Eva Katharine Greenfly Tutor’s comments Grade Awarded For Office Use Only Final Grade Essay 1 Moderation required: yes/no Tutor Date adhering How do leaders get to lead successfully? Eva Katharine Greenfly Tutor: Dry Joy Euclidean 12 December 2006 words: 4109 2 Just for your inspiration… There are about 1 1 0 titles matching your search when you put the word “leadership” in the universities library search engine. 265. 000. 000 is the number of results you receive when you ask Google to provide you with information on n leadership”. Not to mention Yahoo! Or MS. So where to start?

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!

order now

Which information is the most reliable and suitable? This is a really difficult task because there are so many different views, and no real “One- Best-Model”. However, as myself hope to derive benefit from my efforts on this essay, will do my best to separate the wheat from the chaff, so that I can apply all the information gathered, once I have finished my studies… (Words not counted) 3 Contents Introduction What is Leadership? Definition: Leadership Leadership vs.. Management Leadership Styles & Leadership Skills Development of Leadership The Trait Approach The Style/Behavioral Approach The Contingency

Approach Transformational Leadership Summary and Conclusion References 4 adhering can be found everywhere – at home, at school, at university, at work etc. Wherever a task or a job needs to be done, a person can start practicing leadership. The teacher at school for example practices leadership in front of his class or the construction superior at the building site. Although leadership is present in almost all situations of daily life, this essay will focus especially on organizational leadership. Organizational leadership is a very popular but also controversial topic.

Each ear a large amount of new guidebooks on leadership is published, and each book has a quite different attitude towards the same issue. One suggests that leaders should be uncompromisingly assertive and the next recommends a friendly democratic sale. As all of them promise to deliver the perfect leadership styles and skills, how does a leader know which of them is the most appropriate for him or her? Is it possible to lead an organization successfully if all guidebooks “lead” in different directions?

Scientists have been searching for a universal leadership theory, achieved wrought practical experience, empirical studies and existing literature for a long time. However, no one view has yet been established. So why is there no such thing as a “One-Best-Model’? What makes leadership so elusive? This essay addresses these questions by examining a selection of some of the major leadership theories. There are many approaches which try to assess the suitability of leadership traits and styles, considering influences such as the environment and the situation.

The first section of this essay explores the term leadership as well as the difference between leaders and managers. The second part of the essay will be about the development of leadership by examining different leadership approaches and the last part will give a short summary of the essay as well as a conclusion. 5 l. What is Leadership? Definition: Much work has been done defining leadership. For example, Peter F. Trucker (1954), former management consultant and professor at the New York university argues that ‘The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers. John C. Maxwell (1 999), founder of The ENJOY Group on the other hand, holds that “Leadership is influence, nothing more, nothing less. ” Andrew Leigh and Michael Maynard (1 995), the leaders of Maynard Leigh Associates, argue that “Leadership is about achieving things with the support of others. ” Although there are many different definitions of leadership, on comparing most of them, it becomes clear that the majority embrace three key aspects. According to James MacGregor Burns (1 978, p. 1 9) these three key variables of leadership are, purpose, followers, and interaction.

Against the background of his assumption, Burns, director of The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland, states in his book adhering: Leadership is leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivations – the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations – of both leaders and followers. ” (James MacGregor Burns, 1 978, p. 19) Burns argues that successful leadership depends on the way leaders see their own and their followers’ values and motivations and the way they deal with them in order to achieve a common purpose or goal.

Vi Shackle, Senior Lecturer at Gaston Business School undermines Burr’s view by defining the three major components of leadership as: influence, group, and goal (1995, . 2). They both argue that leadership can be described as the influence and the interaction between a leader and his/her group, i. E. Followers, in order to achieve a common purpose or goal. 6 Once this definition is agreed, the question arises whether or not there is a difference between leading and managing. The following section will look at two distinctive approaches in order to answer this question. Leadership vs..

Management: Nowadays, most people use the two terms leadership and management interchangeably. In the majority of cases, people in a leadership position are called managers. However, “they are not” (Cotter, 1 990, p. 3). It is important to understand that leading and managing are two distinctive processes. But, what exactly is the difference between leadership and management? In order to answer this question it is essential to establish a border Ben’nee the two terms. The first approach is from John Adair, Professor in Leadership Studies at the University of Surrey, and the second one from John p.

Cotter, Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Harvard Business School. John Adair establishes this border by going to the etymological roots of “leading’ and “managing’. In an interview in the Director magazine (November 1 988) he argues that the word “lead” comes from an Anglo-Saxon word, meaning a road, a way or the path of a ship at sea; knowing what the next step is. “Manage” on the other hand comes from the Latin word man’s, a hand. A hand which handles or manages a sword, ship, or horse. John P. Cotter (1990, p. ) on the other hand establishes this border between management and leadership in his book, A Force of Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, by comparing four main areas which are essential for the distinction of leadership and management: 1 . Creating an agenda: Planning and Budgeting vs.. Establishing Direction 2. Developing a human network: Organizing and Staffing vs.. Aligning People 3. Execution: Controlling and Problem Solving vs.. Motivating and Inspiring 4. Outcomes: Consistency and Order vs.. Change 7 Management, he claims, creates a certain degree of order and consistency.

