Posicionamiento en Google

Horner (1997) presents a comprehensive review of leadership theories by categorising the theories according to trends. The first trend concerns the traits of great leaders where it was believed that these leaders were born with these attributes (Horner, 1997:270). The main trait leadership theorists were Bingham in 1927, Barnard in 1929 and, more recently, Kilbourne and Locke in 1991 (Horner, 1997:270). However, although extensive research has been conducted to determine the exact traits of a leader, it has not been possible to establish a composite set of common traits. The central criticism of this leadership trend is that it overlooked the contribution of situational and environmental influences to effective leadership (Horner, 1997:270). Furthermore, this trend was criticised because some leaders were highly successful despite not possessing some of the specified, desired traits (Bolden, Gosling, Marturano and Dennison, 2003:7).

Trait leadership has, therefore, been proven to be limited because research has confirmed that leadership is not necessarily inborn, as it may be learned (Horner, 1997:271).

The second trend examined those behaviours of leaders that contributed to enhancing organisational effectiveness (Horner, 1997:270). In view of the fact that traits were difficult to measure, the behaviourist school of thought focused on human relationships and their outputs and performance (Bolden et al., 2003:7).

Among the most renowned leadership behaviourist theorists are Blake and Mouton who developed the Managerial or Leadership model that categorised leaders according to their tendency to be either task or people orientated (Horner, 1997:271). Blake and Mouton conceived that a high degree of concern for people and a high degree of concern for production may be considered to be the most effective type of leadership behaviour (Bolden et al., 2003:8). However, one of the limitations of the behaviourist school of leadership is that research has revealed that there is not one single style that is suitable for leaders in all situations (Bolden et al., 2003:8).

The contingency or situational theory represents the third trend in leadership theories in explaining leadership effectiveness (Horner, 1997:271). This theory posits that there should be a good fit between the leader’s behaviour and the conditions of a situation if a leader is to be successful (Fry, 2003:696). Thus, according to contingency theory, a leader’s traits and behaviours, as well as the situation, all contribute to a leader’s success instead of attributing a leader’s success to one variable only (Horner, 1997:271). Contingency theory therefore departs from and is an extension of the trait and behaviour leadership theories in that it recognises the complex relationship between the leader and the situation (Horner, 1997:272).

One of the more familiar theories in this category of leadership is possibly Fiedler’s Contingency Model in terms of which the leader’s task or relations orientation should be contingent on the situation (Bolden et al., 2003:8). The Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership adopts a situational perspective of leadership (Bolden et al., 2003:9). This theory focuses on the extent of direction (task behaviour) and socio-emotional support (relationship behaviour), which a leader should provide in a situation in relation to the level of maturity (willingness and ability to direct own behaviour) of the followers. Tannenbaum and Schmidt developed a Leadership Continuum Model which suggested that leadership behaviour operates on a continuum and, the less autocratic a leader, the greater the follower participation and involvement in decision making (Bolden et al., 2003:10). Adair’s Action-Centred Leadership Model has been extensively applied in organisations. According to this theory, the leader should effectively manage a task, support individuals performing the task and foster effective team work to a degree which is contingent on the situation (Bolden et al., 2003:11). House developed yet another contingency theory which is referred to as the path-goal theory. In terms of this theory leaders can help followers to develop behaviours that will assist them to achieve their goals (Horner, 1997:271). The criticism of this school of thought lies in the fact that the leader usually takes on the role of a

'frontal figure' or hero who ‘leads’ the followers (Bolden et al., 2003:12), while leadership that leads from behind or within is also required.

A fourth trend of leadership theories focuses on organisational culture (Horner, 1997:272). The 1980s marked an era in which there was a shift away from traditional, bureaucratically controlled organisations (such as standardisation and centralisation) to organisations which emphasised cooperation, fairness and social equality (Fry, 2003:697). Leaders following this trend were strategic leaders who focused on being able to adapt to both the external and the internal environment and who promoted vision, learning, entrepreneurship, initiative and creativity (Fry, 2003:697). Schein and Greiner (in Cummings and Worley, 2009:174) developed a model on power and showed how power affected change in organisations. On the other hand, Senge promoted the notion of learning organisations and advocated that leaders should perform the roles of designers, stewards and teachers (Covey, 2004:358). Wheatley adopted a holistic approach to leadership that promoted a synergistic relationship between individuals, organisations and the environment (Covey, 2004:358). According to this trend, which focused on organisational culture, leaders had to be able to adapt to and successfully manage an organisation’s culture. Research concluded that leaders are required to operate within the culture of the organisation concerned if they are to be successful (Horner, 1997:273).

A plethora of leadership theorists follow the fifth trend that focuses on leadership and motivation (Horner, 1997:272). Although traditionally recognised as motivational theories, these theories are relevant for leaders in that they focus on improving performance by motivating followers. Hertzberg’s hygiene factors explained those elements that contribute to employee satisfaction with employee dissatisfaction constituting one of the more infamous motivational theories (Horner, 1997:272). Maslow is another influential motivational theorist. His hierarchy of needs theory posited that basic needs, such as physiological and safety needs, have to be fulfilled prior to more advanced needs, such as

belongingness, esteem and self-actualisation, being satisfied (Horner, 2997:272).

In view of the fact that Maslow’s theory was criticised for being too hierarchical in nature, theorists such as Alderfer built on Maslow’s theory, but proposed a more interactively dynamic theory in terms of which people are motivated by belongingness, esteem and self-actualisation. Fry (2003:701) argues that charismatic leadership falls into the category of motivational theories in that these charismatic leaders are trying to influence others. Charismatic leadership concerns a follower’s unquestioning trust and acceptance of the leader’s ideology and commands (Fry, 2003:701).

Horner (1997:274) maintains that the sixth trend in leadership theories may be categorised as 'recent leadership theories'. According to Horner (1997:274), leadership theories that have emerged since the 1980s fall into this trend. Bass’s transactional leadership theory assumes that there is a transactional relationship between the leader and follower in terms of which the leader rewards the follower for loyalty (Bolden et al., 2003:6). Transactional leadership emphasises control through rule acquiescence (Fry, 2003:701). In opposition to transformational leadership, Burns developed the transformational leadership theory in terms of which selfless leaders address the needs of their followers and inspire them to develop into leaders, attain growth and development, and work for the best interests of the group (Fry, 2003:702).

Although the classical leadership theories are disparate, the various leadership trends all reflect the fact that the theories evolved from one another, with the emergence of a new trend appearing to address the deficits of a previous trend.

However, it would appear that what is common in these trends is the desire for the leader to influence others, based on the leader’s vision. The criticism that can be voiced here is that the motivations of the leader are not necessarily specified and they may be driven by expedient motivations. For example, charismatic leadership may be effective in influencing others but the charismatic leader may be motivated by selfish values. The classical leadership theories belonging to the

behaviourist, contingency, organisational culture, motivation and transactional trends are designed specifically for organisations and are aimed at improving the performance of individuals and organisations. However, whilst these leadership theories may have been effective in the 20th century, they are unable to respond adequately to the 21st century challenges of globalisation, ecological concerns, triple bottom line targets, and the desire for meaning and purpose.