience of being oppressed by the ruling class until he was thrown out of a train despite carrying a first class ticket. His transition began from there, which later made him actively participate in the Indian Freedom Struggle.