There is a lot of evidence, to show that retain personality dimensions are related to leadership effectiveness. The social factor that contributes to effective leadership is the situational perspectives. Anyone can lead effectively if the situation is right. Situational perspectives, is a style that is dependent upon factors, such as, the people, the task, and the environment. Task oriented leaders, proposed by (Fiddler 1967). Argues and said, when using a measurement of the least preferred worker scale (LAP).
He found out that, the people with high LAP scores, respondent favorable towards their fellow members and the people with owe L PC scores, respondent poorly, to their performing co-worker. This suggests that, when a task is set it leads to a good outcome, depending on the qualities of the leader in making sure that effectiveness is brought to the task. The situational perspective may seem too extreme, for example, Simonton (1 980), analyses 300 military battles. However, the situational factors, such as, the size of army and diversification of command structure were correlated with casualties of inflicted enemy.
These influenced situational factors and the attributes Of the leaders because, personal attributes of the leader and previous battle record, were associated with victory. But most times we find ourselves in the situation where we have to be leaders and we therefore have to put in maximum effort in other to bring into being an effective leadership. In the case of Winston Churchill, even though he was seen as to be very argumentative and unsuited to the government, these characteristics were needed in a great time war, but he was voted out when peace time leader came into place.
This show, that different behavioral characteristics are important, at different situation, as they nutrient to an effective leadership. Situational factor play a role in the leadership process, because it brings an organizational effectiveness into leadership. A robber cave study by sheriff et al (1966), have shown that dividing people into groups, leads to a successful change in circumstances. And also in a study by Nixon (1949) found that by putting each pupils into different task, it leads to success.
This suggest that with or without the presence of the leader what ever been told to do will be done well, because the leader is very organized and also in charge. Situational factor influences the consequence of the leader’s behavior. This is seen by the leader doing actions, to be more effective. For example Lippies et al (1 943), did a study on young boys to show effects of different styles of leadership on the atmosphere, morale and effectiveness. He found three different leadership styles, which were the democratic, autocratic and lasses fairer.
In the end of the task, the democratic leaders were more effective, friendly, they were associated with relatively high group productivity and were unaffected, by the presence or absence of their leaders. This was because having different leadership styles, can contribute to effective leadership if suited well, it produces a good behavioral style and interaction style, if delivered to the best of the leader’s ability. Bass (2008) suggested Psychological factors views leadership as a social influence process, which leaders use interpersonal behaviors, to motivate followers to contribute to the group goals.
The psychological factor which contributes to effective leadership is personality traits. A leader’s personality has an important attribute to effective leadership. This is the way the leader communicates with their team, this therefore increases the possibility of the team understanding their goal and the performance required to achieve it. There are psychological underpinnings that contribute towards effective leadership. And this depends On the synergy of the old, ego and superego (Akron 2012). The old is flexible and sensitive to interpersonal cues, with cognitive capacities to corporate challenges.
The ego helps to regulate impulse expression, tolerate frustration and work towards goals while the superego, contributes to aspiring to ideals, maintains a consistent attitude toward the self and its actions. For example the history of actions of great people, using folk wisdom, helped to attribute, as it Leaps forward in science, what Kahn (1982) called paradigm shifts and also independent actions of great people like Freud (1 916), who explored the ways in which the synergy can shape character. This explores people’s experience of reality, their choice and action.
Moreover, personality trait could also be explained in terms of the great person’s theory as suggested by (Gilbert et al 1995 & Hassle et al 1998). This also shows contribution to effective leadership. Intelligence, good judgment and imaginations make the leaders different from the followers. This then make their followers to be inspired and influenced by their leaders. The great person theory has a long history, looking back to Plato and ancient Greece. Some researchers such as Gallon (1892) have argued that leaders are born not made and they do not also believe that effective leadership is an innate attribute.
Although, (Carlyle 1841, & House 1977) believed that personality attributes acquired earlier dads to charisma -This shows true qualities of a leader, and good patience when dealing with their team member. Personality trait is also related to transformational and charismatic leadership. Charisma is an enduring personality trait and it is a product that contributes to effective leadership, Riggs et al (2003), argues and says that, people are more expressive, enthusiastic, self confident and responsive to others.
This therefore makes others interested in the vision for the group and so they are able to contribute, to their personal and collective goals. Collective motive and arsenal goals, produces a sense of shared identity. Mendel et al (1983) and Mined et al (1985), argues that visionary leaders heightens followers. This explains that leaders who have goals planned ahead, contributes effectiveness in their leadership role this makes the followers trust them, because they believe they have a goal ahead to achieve.
Some people are better leaders than others, as (Viola et al 2003, Bass 1 985, Conger et al 1998) suggested. This is because they are more patient and use their personality trait effectively when leading. This emphasizes the role of charismatic dervish and leaders learn to rebuild morale and offer a positive vision for the future. In effect this combines to the transformational leadership, which is “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts leaders into morale agents” (burns 1978, p. 321).
Transformational leaders are seen as agents of social change (Bass 1 AAA, Bass et al 2003). Bass (1 Bibb) argues that transformational leaders are also seen as model, able to contribute to the effectiveness of leadership and articulate to a new vision in their followers. In this way they inspire and motivate them towards getting greater achievements. Charismatic and transformational leadership has been linked to five big personality dimensions of extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and intellectual/openness to experience.
A meta-analysis, by judge et al (2002), found out that these attributes have an overall correlation of 0. 58 with the big five personality, which are seen as the best predictors of effective leadership. However, even if one cannot identify leaders by their characters, there is better evidence that it may be possible to do so by their actions. For example, Fleischman et al (1953) showed that effective leaders display, consideration for the interests and welfare of followers and initiation of structure, that is, a capacity to structure the activities of followers with a view to achieving group goals.
To conclude, social and psychological factors are seen to contribute to effective leadership. They are both seen as the right combination of personal characteristics and situational requirement to influence their followers. In terms of social factors, situational factor is not purely on individual personality, although personal loyalties may play a role, as seen in the example of Churchill. This shows that sometimes leaders change based on changed circumstances.