According to Google, the
definition of Leadership is as follows; it is an ability to influence the
individual or group of people towards the achievement of the same goal.
Now, this term is
often misunderstood by Managers, these terms are used interchangeably, but are
these terms synonyms of each other? Can they be used in place of one another?
Let us find out with the help of a story.
X was appointed as a
new manager in a big industrial plant and he wanted to impress the subordinates
by showing his powers. The plant was by running a Union of workers. So the next
day he went to the factory and shouted ‘ I run this plant and you work for me’
The union leader
raised his hand and all the workers stopped their work and machines were turned
off. He said to the manager that we all can see who runs this plant.
At this point, the
union leader was the leader but without the followers, the manager was nothing.
This story doesn’t
imply that a manager is not a leader or vice versa but a manager should be a
leader.
According to Belbin
(1997) leadership is not something that takes place birth according to the
hierarchy of the organization or is just a part of the ‘job’ rather it is a quality
that is present since birth or acquired after it.
Hollingsworth (1989)
listed out six fundamental differences between leadership and management.
1) A manager administers,
but a leader innovates
2) A manager
maintains, while a leader develops
3) A manager over-look
systems and structures, whereas a leader’s focus is on people
4) A manager relies
on control, but a leader inspires trust
5) A manager relies
on control, but a leader inspires
trust
6) A manager keeps an
eye on the bottom line, while a leader has an eye on the horizon
7) A manager does things
right, a leader does the right thing.
There are various
theories proposed as to how leadership is defined and approached:
The subject of
leadership is so vast and perceived to be so critical, it has generated a huge body
of literature. Each researcher working in the field has tried to explain
leadership from a different perspective. Broadly, there are four distinct
approaches to leadership, viz. Traits theory, Behaviouristic theory,
Contingency theory and Charismatic theories of leadership.
1) Traits Theory:
Ask people what good
leadership is, and it's quite likely you will get a response that suggests good
leadership can somehow be defined in terms of traits or characteristics.
Similarly, if one were to ask people to design an experiment aimed at defining
good leadership, it's likely the response will be an attempt to isolate the
characteristics of leaders of organizations deemed to be successful (by
whatever terms that success is measured).
This is exactly what the
initial, formal research into leadership was all about. There was a sense among
researchers that some critical leadership traits could be isolated. There was
also a feeling that people with such traits could then be recruited, selected,
and installed into leadership positions.
2) Behaviouristic
Theory:
The results of the trait
studies were inconclusive. Traits, among other things, were hard to measure.
How, for example, do we measure traits such as honesty, integrity, loyalty, or
diligence? Another approach in the study of leadership had to be found.
To measure traits, researchers had to rely on
constructs that lacked reliability and, given differing definitions, also
lacked validity. After the problems with the trait approach became evident,
researchers turned to an examination of leader behaviours. With behaviours,
researchers could rely on empirical evidence. Behaviours, contrary to traits,
could be observed. It was thus decided to examine the behaviours of successful
(again, by whatever means success was measured) leaders.
The initial phases of
the behavioural research seemed as frustrating as the trait approach -- the
number of behaviours identified was staggering. However, over time, it appeared
that the key behaviours could be grouped or categorized. The most prominent
studies were those undertaken by the University of Michigan and by Ohio State
University.
3) Contingency theories:
Managerial leadership has influenced
organizational activities in many ways. These influences include motivating
subordinates, budgeting scarce resources, and serving as a source of communication.
Over the years researchers have emphasized the influences of leadership on the
activities of subordinates.
This emphasis by
researchers led to theories about leadership. "The first and perhaps most
popular, situational theory to be advanced was the ‘Contingency Theory of
Leadership Effectiveness' developed by Fred E. Fiedler" This theory
explains that group performance is a result of the interaction of two factors.
These factors are known as leadership style and situational favorableness.
These two factors will
be discussed along with other aspects of Fiedler's theory. "In Fiedler's
model, leadership effectiveness is the result of interaction between the style
of the leader and the characteristics of the environment in which the leader
works".
However, these theories
are not bound to work 100% of the time as these theories have their disagreements
attached to them which is just like an experiment. Some people are bound to think
otherwise than some stated facts.
But these theories do
give a real sense of leadership in its true virtue.
Written By – Chavi Goel
.jpeg)
0 Comments