The most important processes of management comprise planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, controlling and problem solving. Managers set short-term targets or goals, make the correct steps and detailed timetables to achieve them and marshal the resources needed. In addition, they allocate tasks corresponding to the plans, choose the right staff, assign responsibility and observe implementation. Leadership on the other hand, concerns constructive or adaptive change i. E. Movement, but no consistency. It includes activities such as, establishing direction, aligning people, motivating and inspiring.

Leadership comprises developing a vision of the future and suitable strategies to achieve it. It involves communicating this vision to others and energize people towards it. As this strategic future vision comprises change, leaders need to influence others in order to help hem to overcome barriers to change and motivate them to find pleasure in achieving their common goal(s). On comparing Adder’s and Cotter’s results, leaders can be referred to as human guideposts, giving the direction of something with a specific goal, whereas managers can be seen as the executive “hand” which tries to achieve this goal or vision.

However, in spite of all these facts it is important to understand that if either is missing, success in today’s business environment is hard to achieve. Leaders can not lead without managers and managers cannot be successful without leaders. Leadership and management are two distinctive but also complementary processes. Cotter (1990) argues that neither is better than nor a replacement for the other, and that “the real challenge is to combine strong leadership and strong management and use each to balance the other”.

Now, that a border is established between leadership and management, the next section will look at the different stages, leadership went through over time and which development stage it has reached today. 8 adhering Styles & Leadership Skills Development of Leadership: Philosophers, thinkers, and writers have been fascinated by this subject for husbands of years. Plato, Machiavelli, Payola, Weber and others have all contributed to the evolving ideas about leadership. In former times, theories about leadership were limited especially to political issues.

In 1513, for example, when Machiavelli wrote his book, II Principle (The prince), he mainly concentrated on finding out which skills are essential for running a state successfully. According to Fiddler and Garcia (1 987), leadership was also clearly referred to as a political topic. They wrote: It enabled Henry the Fifth and his disease-ridden, hungry army of 1 5,000 to in a stunning victory over the French army of 45,000 men at Cincture. It enabled George Washington to defeat the well-trained and better equipped English forces, and it enabled Robert E. Lee’s troops to stand off the superior forces of the Union for over four years. Fiddler and Garcia, 1987, p. 1) However, as time passed, people became aware of the importance of leadership in all areas of life, especially regarding business, and thus they established different theories to make leadership more “tangible”. Today, there are four main approaches which describe the different chronological takes of leadership. The Trait Approach Early works on leadership mainly concentrated on individual leaders’ traits, taking a rather psychological perspective. Machiavelli (1513) and Weber (1947) for example were two representatives of this era.

They tried to identify traits which differentiated a leader from a non-leader. They assumed that only the right combination of specific skills like power (Machiavelli, 151 3) or charisma (Weber, 1947) predestined someone 9 to be a leader. This leadership theory is called the trait approach and is sometimes also referred to as the great man/great woman theory. According to Stodgily (1974) the following extract of traits and skills distinguish leaders from non-leaders: assertiveness self-confidence cleverness (intelligence) creativity The leading idea was that these traits or skills were not granted to many people.

Often this perspective was linked to the conviction that leadership traits appear more often in higher social classes than in lower ones. As the higher classes, transferred their power and influence from generation to generation it really seemed in those days that people were born leaders. (Statesman et al. , 2005, p. 646) However, in the following years there was a gradual shift away from this assumption. Mary Parker Foulest (1941), a renowned American economist, was one Of the first to believe that leadership qualities could be either conferred by genetic heredity or gained through experience.

In addition, people started to realize that there are no traits which can be applied in any situation of any leader. Therefore they began to discover other factors concerned with leadership. This new awareness made people think about a new approach, called the behavioral approach which can be referred to as the second stage n the development of leadership. The Behavioral-/Style Approach More recent work, especially studies from 1950 onwards, put its focus on leadership behavior instead of individual traits and characteristics. Research on leadership began to turn to what leaders did rather than what they were. ” (Shackle, 1995, p. 1 1) This approach is called behavioral or style approach, with the two words used interchangeably. There are five main representative studies, including Lenin and Lipid’s study on authority and democracy (1939), Attainment and Schmidt leadership continuum (1 958), he Michigan and Ohio State studies (1950), and Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (1961). 10 The first studies in this field examined the question whether an authoritarian or a democratic leadership style is more successful.

Lenin and Lippie (1939) explored the influence of different styles of leadership on group structure and member behavior. They looked at three classic group leadership models – authoritarian, democratic and laissez-fairer. The authoritarian or autocratic style presents one side of the extreme, whereas the laissez-fairer style denotes the other one, with democratic leadership falling somewhere in between. Authoritarian leadership, also often referred to as hierarchical leadership, has a strong military and dictatorial character. All decisions are made by the authoritarian leader – other opinions do not count.

He does not allow any contradiction and issues commands which have to be fulfilled by subordinates without critique or complaint. Obedience and discipline are two of the key characteristics of autocratic leadership. If someone makes a mistake it is punished rather than supported. Authoritarian leaders are highly task oriented. Democratic or participative leadership on the other hand integrates followers onto all organizational activities. They are encouraged to act on their own initiative, to contribute with own ideas, and to find solutions for their mistakes independently.